John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

Agreed, we should be lead by evidence alone, and the evidence tells us conclusively that Chapman could just as easily been killed at an earlier time .

Some might interpret the evidence to suit a particular theory but it can never be proven of course. However as has been shown over thousands of post ,that the theory of a 5.30 am t.o.d is flawed with multiple contradictions especially where John Richardson is concerned. When one examines his inquest testimony closely many flaws indeed come to light.

Hi Fishy,

I don't think it has been shown anywhere that the 5:30 ToD is flawed, at least not more than the earlier ToD theory. It is not conclusive, but that isn't the same thing. Nothing in JtR is conclusive, so not being conclusive isn't really a flaw. By the same token, the "pre-4:30 ToD" could also be said to have been shown to be flawed because it is not conclusive either. In the end, the earlier ToD theory is more "flawed" than the 5:30ish ToD theory, though.

We have two explanations, neither of which can be said to be conclusive, and so we are left in a situation where we have to rank them. And yes, there are rules by which theories are ranked, and one of those rules is how much of the data do they explain. The 5:30ish ToD theory explains, or can account, for all of the relevant testimony (it accounts for Richardson, Long, Cadoshe, Dr. Phillips, the legging spring, the open door, and why the mutilations might appear more skilled - better light - than in some other cases, like Eddowes which was in the dark). Moreover, this explanation is robust, meaning, even if we question various parts of the evidence (i.e. Long), the theory holds up - we can make some wrong "guesses" and the theory does not come crumbling down. The pre-4:30 ToD requires additional speculations (Long must be wrong; Richardson must be wrong/lying; Cadosche must be wrong; there's another explanation for the open door; the legging spring is a coincidence) and it is not robust - all of those speculative explanations must be guessed correctly otherwise the theory gets falsified. It is a far more fragile explanation.

Being the more fragile, however, doesn't mean it couldn't be the right one, but possible doesn't mean probable. It is not simply a matter of coming up with a possible explanation, as those are a dime a dozen. Rather, in our evaluations, we need to look at which explanation accounts for the evidence more simply (one aspect of theory evaluation is its simplicity - all the "Richardson was lying" type statements are additional layers of complexity that simply do not exist in the 5:30 theory - no, the idea that the testimony is honest is the default, it isn't a layer of explanation), and which explanation is the more robust (we can make some mistakes yet the theory continues to stand - the 5:30 ToD theory does not hinge on any particular guess to be correct, while the earlier ToD theory requires all of the guesses to be correct, one wrong guess and the whole theory shatters).

So while one is fully free to continue to build upon the earlier ToD theory, the rules by which theories are evaluated are not open to us for change, and by those rules the earlier ToD is a distant 2nd in terms of its "goodness of fit". That's not a debate, or an opinion, that's just how the evaluation comes out. But because the evidence is not conclusive, you can still, if you wish, prefer the earlier Tod, but it is not the better theory because its flaws are more severe.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Rather, in our evaluations, we need to look at which explanation accounts for the evidence more simply (one aspect of theory evaluation is its simplicity - all the "Richardson was lying" type statements are additional layers of complexity that simply do not exist in the 5:30 theory - no, the idea that the testimony is honest is the default, it isn't a layer of explanation).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Whilst I agree with the principle, it can be more honoured in the breech than the observance depending on the viewpoint of those presenting their hypotheses. The classic case that I see is the testimony of Maxwell. Her story did not vary as it went along, withstood the scrutiny of Abberline and defied the warning given by the Coroner. It was also to some extent corroborated by Maurice Lewis. Yet is is disputed by most with a litany of ifs, buts and maybes. I find Maxwell to be far more credible than Richardson. Might I observe that the testimonies of Long and Cadosche conflicted so "the rules by which theories are evaluated" were adjusted for the convenience of one side of the debate. The rule of law is that witnesses present their testimony to a jury for evaluation, and it is the jury's obligation to assess that testimony's relationship to the truth. In Richardson's case there were doubts presented by both the members of the jury and the Coroner, but despite this the Coroner, who was a solicitor with no medical qualifications, decided to discard the medical advice of Phillips. Modern thinking disputes that advice, but at the time it was thought to be state of the art. We can observe Baxter's reaction to Phillips treading on Baxter's legal authority by arguing with him that the medical details were not appropriate for release to the public, but Baxter did not return the courtesy with regard to Phillip's medical opinions.

As always, JMO, and subject to change in the event of more persuasive (to me) evidence being presented in the spirit of civilised debate.

