John Richardson

[Aethelwulf]

Why did he wait until he got to 29 Hanbury Street before deciding to cut this piece of leather, after all we can assume that it was the same pair of shoes he had been wearing the day before, and surely he would have been aware of the need for this repair when he put then on that morning, or even the day before, and at that time he had access to a knife when he first put them on so why wait until he got to Hanbury Street.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I find it hard to believe you can bring this up as a serious point. perhaps it only started bothering him when he was on his way there. it may not have been an issue the day before, or perhaps he was just putting up with it and it got worse.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes Victorian doctors times of death were unsafe but of course its how you define unsafe. If a victim was found stone dead with full rigor mortis present yes it would be impossible to even guess an estimated time of death but in Phillips case he had more than just a stone cold dead body with full rigor mortis present. He had a body that still retained some heat and rigor mortis was commencing so he is entitled to give an opinion based on his examination but the question is how far out was that opinion or was it acccurate within the time scale stated.

Even in modern day murders the forensic patholgist at the crime scene will always be asked if they can give an estimated time of death, and all they can give is similar to what Phillips gave although in this day and age rectal thermometers are useful in trying to estimate a time of death but I doubt whether Philips had use of one of these otherwise he would have mentioned it.

So taking all the evidence into account and the conflciting witness testimony I am inclined to go with Phillips with a time of death consistent with the murders of the previous victims and the times of death of those who would follow.

The Times report of Richardsons testimony also makes interesting reading

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’d define ‘unsafe’ as - there was a reasonable chance of him being mistaken. So he might have been right, he might have been wrong. Phillips can advance us on this matter.

Conflicting witness testimony is an exaggeration imo. We can nitpick every single witness in this case. For me the combination of Richardson and Cadosch is stronger than a man making an unreliable estimate. It’s not just that Richardson had no reason to have lied it’s the fact that the lie that he’s alleged to have told would have made things much worse for himself. It’s a weak argument against Richardson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not normally a fan of trying to reinterpret findings from the time but I think on a technical issue like this, where knowledge has increased and there is some good data to work from, it is definitely warranted. Herlock provided some good cases and jeff presented some published peer reviewed data of rigor being fully established in under 4 hours, even 2 hours. What Phillips describes is well inline with those findings. And remember it was Phillips himself who added the caveat to his conclusion (even if some on here seem to think, somewhat bizarrely it wasn't a caveat).

And rigor can occur in under an hour an certain circumstances Wulf. But as Wick has pointed out Phillips estimated TOD from temperature for which he just used touch rather than the thermometer readings that he should have taken for greater accuracy. Temperature is also considered an unreliable method. Then of course we have Phillips caveat (that you mentioned.)

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

While I do regard Richardson as a more likely suspect that many on popular lists, my hi-lites were not addressing that aspect - I did that in my post #337 (can you comment on that comparison?).

Certainly.

I was commenting on your post where you said that witnesses often add details to their initial statement. I was meaning to point out that, IMO, Richardson wasn't adding detail, he was contradicting his initial statement. In his initial statements to Chandler and the press he was adamant that the body wasn't there. I am suggesting that he firmed up his claim that the body wasn't there by adding the step sitting.

Hi George, yes, if you look at the witness statements to police in the Kelly case (the one case we have where they survived). You will see the statement of the witness is very brief. This written statement is what the coroner uses in court to begin questioning the witness. It is the coroners job to have the witness elaborate the details of his/her story.
So, obviously, the witness in court will provide more detail than he originally offered when first questioned.

Alternatively, did he just temporarily forget he sat on the step, and his memory improved over time?

You've lost me there, twice you have suggested Richardson did not mention sitting on the steps to anyone prior to the inquest?

Richardson gave testimony at the inquest on the 12th, his account was published on the 13th.

Yet, here in the evening paper of the 10th he made it clear that he sat on the steps.

"Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18880910.html

Echo, 10 Sept. 1888.

