John Richardson

[GBinOz]

There’s another point that’s worth making I think. How could the checking of the lock have been done by a minimal opening of the considering that, a) the door of the cellar was at least parallel to the back door and possibly slightly back of that and b) there was the canopy ver the cellar steps. Is it likely that Richardson would have opened the door slightly and then ducked down to see below the canopy? It’s seems a very unnatural act to me.

Be that as it may, you would have to argue your point with both John and Amelia Richardson:

Daily News, 13 Sep 1888, Inquest:

Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.
I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

[JeffHamm]

Be that as it may, you would have to argue your point with both John and Amelia Richardson:

Daily News, 13 Sep 1888, Inquest:

Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.
I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

Hi George,

In the context of Ripperology Linguistics, I think we can see how Richardson doesn't consider being at the steps as "going into the yard". What is unfortunate is that being able to see the lock "from the steps" is not exactly unambiguous. If he means that if you stand at the bottom of the steps you can look down to the cellar door, then clearly he cannot possibly have missed seeing Annie if she was there. I think most are interpreting seeing it from the steps as meaning while at the top of the steps, which he doesn't actually say, but given the shelter over the steps does make that interpretation a bit difficult to imagine, and even if it is physically possible, seems like it would be more difficult than going down the steps to look it. Going to the bottom of the steps (which would still make sense of his "seeing them from the steps" statement), that also makes it easy to then imagine him sitting on the steps resulting in his feet being on the flagstones.

Obviously, he doesn't say all that, so we can't be sure (nor am I suggesting we should be), but all of it seems to me to be a pretty easy and straight forward understanding of what he's saying. And I don't think he's trying to be cagey, or make it difficult to understand what he did.

Again, we can think of ambiguity in verbal statements as a sort of non-numerical "error window". And as a result, we have to consider all the possible interpretations, and see which ones, if any, make sense in the greater context. It's not convenient, rather, it is frustrating because it would be much better and easier if we were working with high precision information, rather than the foggy mound of mess that we have. But for as long as the "truth" can be in that mess, we cannot say it isn't. We know there will be incorrect ways included in the "error window", but just because we can show "hey, this can't have happened but it is one of the possible interpretations" that doesn't mean anything. What one should try to do is show that "nothing within this window works", and then we can reject the information as it is clearly wrong. (we can't, or shouldn't, dismiss the evidence outright just because there are ways consistent with the error window that don't work because only one point in that window needs to be "true", the rest is, after all, error - sure, we can consider the implications of not including it, but that's not the same as suggesting it should be ignored. I know you're not suggesting that, I'm just stating a fairly straight forward rule of data interpretation because that's how I roll! ).

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

In my browsing of the different reports of the Chapman inquest I have come across a few points to raise.

Firstly, my deduction that the offending leather may have been above the ankle has proven to be completely in error. From the Daily News:
When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.
So the leather was in the toe of his boot, and he had already attempted repairs in presumably favourable conditions, and failed to remove enough. I have to question the credibility of his even thinking of making further repairs in the dark, sitting on a cold step, with a blunt dessert knife when his workstation at the markets was only two minutes away. But I suppose if he just opened the door enough to look at the lock and then left, as he told Chandler, he wouldn't have been able to enjoy his day in the sun as the star witness (too cynical???).

Also from the Daily Mail:
Amelia Richardson:
But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle.
John Richardson:
The Coroner-Do you go every morning to see if the cellar is secure?-No; only on market mornings, when I am out early and there's a good lot of people about.

Corroboration that Long didn't see a lone couple in a deserted street. She allegedly picked out one particular couple, neither of whom she had ever seen before, in a crowded street, and, four days later, probably just identified the body she was shown.

I have less of a credibility problem with Cadosche, apart from the fact that his original story related only one trip to and from the W.C.. But, in essence, his testimony was that he heard nothing that was in any way unusual.

My approach is to first assess the credibility of the witnesses. IMHO, Long has no credibility, but Cadosche is credible in his testimony that he heard nothing out of the ordinary. So, to me, the time correction question is irrelevant. I find Richardson's evolving boot repair story that he failed to mention until two days after the event to be questionable, and I can find no reason to dismiss out of hand the newspaper report indicating that Dr Phillips and the police had done further investigation of his boot story and found that he had just missed seeing the body due to the screening effect of the door. I leave it to the judgement of each person as to how they could have professionally arrived at this conclusion.

In conclusion, while I can see the merit in many aspects of the opposing viewpoints and would not wish to apply any superlative censures to the theories, I find myself unpersuaded, but still only leaning towards the earlier TOD.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

In my browsing of the different reports of the Chapman inquest I have come across a few points to raise.