Best regards, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Sorry to interject but does anyone know where the coffee house was situated on Hanbury Street?

Was it number 14?

Also. am i correct when I say that the cellar at 29 Hanbury street had been broken into days before the murder? If so, could that be relevant to the case?



RD

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I don't think it has been shown anywhere that the 5:30 ToD is flawed, at least not more than the earlier ToD theory. It is not conclusive, but that isn't the same thing. Nothing in JtR is conclusive, so not being conclusive isn't really a flaw. By the same token, the "pre-4:30 ToD" could also be said to have been shown to be flawed because it is not conclusive either. In the end, the earlier ToD theory is more "flawed" than the 5:30ish ToD theory, though.

We have two explanations, neither of which can be said to be conclusive, and so we are left in a situation where we have to rank them. And yes, there are rules by which theories are ranked, and one of those rules is how much of the data do they explain. The 5:30ish ToD theory explains, or can account, for all of the relevant testimony (it accounts for Richardson, Long, Cadoshe, Dr. Phillips, the legging spring, the open door, and why the mutilations might appear more skilled - better light - than in some other cases, like Eddowes which was in the dark). Moreover, this explanation is robust, meaning, even if we question various parts of the evidence (i.e. Long), the theory holds up - we can make some wrong "guesses" and the theory does not come crumbling down. The pre-4:30 ToD requires additional speculations (Long must be wrong; Richardson must be wrong/lying; Cadosche must be wrong; there's another explanation for the open door; the legging spring is a coincidence) and it is not robust - all of those speculative explanations must be guessed correctly otherwise the theory gets falsified. It is a far more fragile explanation.

Being the more fragile, however, doesn't mean it couldn't be the right one, but possible doesn't mean probable. It is not simply a matter of coming up with a possible explanation, as those are a dime a dozen. Rather, in our evaluations, we need to look at which explanation accounts for the evidence more simply (one aspect of theory evaluation is its simplicity - all the "Richardson was lying" type statements are additional layers of complexity that simply do not exist in the 5:30 theory - no, the idea that the testimony is honest is the default, it isn't a layer of explanation), and which explanation is the more robust (we can make some mistakes yet the theory continues to stand - the 5:30 ToD theory does not hinge on any particular guess to be correct, while the earlier ToD theory requires all of the guesses to be correct, one wrong guess and the whole theory shatters).

So while one is fully free to continue to build upon the earlier ToD theory, the rules by which theories are evaluated are not open to us for change, and by those rules the earlier ToD is a distant 2nd in terms of its "goodness of fit". That's not a debate, or an opinion, that's just how the evaluation comes out. But because the evidence is not conclusive, you can still, if you wish, prefer the earlier Tod, but it is not the better theory because its flaws are more severe.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff, well without going over old ground its either one or the other isn't it ?
All testimony is flawed if its shown to contradict it self , which it does .

So in the end one by no means has the advantage over the other in regards to t.o.d.

Naturally some will take a position for earlier, and that's fine but when that is their only position i will always disagree , as the evidence presented here over 1000s of post suggest a t.o.d is just as likely . Cheers

[Lewis C]

His mum was a nut who wanted something stupid and pointless doing every morning. So he mostly didn't bother; and was suddenly forced to pretend he'd been there on a day when it mattered. He then made up a story that accidentally made him look like a possible killer; then changed it to a story that revealed him to be a total spud. And out of that utter and complete stew we get a ToD vastly too late. Richardson was a total bloody dork -- and a classic example of how Ripperology saddles itself with discussion of data that isn't really data. My sympathies.

M.

So Richardson, a 35-year-old working class man, had to chose between letting his mother find out that he hadn't really checked the cellar that day and lying to the inquest of a murder investigation, and he chose the latter? It's possible, but I don't think that's the choice that most people would make in that situation.

[Lewis C]

Also. am i correct when I say that the cellar at 29 Hanbury street had been broken into days before the murder? If so, could that be relevant to the case?

Hi RD,

According to Morley's Suspect Guide, it was a few months earlier that the Break in occurred. It's relevant at least from the standpoint that it's likely the reason why Richardson was checking the yard (or supposedly checking the yard, depending on your perspective).

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff, well without going over old ground its either one or the other isn't it ?
All testimony is flawed if its shown to contradict it self , which it does .

So in the end one by no means has the advantage over the other in regards to t.o.d.

