John Richardson

[GBinOz]

But Herlock,he is not placing himself at the scene of a murder,if the murder had not yet taken place,and this is what his evidence suggests.However he could have lied.Me not knowing the reason for lying,does not invalidate that statement.

Quite right harry. Richardson was trying to exclude any possibility that the murder had taken place by placing himself in a position where he could not have failed to see the body. No murder, no murder scene at which to be placed. It is clear to you, Swanson, Fishy and I, but not to others.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Let me also chip in and answer this question, you are right and Dr Biggs confirms that but it is a question of parameters to point bank ruling out an estimated time of death is in my opinion foolhardy. Even in todays murder investigations forensic examiners are asked to give their opinions at a crime scene as to an estimated time of death which from an investigitive point of view is invaluable.

Phillips gave a professional opinion based on his experience and this should not be dismissed in favour of witnesses who hear bumps and voices in the morning, or who believed they saw the victim at a specific time. Once the whole evidence has been gathered then the police can decide which account they believe. Swanson in my opinion quite rightly favours Phillips simply because all the other witness testimony is all over the place and unreliable.

I think given the conflicting account given by Richardson he should have been spoken to by the police or corroborating questions put to him at the inquest

But this is one aspect where researchers will form their own opinions as to who they believe, and I see no point in researchers continually stamping their feet to convince others that they are right

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm with you on this Trevor, and I give no credence to the suggestion that the doctor's may have compromised their integrity by cribbing their ToD to fit other evidence.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George.
That is precisely my point.
His entire passage was:

"I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

That last sentence in bold, says precisely that - it could have been less.

Medical expertise in the late 19th century used body temperature (Algor Mortis) as a guide to a time of death.
An assumption is always made, as it is today, that assuming there is no outside influences like a nearby furnace, or a hot summer day, a body will be about 98.4 deg at death.

It isn't the resulting temperature that is of concern, but the rate of loss since death.
This is why Phillips came up with the number he did, it was from text-book calculations. Whatever the body temperature was (he didn't say), it took about two or more hours the drop that low.
However, he qualified that estimate by also saying:

"....but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

Which means, that due to the extent of the abdominal mutilations, the body could have lost more heat than normal, meaning she could have been murdered in less than two hours.

Hi Jon,

The portion of Phillip's passage that you have boldened is interpreted by some as a caveat in the manner you have described. Others interpret it as a consideration. If Phillips meant it in the way you have set out, could he not have simply added "so it could have been less".

I have not closed my mind to any possibilities, but I have weighed the augmented testimony of the three witnesses against the professional testimony of Phillips and Chandler and the opinion of the police at the time and, at this point in time, favour the latter.

Best regards, George

[FISHY1118]

Right yes, I understand.

I was more alluding to what I see regularly here, which is some members think that solving a case is more like a competition, who can dream up whatever could have happened, as opposed to sticking to the evidence.
Ideally, we should always let the evidence speak for itself.

Richardson said, he sat on the middle step, and could see all around the yard.
THAT, is the evidence, we need to move on from there.

Whereas, there are others here who prefer to dwell on speculation, and be guided by whatever they can dream up to contest the evidence.
- Maybe, he didn't look to his left?
- Maybe, it was too dark?
- Maybe, he couldn't see the body for the door?
- Maybe, he didn't sit on the step?
- etc. etc. etc.

This isn't evidence, no-one else said the body was there, so there is no conflict.
Even Phillips didn't suggest the body was there, the medical evidence he gave concerned when death occurred, not where.
This is why the question arose whether there was evidence the body had been dumped.
There was no supporting evidence for that, which doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it was considered.
The court did not decide "she must have been killed elsewhere, and dumped in the yard", in order to rationalize the evidence of Dr Phillips. They stuck to the evidence, and that is what I have been suggesting should be done here.

Speculation is never a substitute for evidence.
It's perfectly fine to make a suggestion, but you are required to then prove it, not just leave it open. This is because other than you making it up, there is no indication for what you propose.

Ricardsons claim he sat on the step is not evidence that he actually did ! , thats why we have this debate, because of the conflicting stories and claims made by other witnesses and police officals that when examimed closer dont quiet add up .


''This isn't evidence, no-one else said the body was there, so there is no conflict''

No one else ''saw'' what Israel Schwartz saw either but that doesnt stop them from claiming all sorts of different senarios where the stride assault is concerned does it .? why ? for exactly the same reason.......... other witnesses claims and testimony.

[GBinOz]

The question has been raised, why would Richardson place himself in jeopardy by admitting he was at a crime scene with a knife.

He told Chandler that he was there and at what time, so his presence was established. He told the Star on 8 Sep that "The police, by the doctor's order, took possession of my leather apron and knife that were on the premises". The police already had HIS knife, which may or may not have been the one he presented to the coroner. So the cat was out of the bag regarding the knife on the day of the murder, several days before the inquest. The problem then was explaining why he needed to have a knife at the premises when he only went there to check the cellar door. Haha, boot repairs, yeah, that's it. And so the story evolved.

Cheers, George

[Sunny Delight]

What does the time of death tell us about the Ripper? A 5:30am attack in the morning does seemingly look out of place in regards other murders which were at least a few hours before. I was looking through Inquest testimony of Polly Nicholls and saw something I thought interesting. A juryman asked Henry Tomkins a slaughterman who appeared at the Inquest the following:

[Juryman?] Is not your usual hour for leaving off work six o'clock in the morning, and not four?

Tomkins: No, it is according to what we have to do. Sometimes it is one time and sometimes another.

I do wonder if there is the possibility that the attack on Annie Chapman occured after the Ripper had finished work. I think it is widely accepted the Ripper had some degree of anatomical knowledge- it was to what extent the disagreement seemingly occured over. I have always favoured that he was a local butcher or slaughterman. I think Jon Richardson was adamant- he would have seen the body if it was there. Why we would 2nd guess him I do not know. He was there. He remembered where he sat on the step and what he saw. It was getting light. It is fairly clear Annie Chapman was not there.

[GBinOz]

I think Jon Richardson was adamant- he would have seen the body if it was there. Why we would 2nd guess him I do not know. He was there. He remembered where he sat on the step and what he saw. It was getting light. It is fairly clear Annie Chapman was not there.

Hi Sunny,

He didn't remember those things when he spoke to Chandler and the Star news reporter on the day of the murder. The memories evolved over time when he realised he would have to come up with a reason for why he had a knife in his possession, and why he couldn't have killed her, because he was adamant that she wasn't dead when he was there.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Quite right harry. Richardson was trying to exclude any possibility that the murder had taken place by placing himself in a position where he could not have failed to see the body. No murder, no murder scene at which to be placed. It is clear to you, Swanson, Fishy and I, but not to others.

Cheers, George

Because it makes no sense George.

He could have said that he’d gone into the yard to check the lock and saw no body when the door swung closed or swung back to the fence.

He could have said “I stood on the step and pushed to door open back to the gate and there was no body there.”

He could have said that he’d used the outsold loo and so would have seen the body as he’d walked back to the house.

Three childishly simple, very, very obvious ways of absolutely excluding any possibility of there being a body there and yet you still think that saying that he’d sat on the step with a knife was a better option, especially when it would introduce to the police the idea that the body might have been behind the door.

We can always interpret things differently of course George and that’s fine but this one really seems a bit of a no-brainer to me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Cadosch's original statements to the press involved a single trip to the toilet with a conversation containing the word "no", the sound of a scuffle and the sound of something hitting the fence. All one event. First evolved story was still one trip to the toilet with the conversation and scuffle on the to trip and the "bump" on the return trip. Come the inquest and he has two trips to the toilet, 3-4 minutes apart, no conversation, just a "no' on one trip and the "bump" on the next trip. He testified that he didn't know where the 'no' came from, and it was so "not unusual" to hear bumps in the yard that he ignored it.

Cadosch's story is a case of taking usual occurrences that he had experienced previously and adapting them to create a murder scene. Baxter was taken in, but the police were not, and neither am I.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

Firstly we have to recognise that Cadosch had even less reason for lying than Richardson did.
Secondly, how often have we heard newspaper reports garbling what was and what wasn’t said in this case. Surely his inquest testimony, under oath, should take priority?
Thirdly, he felt that the ‘no’ had come from the yard of 29 but he was less certain than he was of the sound against the fence.

Im hyper-wary of attempts to accuse inconvenient witnesses of lying. I think that the ‘15 minutes of fame’ thing is greatly overdone to be honest. Especially when we’re talking about the late 19th century. Cadosch was hardly going to be all over Facebook and Twitter. The vast majority of witnesses give their evidence honestly (if possibly mistakenly) If anything, especially in that area at that time, most people would rather have not gotten involved with the police in the first place.

Im not saying that he couldn’t have lied because most things are possible George but I see no reason to assume it. And there appears to be a lot of ‘heavy lifting’ going on just to confirm a doctors TOD estimate that we know for a fact was unreliable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Sunny,

He didn't remember those things when he spoke to Chandler and the Star news reporter on the day of the murder. The memories evolved over time when he realised he would have to come up with a reason for why he had a knife in his possession, and why he couldn't have killed her, because he was adamant that she wasn't dead when he was there.

Cheers, George

But why are you assuming that it was Richardson that was wrong and not Chandler? This wasn’t a sit down interview back at the station remember, this was a chat in the passage of number 29 with Chandler in charge of a major crime scene, of a kind that he’d never experienced before. People going in and out, the Doctor arriving, Constable’s talking to him after questioning people etc.

I’ll put an open question to everyone, just hypothetically of course, but what might Richardson have said in response to Chandler had he had the opportunity to respond? Perhaps…..

”Well I’m pretty sure that I did mention fixing my boot.”

or

”I told him that I’d sat on the steps but I didn’t mention why because I didn’t think it relevant. He just wanted to know if I was sure that there was no body there and seemed happy with my answer.”

or

”I didn’t tell him why I’d sat on the step because he didn’t ask me.”

or

”I thought that I had mentioned it but maybe I didn’t.”

Richardson had no reason to lie. And he didn’t imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The question has been raised, why would Richardson place himself in jeopardy by admitting he was at a crime scene with a knife.

He told Chandler that he was there and at what time, so his presence was established. He told the Star on 8 Sep that "The police, by the doctor's order, took possession of my leather apron and knife that were on the premises". The police already had HIS knife, which may or may not have been the one he presented to the coroner. So the cat was out of the bag regarding the knife on the day of the murder, several days before the inquest. The problem then was explaining why he needed to have a knife at the premises when he only went there to check the cellar door. Haha, boot repairs, yeah, that's it. And so the story evolved.

Cheers, George

But it was clear that the knife was a different one and it wasn’t the Press or the public that he needed to convince. It was the police and they already knew which knife they’d taken. So again, he had no reason whatsoever to lie at the inquest.

[Abby Normal]

Quite right harry. Richardson was trying to exclude any possibility that the murder had taken place by placing himself in a position where he could not have failed to see the body. No murder, no murder scene at which to be placed. It is clear to you, Swanson, Fishy and I, but not to others.

Cheers, George

so what are you getting at george? that the most likely scenario is that richardson was lying because he was the killer?

[Abby Normal]

so what are you getting at george? that the most likely scenario is that richardson was lying because he was the killer?

and what was clear to swanson?

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Sunny,

He didn't remember those things when he spoke to Chandler and the Star news reporter on the day of the murder. The memories evolved over time when he realised he would have to come up with a reason for why he had a knife in his possession, and why he couldn't have killed her, because he was adamant that she wasn't dead when he was there.

Cheers, George

I think you are seeing things that are not there. However if you were to think something was amiss it could be that Richardson was still in possession of the knife when he spoke to Chandler so did not want to admit to having a knife in the proximity of the murder lest he be searched and the weapon found. But at the Inquest when he declared he had cut leather from his boot he was able to produce a more satisfactory weapon in order to avoid suspicion.

Personally I think it is much more likely that Richardson did what he said he did and was adamant at the Inquest that he would have seen the body had it been there. Annie Chapman was seen by Mrs. Long and heard by Albert Cadosch at half 5. Mrs Long maybe seeing her earlier than she thought. As I said previously the half 5 timing has always stuck out in regards the Ripper. I can't see him prowling the streets for hours all night attempting to pick up a victim. It has always struck me that this must be someone who has just finished work.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

The portion of Phillip's passage that you have boldened is interpreted by some as a caveat in the manner you have described. Others interpret it as a consideration. If Phillips meant it in the way you have set out, could he not have simply added "so it could have been less".

George, have you paid any attention to the phrases used by Dr Phillips?

He was 'Old School', even detectives in 1888 would remark that Dr Phillips dressed like he just walked out of a Charles Dickens novel (or words to that effect).
Phillips held the demeanor of a classical medical gentleman.

When asked by the coroner if the murderer displayed any anatomical knowledge, Phillips said there was, but (once again) he appended that initial remark with a qualification, by adding:

"..My own impression is that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste."

So, you maybe ask - why didn't he just say 'not in all cases, due to him being in a hurry'.

The coroner asked him to describe the injuries that caused her death.
Phillips responded: "From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action, in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat"

Here you may ask why didn't he just say - 'first she was suffocated, and then her throat was cut'.

Dr Phillips often used an eloquent turn of phrase, even for his day.

I have not closed my mind to any possibilities, but I have weighed the augmented testimony of the three witnesses against the professional testimony of Phillips and Chandler and the opinion of the police at the time and, at this point in time, favour the latter.

By the way, I'm not too sure what you mean by "Others interpret it as a consideration".
The phrase he used, though long winded, should be self evident to anyone who knows that a body ripped open will loose heat faster than one not so badly mutilated. Therefore any standard calculations based on the steady loss of heat will give a false reading. Such a body will offer a lower abdominal or anal temperature thereby suggesting a longer time since death than was actually the case.

This is what he meant - Chapman may have been murdered in less than the 2 hours he first stated, due to the massive abdominal injuries.