Maybe I've misunderstood your point?

I might be wrong. I do recall thinking I was wrong once before, but I was mistaken.

One of my father's favourite sayings.

[Wickerman]

Harry, why would the Court demand that people swear to tell the truth ‘so help me God’ if they didn’t believe that this was a greater guarantor of truth. This came about in a far, far more religious age of course where people were in fear of their immortal souls. Wick isn’t speaking of a specific ‘law’ but the Law as a whole which expects the oath to be the greatest incentive for truth telling (but of course they accept that some people do lie under oath.)

Absolutely, thankyou, though why it needed explaining is another one of those perpetual mysteries that clouds debates here on Casebook.

[Wickerman]

How come then Herlock,that time of death was and still is,a vital factor in most murder cases,and who but a medical person was/is best qualified to answer that question?If not Phillips,in the case of Chapman,who would you propose.I'll ask you a question.Why are you opposed to accepting Phillip's timings? Someone had to do it?

Only someone who has read nothing about the difficulties in determining a medical time of death would write something like that.

Chandler didn't have to point it out,it is apparent from reading Richardson's evidence,that he(Richardson)ommited sitting on the middle step on his first interview.
When a person changes his/her testimony by adding or omitting details,it is logical to question why,and accepting that a lie MIGHT have resulted,is a natural reaction.

An omission is not a change. All police statements offer little by way of detail.
Not conveying the whole story, is not the same as offering a different story.
Nothing in what he said in court changed from what he told Chandler.

[GBinOz]

You've lost me there, twice you have suggested Richardson did not mention sitting on the steps to anyone prior to the inquest?

Richardson gave testimony at the inquest on the 12th, his account was published on the 13th.

Yet, here in the evening paper of the 10th he made it clear that he sat on the steps.

"Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18880910.html

Echo, 10 Sept. 1888.

Maybe I've misunderstood your point?

One of my father's favourite sayings.

Hi Jon,

I was referring to his statements to Chandler and the Star on 8 Sept. By the 10th he'd had time to think about his situation.

Another of my favourites is "I know I have faults, being wrong is not one of them".

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Harry, why would the Court demand that people swear to tell the truth ‘so help me God’ if they didn’t believe that this was a greater guarantor of truth. This came about in a far, far more religious age of course where people were in fear of their immortal souls. Wick isn’t speaking of a specific ‘law’ but the Law as a whole which expects the oath to be the greatest incentive for truth telling (but of course they accept that some people do lie under oath.)

Hi Herlock,

The threat of hellfire and eternal damnation in lakes of fire was certainly an incentive in the swearing on the good book. I am a great fan of the late Dave Allen's observations on this subject.

https://youtu.be/jxo81Ok9Urk

Cheers, George

[Losmandris]

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.

I think you make an interesting point here Sunny Delight. I don't think the murder occuring at around 5:30am is out of the bounds. Incredibly risky yes but from what happened with later murders, this was a person who was comfortable with taking risks or insensible of them entirely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely, thankyou, though why it needed explaining is another one of those perpetual mysteries that clouds debates here on Casebook.

Seemed obvious to me Wick

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The threat of hellfire and eternal damnation in lakes of fire was certainly an incentive in the swearing on the good book. I am a great fan of the late Dave Allen's observations on this subject.

https://youtu.be/jxo81Ok9Urk

Cheers, George

Dave Allen was great George.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I was referring to his statements to Chandler and the Star on 8 Sept. By the 10th he'd had time to think about his situation.

Hi George.

But isn't that a bit of a long-shot, there's barely two lines of him telling what he did when he arrived at the house.

"..on market mornings just to see that everything is right in the back-yard, where her underground packing-case workshops are. The place was burgled a short time back. This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure."

So, because he doesn't mention sitting on the steps & cutting some leather off his boot, or perhaps the editor took it out?, then you accuse him of being deceptive?
Seriously, you need more than that.