Naturally some will take a position for earlier, and that's fine but when that is their only position i will always disagree , as the evidence presented here over 1000s of post suggest a t.o.d is just as likely . Cheers

Hi Fishy,

I think that in your last sentence you meant to say that you disagree with the 5:30am ToD. It reads like you disagree with Phillips ToD range earlier in the evening.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I think that in your last sentence you meant to say that you disagree with the 5:30am ToD. It reads like you disagree with Phillips ToD range earlier in the evening.

Cheers, George

Yes George thanks for that , should read '' Position for Later'' meaning 5.30 am . Sorry late night .

[Hair Bear]

May I ask, do we have a contextual map of Hanbury Street at the time that we can observe for quick reference that includes the house numbers, location of the club, coffee house etc...?


RD

Sorry the map didn't come out, I will try to figure out what I did wrong. In the meanwhile, go to this link and then click on "View as overlay". You can scroll and zoom in to 29, at the bottom. https://www.oldmapsonline.org/map/br...u22u11uf313ru1

[Hair Bear]

the Coroner, who was a solicitor with no medical qualifications, decided to discard the medical advice of Phillips.

Best regards, George

Hi, I would say that he did the opposite of discard it. Phillips supplied a caveat and he went with that. That's a fact, as he mentioned it in summing up.

[GBinOz]

Quote, Sherlock from the Stride thread:

The most laughable thing in the entire case bar none is the suggestion that John Richardson sat with a steaming, mutilated corpse a foot from his left boot and didn’t see it behind a door that you could ride a motorbike under.
Wow, that must have created a draft in the house. I can't ride my Bonneville under our back door.

Apart from perhaps the suggestion that he wasn’t there and just for a laugh decided to place himself at the scene of a knife murder knife in hand.

Occam's razor: Richardson briefly looked from the top of the steps, as he told Chandler in the first place.

[Hair Bear]

Quote, Sherlock from the Stride thread:

Occam's razor: Richardson briefly looked from the top of the steps, as he told Chandler in the first place.

Hi

If we are accepting what Richardson says, should we not also accept his "I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been lying there"?

Was it light? –Beginning to get light, but not thoroughly. I could see all over the place.
Would you have noticed anything in the yard? –I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been lying there. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. A man in the market told me of the murder, and I went to the adjourning yard, and saw it from there. The man's name is Thomas Pearman, and he told me there had been a murder in Hanbury-street, but he did not say that it was at my house.

You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? –She was found lying just where my feet were.
You have been there at all hours of the night? Yes* I have been in the passage at all hours of the night.
Have you ever seen strangers there? –Lots plenty of them.
At all hours? –Yes; both men and women.
Have you asked what they were doing there? –Yes; and I have turned them out.

Here Richardson, a big man ("tall, stout"), also tells us that bouncer-like he regularly threw out prostitutes and their clients. I would seem odd that he take only a brief look at the cellar and not bother scanning the rest of the backyard for someone who should not be there.

[GBinOz]

I would seem odd that he take only a brief look at the cellar and not bother scanning the rest of the backyard for someone who should not be there.

Hi Hair Bear,

You would have to take that up with Richardson and his mother, as that is what they said was his normal routine.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff, well without going over old ground its either one or the other isn't it ?
All testimony is flawed if its shown to contradict it self , which it does .

So in the end one by no means has the advantage over the other in regards to t.o.d.

Naturally some will take a position for earlier, and that's fine but when that is their only position i will always disagree , as the evidence presented here over 1000s of post suggest a t.o.d is just as likely . Cheers

Hi Fishy,

And I'll also avoid covering things again other than to point out that the testimony does not conflict as given, once it is evaluated with the appropriate error ranges known to be associated with such testimonies. To omit the error ranges in one's evaluation is simply not valid. Now, with that in mind, that isn't to say it proves the testimony true, it is only pointing out that as given the testimony cannot accurately be said to conflict (and I include Dr. Phillips' testimony in this).

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

And I'll also avoid covering things again other than to point out that the testimony does not conflict as given, once it is evaluated with the appropriate error ranges known to be associated with such testimonies. To omit the error ranges in one's evaluation is simply not valid. Now, with that in mind, that isn't to say it proves the testimony true, it is only pointing out that as given the testimony cannot accurately be said to conflict (and I include Dr. Phillips' testimony in this).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

I will have to respectfullly disagree with you there Jeff, as i believe Longs testimony conflicts with Cadoschs. They cant both be ''right'' .Regardless of whether or not 1888 clocks being minutes out or whether witnesses were mistaken with their times, i think thats irrelevant . They both gave their testimony at the inquest believing it to be true ,so with that in mind we have a conflict by definition imo .