John Richardson

[Wickerman]

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

George, are you suggesting Richardson was trying to throw the police off?
You are suggesting a market porter would intentionally (and falsely?) put his testimony up against that of the police surgeon?
And he is not concerned that he could be charged with murder?

[Wickerman]

Ricardsons claim he sat on the step is not evidence that he actually did ! ..

That's the point Fishy, that testimony IS evidence.

I think you mean his testimony is not proof he sat on the steps, then yes, that is true.
What is evidence as opposed to what is true, has long been a debating point.
The law assumes the witness is telling the truth because they are sworn to tell the truth.
Whereas you only have conjecture, which doesn't even rate.

..''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.

I don't think bringing Schwartz into it will serve to bolster your case, most members laugh at the nonsense conspiracy theories spinning around Schwartz.

[FISHY1118]

That's the point Fishy, that testimony IS evidence.

I think you mean his testimony is not proof he sat on the steps, then yes, that is true.
What is evidence as opposed to what is true, has long been a debating point.
The law assumes the witness is telling the truth because they are sworn to tell the truth.
Whereas you only have conjecture, which doesn't even rate.




I don't think bringing Schwartz into it will serve to bolster your case, most members laugh at the nonsense conspiracy theories spinning around Schwartz.

Exactly, i have witness testimony [not conjecture] just as you do that allows me to debate what is in fact true on not .


my case doesnt need bolstering, but surely you see the simalarities between schwartz and richardson with the point you made.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

I didn't say he was lying. I observed the recorded examples of his story changing. Calling that "story evolution" or "story augmentation" would be more accurate. He was explaining that he heard things that morning that he had heard on other mornings, they were usual and he thought nothing of it. The coroner and jury seemed surprised at how little importance he seemed to attach to his evidence:

Cadosch: I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.

The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.

Voices at that time of morning and noises in a packing case yard were, according to Cadosch, nothing unusual, and were not necessarily related to the murder.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

Two of your "no brainers" involve him contradicting himself on whether he went into the yard. The coroner repeatedly asked him this question. The other question the coroner asked was if checking the lock was the only reason he had for being there. Then why was he looking around the yard, as in your third "no brainer", if he was only there to check the lock?

The police already knew he was there with a knife. The coroner wanted to know why he had a knife on him, and none of your "Three childishly simple, very, very obvious ways" provide that answer. Sitting on the steps cutting boot leather provides a reason for breaking his two month routine, a reason for him having a knife, and a situation where he could claim that he couldn't have failed see the body.

Cheers, George

[harry]

No one Jon is ignoring what Phillips added.It means there was a possibility his 2 hour mean time could be wrong.
However,he states at LEAST 2 hours and PROBABLY more,as his first choice,and in this situation,the probability factor outweighs the posibilty one.
So it is quite in order to use 4.30 and even earlier,as a time the body of Chapman lay in the yard.
Sure the testimony of Richardson is evidence.It is a claim of his activity,and only the sitting on the step,is being challenged,and for a good reason.He failed to mention it when first questioned.Again, my comment that Richardson MIGHT have lied about sitting on the step,is in order,for the above reason.
The law doesn't assume evidence given under oath to be true.Not the common law.It allows a challenge to any evidence given,and it is then up to a judge or jury to decide on the truth.

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Abby,

As I said previously, I think Richardson was very lucky to escape far more scrutiny than he did. He was considered a suspect and questioned, but under English law, no proof, no prosecution.

Firstly, compare Richardson with the profile established for JtR. Richardson was 35 years old, tall but stout with dark brown hair and a dark moustache. He worked for his mother, who was a widow (I don't know when his father died) with strong religious beliefs. He can be placed at a murder scene with a knife. He lived locally at 2 John St in the heart of Ripper territory so he would have known the area and been known in the area. No-one saw or heard him arrive at No 29, or leave, so we have only his word as to times. His freshly washed apron and his knife were found on the premises. He had access to a nice underground cellar to use as a bolt hole for a clean-up.
Anything so far that rules him out?

He spoke to Chandler within 30 minutes of the body being discovered and told him:
1. He had been there to check the lock, which he did from the steps and
2. He had not gone into the yard.

In the next few days he would have worried that he may come under suspicion, and his fears were realised. He needed a reason why
1. he broke his 2 month routine that
2. also involved him carrying a knife (which the police already knew), but
3. didn't involve him going into the yard, and
4. also proved that he could not have murdered Chapman as the murder had not yet taken place. Herlock came up with "three childishly simple" solutions, but none of those fit the bill.

Whether Richardson was innocent or he was JtR, I believe he knew he would come under suspicion and so augmented his story to provide himself with an alibi. Would he pervert the course of justice to avoid suspicion in a capital offence? I would say so. In hindsight, the actual time of the murder was of no real consequence to the investigation.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

George, are you suggesting Richardson was trying to throw the police off?
You are suggesting a market porter would intentionally (and falsely?) put his testimony up against that of the police surgeon?
And he is not concerned that he could be charged with murder?

Hi Jon,

I am saying that is exactly his concern - see my post #337.

Best regards, George

[Wickerman]

No one Jon is ignoring what Phillips added.It means there was a possibility his 2 hour mean time could be wrong.
However,he states at LEAST 2 hours and PROBABLY more,as his first choice,and in this situation,the probability factor outweighs the posibilty one.

You introduced "possibly", not Dr Phillips, in fact he said "would be" ("would be more apt to cool rapidly"), not could be, or may be.
The state of medical documentation available, since the work of Nysten (1811) & Niderkorn (1872) has shown there is a gradual loss of body temperature according to a scale of approx. 1-1.5 deg per hour. This was what governed Phillips's estimate (of "two hours, probably more"), yet he felt it necessary to inform the jury that due to the body being so badly mutilated the temperature loss would be greater and not follow accepted guidelines, that the body "would be more apt to cool rapidly", and rightly so.

Which means, the murder could have taken place less than 2 hours before he arrived.

Sure the testimony of Richardson is evidence.It is a claim of his activity,and only the sitting on the step,is being challenged,and for a good reason.He failed to mention it when first questioned.Again, my comment that Richardson MIGHT have lied about sitting on the step,is in order,for the above reason.

Witnesses rarely tell their whole story on first being questioned, that is a well known fact. It is not because they gradually add pieces to it, they naturally do not think of every detail, witnesses like Richardson are still in shock that a murder took place so close by.
The body was there while he was being questioned by Chandler, and it was his mothers back yard.

The law doesn't assume evidence given under oath to be true.

What? Then please explain precisely what the swearing in is all in aid of?

[GBinOz]

Phillips held the demeanor of a classical medical gentleman.

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

By the way, I'm not too sure what you mean by "Others interpret it as a consideration"..

Hi Jon,

I am fully cognisant of Phillip's clinging to old fashioned ways, most of us do as we get older. He was highly prominent in his profession, very popular with the police and the public and he was considered to be highly skilled. He certainly was a stranger to the word laconic.

With regard to your last question, I think he was saying that he had taken the effect of the cold morning and the evisceration into consideration when formulating his estimate, and I have read of others saying the same thing, but I do acknowledge it could also be interpreted as a caveat, I just have doubts.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Witnesses rarely tell their whole story on first being questioned, that is a well known fact. It is not because they gradually add pieces to it, they naturally do not think of every detail, witnesses like Richardson are still in shock that a murder took place so close by.
The body was there while he was being questioned by Chandler, and it was his mothers back yard.


Quote from harry: The law doesn't assume evidence given under oath to be true.

What? Then please explain precisely what the swearing in is all in aid of?

Hi Jon,

Adding detail isn't the same as contradicting:
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

On the other question, murderers are not renown for telling the truth under oath, and neither are those attempting to establish an alibi.

Best regards, George

[FISHY1118]

No one Jon is ignoring what Phillips added.It means there was a possibility his 2 hour mean time could be wrong.
However,he states at LEAST 2 hours and PROBABLY more,as his first choice,and in this situation,the probability factor outweighs the posibilty one.
So it is quite in order to use 4.30 and even earlier,as a time the body of Chapman lay in the yard.
Sure the testimony of Richardson is evidence.It is a claim of his activity,and only the sitting on the step,is being challenged,and for a good reason.He failed to mention it when first questioned.Again, my comment that Richardson MIGHT have lied about sitting on the step,is in order,for the above reason.
The law doesn't assume evidence given under oath to be true.Not the common law.It allows a challenge to any evidence given,and it is then up to a judge or jury to decide on the truth.

Very simply put Harry.

[FISHY1118]

You introduced "possibly", not Dr Phillips, in fact he said "would be" ("would be more apt to cool rapidly"), not could be, or may be.
The state of medical documentation available, since the work of Nysten (1811) & Niderkorn (1872) has shown there is a gradual loss of body temperature according to a scale of approx. 1-1.5 deg per hour. This was what governed Phillips's estimate (of "two hours, probably more"), yet he felt it necessary to inform the jury that due to the body being so badly mutilated the temperature loss would be greater and not follow accepted guidelines, that the body "would be more apt to cool rapidly", and rightly so.

Which means, the murder could have taken place less than 2 hours before he arrived.




Witnesses rarely tell their whole story on first being questioned, that is a well known fact. It is not because they gradually add pieces to it, they naturally do not think of every detail, witnesses like Richardson are still in shock that a murder took place so close by.
The body was there while he was being questioned by Chandler, and it was his mothers back yard.



What? Then please explain precisely what the swearing in is all in aid of?

Sweet ''F'' ALL . You think people actually care about whether just because they swore to tell the ''Truth ,the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth'', if they knew they might lie /or wanted to lie ? . Pleaseeeeeeee.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

As I said previously, I think Richardson was very lucky to escape far more scrutiny than he did. He was considered a suspect and questioned, but under English law, no proof, no prosecution.

Firstly, compare Richardson with the profile established for JtR. Richardson was 35 years old, tall but stout with dark brown hair and a dark moustache. He worked for his mother, who was a widow (I don't know when his father died) with strong religious beliefs. He can be placed at a murder scene with a knife. He lived locally at 2 John St in the heart of Ripper territory so he would have known the area and been known in the area. No-one saw or heard him arrive at No 29, or leave, so we have only his word as to times. His freshly washed apron and his knife were found on the premises. He had access to a nice underground cellar to use as a bolt hole for a clean-up.
Anything so far that rules him out?

He spoke to Chandler within 30 minutes of the body being discovered and told him:
1. He had been there to check the lock, which he did from the steps and
2. He had not gone into the yard.

In the next few days he would have worried that he may come under suspicion, and his fears were realised. He needed a reason why
1. he broke his 2 month routine that
2. also involved him carrying a knife (which the police already knew), but
3. didn't involve him going into the yard, and
4. also proved that he could not have murdered Chapman as the murder had not yet taken place. Herlock came up with "three childishly simple" solutions, but none of those fit the bill.

Whether Richardson was innocent or he was JtR, I believe he knew he would come under suspicion and so augmented his story to provide himself with an alibi. Would he pervert the course of justice to avoid suspicion in a capital offence? I would say so. In hindsight, the actual time of the murder was of no real consequence to the investigation.

Cheers, George

hi george thanks
i have no problem with anyone thinking he could be a suspect. hes got some dodgy aspects, he checks a few boxes and is exactly the type of person who needs looking into. as i said before, i think theres a better chance he was the ripper than he missed her body at her feet.

what i dont agree with is an innocent witness in a murder case would intentionally lie to police to make himself look more innocent.

[Abby Normal]

Sweet ''F'' ALL . You think people actually care about whether just because they swore to tell the ''Truth ,the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth'', if they knew they might lie /or wanted to lie ? . Pleaseeeeeeee.

its about being under oath...meaning if you lie under oath your opening yourself up to perjury. of course people will take that into consideration and think twice about lying on the stand.