Firstly, my deduction that the offending leather may have been above the ankle has proven to be completely in error. From the Daily News:
When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.
So the leather was in the toe of his boot, and he had already attempted repairs in presumably favourable conditions, and failed to remove enough. I have to question the credibility of his even thinking of making further repairs in the dark, sitting on a cold step, with a blunt dessert knife when his workstation at the markets was only two minutes away. But I suppose if he just opened the door enough to look at the lock and then left, as he told Chandler, he wouldn't have been able to enjoy his day in the sun as the star witness (too cynical???).

Also from the Daily Mail:
Amelia Richardson:
But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle.
John Richardson:
The Coroner-Do you go every morning to see if the cellar is secure?-No; only on market mornings, when I am out early and there's a good lot of people about.

Corroboration that Long didn't see a lone couple in a deserted street. She allegedly picked out one particular couple, neither of whom she had ever seen before, in a crowded street, and, four days later, probably just identified the body she was shown.

I have less of a credibility problem with Cadosche, apart from the fact that his original story related only one trip to and from the W.C.. But, in essence, his testimony was that he heard nothing that was in any way unusual.

My approach is to first assess the credibility of the witnesses. IMHO, Long has no credibility, but Cadosche is credible in his testimony that he heard nothing out of the ordinary. So, to me, the time correction question is irrelevant. I find Richardson's evolving boot repair story that he failed to mention until two days after the event to be questionable, and I can find no reason to dismiss out of hand the newspaper report indicating that Dr Phillips and the police had done further investigation of his boot story and found that he had just missed seeing the body due to the screening effect of the door. I leave it to the judgement of each person as to how they could have professionally arrived at this conclusion.

In conclusion, while I can see the merit in many aspects of the opposing viewpoints and would not wish to apply any superlative censures to the theories, I find myself unpersuaded, but still only leaning towards the earlier TOD.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Fair enough. As we've covered this quite extensively, both putting out our views, I won't restate mine. Obviously, I evaluate the credibility of the statements very differently, as such it is of no surprise we end up with different conclusions. I agree that Long's statement should be viewed with caution, and the indications that there were a fair few people about does further support that concern. I obviously don't see a problem with Richardson's boot repair as you do, and that makes a big difference. Also, I think Cadosche's statements are also credible, and I see the fact that nothing seemed amiss to him at the time a potentially important bit of information, as I think it may point to the crime occurring between his visits to the loo. Obviously, that isn't your view. So, while we may not agree, it's been good mulling things over with you, as I'm sure we will do again.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Fair enough. As we've covered this quite extensively, both putting out our views, I won't restate mine. Obviously, I evaluate the credibility of the statements very differently, as such it is of no surprise we end up with different conclusions. I agree that Long's statement should be viewed with caution, and the indications that there were a fair few people about does further support that concern. I obviously don't see a problem with Richardson's boot repair as you do, and that makes a big difference. Also, I think Cadosche's statements are also credible, and I see the fact that nothing seemed amiss to him at the time a potentially important bit of information, as I think it may point to the crime occurring between his visits to the loo. Obviously, that isn't your view. So, while we may not agree, it's been good mulling things over with you, as I'm sure we will do again.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

As I said, I only lean towards my stated opinion. Were I to lean the other way I would think that the "No" didn't emanate from Annie or Jack. Cadosche was in the doorway with the door closing behind him so he could not be sure of the direction of the sound, and he did not indicate that the sound was in any way panicked. My view would be that Annie and Jack arrived while Cadosche was in the W.C. the second time and the attack started before, or as, Cadosche returned from the W.C. for the second time, with the thump being either Annie's body falling on the fence or Jack endeavouring to conceal himself. This would overcome the problem of why Jack didn't flee on Cadosche's second appearance in the doorway on his way to the W.C., as would be expected from his usual M.O..

Always a pleasure debating with you.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

As I said, I only lean towards my stated opinion. Were I to lean the other way I would think that the "No" didn't emanate from Annie or Jack. Cadosche was in the doorway with the door closing behind him so he could not be sure of the direction of the sound, and he did not indicate that the sound was in any way panicked. My view would be that Annie and Jack arrived while Cadosche was in the W.C. the second time and the attack started before, or as, Cadosche returned from the W.C. for the second time, with the thump being either Annie's body falling on the fence or Jack endeavouring to conceal himself. This would overcome the problem of why Jack didn't flee on Cadosche's second appearance in the doorway on his way to the W.C., as would be expected from his usual M.O..

Always a pleasure debating with you.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Were you to lean the other way, your ideas are very close to my own. The lack of panic in the "No", which I think most likely came from Annie or JtR (he doesn't say if it was a male or female voice he heard, so could be either), makes me think there's no attack at that time, similar to you. And, the bump I tend to think is the latter of your suggestions, simply because I think he fled while Cadosche was in the loo as that to me makes the most sense. So, if he flees then, he had to have completed the murder and mutilations by that point, which in turn suggests he attacked her right after Cadosche went inside after his first visit. Obviously that is not the only possibility, and I don't claim it is, but it has a sort of "makes sense" feel to me - but then, it would have to wouldn't it otherwise I wouldn't suggest it! ha ha

Anyway, I understand what you mean by "slight lean". I tend to wobble on some issues, particularly Stride's inclusion in the series, and end up leaning each way for periods of time. That's the thing about the series, the information is insufficient to really nail anything down. While I do tend to strongly state the case for a 5:25 ToD for Annie, I should be more careful and point out that what I mean is that I think the evidence we have most strongly points that way simply because none of it, as far as we know, conflicts with that time, hence it all appears to point there. Of course, if we found new information that indicated such things as "Richardson lied", etc, then I would re-evaluate that because new data can change things. But without it, my personal view is that the best working hypothesis based upon the data is around 5:25. The problem is, we cannot retest some of that data, and perhaps under further questioning cracks would appear - but then again, maybe they wouldn't? We can never know.

And yes, always a pleasure. I always come away with things to think about after our discussions, and that to me is a good thing.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely agree with the inaccuracy of clock sync at that time, and the fallibility of estimates. But you are assuming a clock compensating error combined with an estimate compensating error to support your theory. There is an equal likelihood that either/both errors were in the other direction, with the aggregated errors making the times further apart.

I’m just suggesting that we can’t use the times to dismiss as they could very easily have tied up exactly without any leaps. The margins for error would only have needed to have been very minimal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because if he was as expert in anatomical knowledge as the coroner indicates in the Chapman murder, why do we see different methods of extraction of organs in some of the other victims, and why do we see what appears to be the work of someone not so skilled in anatomy?

www.trevormarriott

The idea of medical knowledge has been disputed for 135 years as you know Trevor so we can’t cherrypick those that did or didn’t support that. If he was simply someone with anatomical knowledge why would we expect a consistent surgical method?

[Trevor Marriott]

The idea of medical knowledge has been disputed for 135 years as you know Trevor so we can’t cherrypick those that did or didn’t support that. If he was simply someone with anatomical knowledge why would we expect a consistent surgical method?

There is no cherry-picking because you and others are stating these victims were all killed by the same hand, and that hand removed the organs at the crime scenes, and I keep asking why if the same killer did he remove the uterus with the fallopian tubes attached using one method and then use a different method to partially remove the uterus from Eddowes, along with a kidney which is the most difficult organ to locate, and with Kelly he could have taken away all the viscera from her abdomen but finished up taking nothing.

Yet we see no attempts to remove organs from any other victims only the two whose bodies were taken to two different mortuaries where two different extractions have been identified

But the medical reports of the day clearly conflict with each other with regard to the degree of anatomical knowledge shown by the killer. If we take Chapman as the first victim where organs went missing. Both Coroner and Phillips both say the killer had expert anatomical knowledge. The same with Eddowes, then Kellys murder is different it seem the organs were simply hacked out of the body.

Dr Bond goes out on a limb in his report to Anderson

Not forgetting that in the report he accepts all 5 murders were committed by the same hand he also concurs with me when he says that the motives were murder and mutilation he also says that "In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

And you readily accept that with all this conflicting evidence is it right without question to still say the killer removed the organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no cherry-picking because you and others are stating these victims were all killed by the same hand, and that hand removed the organs at the crime scenes, and I keep asking why if the same killer did he remove the uterus with the fallopian tubes attached using one method and then use a different method to partially remove the uterus from Eddowes, along with a kidney which is the most difficult organ to locate, and with Kelly he could have taken away all the viscera from her abdomen but finished up taking nothing.

Yet we see no attempts to remove organs from any other victims only the two whose bodies were taken to two different mortuaries where two different extractions have been identified

But the medical reports of the day clearly conflict with each other with regard to the degree of anatomical knowledge shown by the killer. If we take Chapman as the first victim where organs went missing. Both Coroner and Phillips both say the killer had expert anatomical knowledge. The same with Eddowes, then Kellys murder is different it seem the organs were simply hacked out of the body.

Dr Bond goes out on a limb in his report to Anderson

Not forgetting that in the report he accepts all 5 murders were committed by the same hand he also concurs with me when he says that the motives were murder and mutilation he also says that "In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

And you readily accept that with all this conflicting evidence is it right without question to still say the killer removed the organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why do you say that it’s accepted without question Trevor? You do this on multiple topics in this case. People look at the point being made, way up the pro’s and cons and draw their own conclusions and yet you try to portray this as accepting something without question when it’s simply the fact that the majority disagree with your interpretation.

1. Why couldn’t a man used different methods, especially if he wasn’t a trained surgeon?
2. Why base a definite assumption on something that’s unknown, like the killers medical knowledge or lack of it.
3. Why weren’t organs ‘stolen’ from Nichols or Stride or Mackenzie but they were taken when the killer had a better location? Why do you ignore that very obvious fact.
4. Why are you not bothered that there is no evidence of body parts being stolen from any of the mortuaries?
5. I can’t recall which but it was stated that for one of the murders a Constable was left guarding the body which would hardly have been conducive to body part stealing.
6. Why would a body part thief have drawn attention to his trade by stealing parts before the autopsy? He couldn’t have know what the Doctor had seen at the crime scenes so what if a Doctor had said ‘hold on, where her xxxx gone? It was there when I first examined her.’
7. If the man did have advanced medical knowledge would he have wanted to advertise that fact by doing consistent, textbook internal organ removal?
8. Would a body part thief really have increased his risk of discovery by targeting such high-profile victims? One’s that would receive more than the usual attention from doctors and police.
9. What use would Eddowes uterus have been with a chunk missing?

The body parts were taken by the killer. It’s ok to check out alternative theories. It’s not ok to keep trying to breath life into a dead duck.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Be that as it may, you would have to argue your point with both John and Amelia Richardson:

Daily News, 13 Sep 1888, Inquest:

Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.
I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

Yes George, but ‘not going into the yard’ wouldn’t have to preclude standing on the flags at the bottom of the steps. I’d have thought that when talking about “into the yard,” they would have meant actually entering the yard, as in taking steps into the yard. Whilst having his feet on the flags right next to the steps would have been classed as being at the steps. In effect, the flags were a last step down.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do you say that it’s accepted without question Trevor? You do this on multiple topics in this case. People look at the point being made, way up the pro’s and cons and draw their own conclusions and yet you try to portray this as accepting something without question when it’s simply the fact that the majority disagree with your interpretation.

1. Why couldn’t a man used different methods, especially if he wasn’t a trained surgeon?

But according to Phillips and the coroner he was skilled in anatomy

2. Why base a definite assumption on something that’s unknown, like the killers medical knowledge or lack of it.

Becuase that's how he was described as having that knowledge

3. Why weren’t organs ‘stolen’ from Nichols or Stride or Mackenzie but they were taken when the killer had a better location? Why do you ignore that very obvious fact.

So if the motive is murder and organ harvesting why didn't the killer pick a victim and a spot that suited his purpose

4. Why are you not bothered that there is no evidence of body parts being stolen from any of the mortuaries?

How many times do you need telling there is evidence of organs being sold from mortuaries?

5. I can’t recall which but it was stated that for one of the murders a Constable was left guarding the body which would hardly have been conducive to body part stealing.

But the mortuary you refer to where is the evidence to show that the mortuary was sealed off and no one was allowed in, The constable was there to stop unauthorised persons from gaining entry. The nurses went in and washed the body so why not the mortuary attendant and any other authorised persons

6. Why would a body part thief have drawn attention to his trade by stealing parts before the autopsy? He couldn’t have know what the Doctor had seen at the crime scenes so what if a Doctor had said ‘hold on, where her xxxx gone? It was there when I first examined her.’

Well if the mortuary attendant was complicit in the illicit trade in organs he would know that the bodies had not been examined at the crime scenes

7. If the man did have advanced medical knowledge would he have wanted to advertise that fact by doing consistent, textbook internal organ removal?

well he did so with the Chapman murder

8. Would a body part thief really have increased his risk of discovery by targeting such high-profile victims? One’s that would receive more than the usual attention from doctors and police.

Need must when the devil calls

9. What use would Eddowes uterus have been with a chunk missing?

Well whoever removed it didn't do a very good job did he this is another example of different hands removing the organs

The body parts were taken by the killer. It’s ok to check out alternative theories. It’s not ok to keep trying to breath life into a dead duck.

None of the organs were found missing at the crime scenes

There is only one dead duck here and it is not me

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But according to Phillips and the coroner he was skilled in anatomy

Becuase that's how he was described as having that knowledge.

But you’re cherrypicking Trevor. You know very well that the question of medical knowledge is disputed. And even if the killer did have knowledge it might only have been basic or just anatomical and why would a person with that kind of knowledge be expected to display a consistency of method. Maybe between crimes he read of a second method and decided to try it? Who knows? You’re assuming something to make it fit your theory.

So if the motive is murder and organ harvesting why didn't the killer pick a victim and a spot that suited his purpose?

I don’t know Trevor. None of us can know the thought processes of a Victorian serial killer. Nichols was probably his first victim so perhaps he hadn’t had the idea of removing organs at that stage?

But the mortuary you refer to where is the evidence to show that the mortuary was sealed off and no one was allowed in, The constable was there to stop unauthorised persons from gaining entry. The nurses went in and washed the body so why not the mortuary attendant and any other authorised persons.

And he wouldn’t have noticed had a mere mortuary attendant started hacking around inside the victims abdomen when there was no doctor present and at at time before an inquest had been done?

Well if the mortuary attendant was complicit in the illicit trade in organs he would know that the bodies had not been examined at the crime scenes.

But bodies were examined at crime scenes Trevor (to get a TOD estimation for a start) And in a murder which was part of a series how could a mortuary attendant have known that a doctor hadn’t done a quick check for missing organs as a comparison to the Chapman murder.

Well whoever removed it didn't do a very good job did he this is another example of different hands removing the organs.

Great. So you claim that the organs were taken for medical purposes……I mention that a damaged uterus would have been useless for that…..you sidestep and claim it as evidence of a different hand!

A damaged uterus speaks of a removal under difficult circumstances….not from a body lying on a mortuary table.

None of the organs were found missing at the crime scenes

There is only one dead duck here and it is not me

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is just another theory that you have that you adhere to in the face of the evidence just because you like the idea Trevor. Usually when someone has a theory they get at least a few supporters but as far as I’m aware no one agrees with your theory. Doesn’t that tell you something? It hasn’t been dismissed without consideration, it’s been considered, assessed and discussed at length and no one accepts it. And that’s not because people have some kind of ‘attachment’ to the idea of the killer removing organs, it’s because it’s not believable.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is just another theory that you have that you adhere to in the face of the evidence just because you like the idea Trevor. Usually when someone has a theory they get at least a few supporters but as far as I’m aware no one agrees with your theory. Doesn’t that tell you something? It hasn’t been dismissed without consideration, it’s been considered, assessed and discussed at length and no one accepts it. And that’s not because people have some kind of ‘attachment’ to the idea of the killer removing organs, it’s because it’s not believable.

There is no evidence to show that the bodies were examined at the crime scenes to show organs were found to be missing before the bodies were taken to the mortuaries

maybe you and others don't want the mystery of the organs solved, after all it is an integral part of these murders and to suddenly have that myth removed lessens the impact of the murders and makes them nothing more than murder and mutilations.

I am sure there are many out there who have read my theory on the organs and do concur with all that has been put forward, its a shame you are not able to take the blinkers off and assess and evaluate the facts and evidence which I have provided, and your replies to what has been put forward are showing signs of desparation in trying to convince yourself that you are right.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no evidence to show that the bodies were examined at the crime scenes to show organs were found to be missing before the bodies were taken to the mortuaries

Its not a case of there being no evidence Trevor, the point is that a body part thief would have had no way of knowing this.

maybe you and others don't want the mystery of the organs solved, after all it is an integral part of these murders and to suddenly have that myth removed lessens the impact of the murders and makes them nothing more than murder and mutilations.

Rubbish. How could the impact of women having their throats could before being horribly mutilated have been ‘lessened’ simply by a lack of body part removal? To suggest that people only disagree with you on those grounds is desperate stuff Trevor. It also sidesteps the very obvious possibility that you are simply defending your theory at all costs.

I am sure there are many out there who have read my theory on the organs and do concur with all that has been put forward, its a shame you are not able to take the blinkers off and assess and evaluate the facts and evidence which I have provided, and your replies to what has been put forward are showing signs of desparation in trying to convince yourself that you are right.

Then it’s strange that these people have remained silent isn’t it?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m wearing no goggles Trevor but I think that you spend too much time wearing the ‘I’m an ex-police officer so I must be right’ goggles.