Another of my favourites is "I know I have faults, being wrong is not one of them".

Do you remember them old one-liners?, like..."I used to be conceited, but now I'm perfect".

[Trevor Marriott]

I’d define ‘unsafe’ as - there was a reasonable chance of him being mistaken. So he might have been right, he might have been wrong. Phillips can advance us on this matter.

Conflicting witness testimony is an exaggeration imo. We can nitpick every single witness in this case. For me the combination of Richardson and Cadosch is stronger than a man making an unreliable estimate. It’s not just that Richardson had no reason to have lied it’s the fact that the lie that he’s alleged to have told would have made things much worse for himself. It’s a weak argument against Richardson.

Here is the times report of Richardsons inquest testimony

"When he got to the house he found the front door closed. He lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. He did not go into the yard but went and stood on the steps

If he did cut piece from his boot how did he manage to do it without sitting down

We dont have the orginal transcripts of the witness testimony at the inquest so it is a case of take your pick as to who or what you want to believe,and this issue is never going to be resolvedto the satisfaction of everyone

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is the times report of Richardsons inquest testimony

"When he got to the house he found the front door closed. He lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. He did not go into the yard but went and stood on the steps

If he did cut piece from his boot how did he manage to do it without sitting down

We dont have the orginal transcripts of the witness testimony at the inquest so it is a case of take your pick as to who or what you want to believe,and this issue is never going to be resolvedto the satisfaction of everyone

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Things can be missed, words or phrases can be misheard or mistaken…..

“I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her”

I’d suggest that it would be nigh on impossible this part to have been imagined in error and certainly not invented by The Telegraph. There can be no doubt that Richardson had told the inquest that he’d sat on the steps. He’d also told newspapers that he’d sat on the steps but some reported that he’d said ‘stood’ on the steps. For me there can be no doubt that this was a newspaper error and not Richardson changing his story. That just doesn’t hold water for me at all. Richardson had absolutely no benefit from claiming to have sat on the steps if he hadn’t done; indeed he would have been making things worse for himself.

Personally I have absolutely no doubt that Richardson sat on that step. None at all. Consequently I think the chances of his missing a horribly mutilated corpse with intestines over her right shoulder a matter of a very few inches from his left foot beneath a door with around a 3 or 4 ft gap under it can’t be worth much consideration.

[Trevor Marriott]

Things can be missed, words or phrases can be misheard or mistaken…..

“I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her”

I’d suggest that it would be nigh on impossible this part to have been imagined in error and certainly not invented by The Telegraph. There can be no doubt that Richardson had told the inquest that he’d sat on the steps. He’d also told newspapers that he’d sat on the steps but some reported that he’d said ‘stood’ on the steps. For me there can be no doubt that this was a newspaper error and not Richardson changing his story. That just doesn’t hold water for me at all. Richardson had absolutely no benefit from claiming to have sat on the steps if he hadn’t done; indeed he would have been making things worse for himself.

Personally I have absolutely no doubt that Richardson sat on that step. None at all. Consequently I think the chances of his missing a horribly mutilated corpse with intestines over her right shoulder a matter of a very few inches from his left foot beneath a door with around a 3 or 4 ft gap under it can’t be worth much consideration.

I have continually stated that newspaper reports are unreliable and articles in the various newspaper articles conflict with each other, and this is a classic example, so which one is correct, they both cant be correct? Yet you go for the telegraph as being the corrcet version but that is because it fits with what you believe.

In criminal investigations personal beliefs count for nothing its what the evidence tells us and the evidence you seek to rely on for a later murder time is unsafe to totally rely on Mrs Long gives a time of 5.30am when she purportedly sees Chapman. Cadosh hears the bump and a voice at 5.20am so if the murder was taking place at that time and Dr Phillips arrived and examined the body at 6.30am. If you believe Cadosh then when Phillips examined the body and stated rigor had commenced it would not have set in an hour.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk