Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    The idea stands or falls on the idea, as opposed to on your imposition of some other idea amounting to 'a removing witness'. That's what called moving the discussion, or distraction.

    The reason why John Richardson is weak is not because of your imposition, but because he clearly misled the coroner which in turn compromises his entire statement.
    In no way have you provided evidence that Richardson misled the coroner, nor have you even indicated how he misled the coroner. Your statement that he misled the coroner is not evidence he misled the coroner, it is rather an unsupported assumption. It is unsupported because there is nothing in Richardson's testimony that points to any deception. There is nothing at all in Richardson's testimony, nor even how he gave it, or how it "unfolded over time" from his first interaction with the police at the crime scene until his testimony given at the inquest that is sufficiently unusual to deem it questionable, or self contradictory, which would show it to be questionable.

    Finally, we have police reports that tell us the police specifically looked into him and found nothing of suspicion. Sadly, we do not know what they did to reach that conclusion so we cannot further evaluate their conclusion, but what we do know is that the police, employing the techniques of the time, investigated what you are claiming and found nothing to substantiate that claim and they knew more than we do.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      In no way have you provided evidence that Richardson misled the coroner
      It was posted several times on this thread. John and his knife tale, not this knife.....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

        My opinion, but built upon strong foundations.

        Who were these vendors stood on the street at 3 or 4 in the morning when there's no custom? When just about every possible businessman would have been in bed so that he could get up at half 5 in the morning when people were coming back out on the streets again, meaning custom?

        Steve, this whole 'opinion'/'fact' thing that you and a few more like to post demonstrates how weak your argument is.

        There's no use in falling back on: "it's just an opinion; it's not fact". I know. It's an opinion built upon strong foundations, however, which in most aspects of this case and on these various thread is what we're discussing. Opinions and the foundations that support them, which place them a few rungs above opinions supported by not much other than 'we just don't know".


        It is I suggest your argument that is weak.
        Like it or not, you reject that which does. Not fit the picture you have.
        So the idea, she may have taken food from the kitchen, you simply dismiss as absurd.

        Steve




        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

          My opinion, but built upon strong foundations.

          Who were these vendors stood on the street at 3 or 4 in the morning when there's no custom? When just about every possible businessman would have been in bed so that he could get up at half 5 in the morning when people were coming back out on the streets again, meaning custom?

          Steve, this whole 'opinion'/'fact' thing that you and a few more like to post demonstrates how weak your argument is.

          There's no use in falling back on: "it's just an opinion; it's not fact". I know. It's an opinion built upon strong foundations, however, which in most aspects of this case and on these various thread is what we're discussing. Opinions and the foundations that support them, which place them a few rungs above opinions supported by not much other than 'we just don't know".
          Rarely is a 4 hour window in which we know nothing of a person's activities viewed as a solid foundation for making the claim that they did not do something.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post


            So the idea, she may have taken food from the kitchen, you simply dismiss as absurd.

            Aye, because it is.

            You've just plucked out of thin air that there are potatoes lying around in the kitchen at 2 in the morning.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              Rarely is a 4 hour window in which we know nothing of a person's activities viewed as a solid foundation for making the claim that they did not do something.

              - Jeff
              Do something what? What do you mean?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                It was posted several times on this thread. John and his knife tale, not this knife.....
                There is nothing to indicate his boot repair testimony is deceptive. The knife he produced would be sufficient for the use he claims he originally used it (cutting up carrots for his rabbit), and if he had a piece of leather in the toe of his boot that was rubbing, it would also make sense for him to try and sort that out with whatever he had available. It wouldn't have to be a large piece of leather rubbing against his foot after all as even a small piece, sticking out with a corner to it, can be uncomfortable. A "repair" might entail little more than tucking it in properly, which may be what he was trying to do. The fact it wasn't good enough to fix things is also hardly surprising, particularly if it was either not possible to tuck in a small annoying pointy bit, or the piece of leather that was annoying him was a bit more than that. Either way, he does say he had to do more while at work to sort out his boot. If the knife he had available wasn't good enough, why do you think he wouldn't have used a different one, or do you think that after trying once he should have resigned himself to wearing a boot that was causing him discomfort? Where is the bizarreness in this testimony? It sounds exactly like what someone would do; having something rubbing against their foot - try to fix it - doesn't work the first time so try again with something more suited to the task? The idea that a perfectly natural sequence of events gets described as deceptive makes no sense.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                  Forget press reports, Chandler makes it clear at the inquest that when sitting on the step that Richardson must have been able to see the body were it there.
                  [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.


                  Where does it say anything about sitting on steps?
                  They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                  Out of a misty dream
                  Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                  Within a dream.
                  Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                  ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    The title is, Legal Medicine, Charles Meymott Tidy, 1882 vol. I
                    Page 45 would seem to suggest that mere exercise of touch was already decisively outmoded in 1882, let alone 1888. How embarrassingly out of date did these East End doctors feel themselves entitled to be? Or is it likely that they actually used thermometers and simply didn't say so?

                    Mark D.
                    Last edited by Mark J D; 09-05-2023, 09:34 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                      Aye, because it is.

                      You've just plucked out of thin air that there are potatoes lying around in the kitchen at 2 in the morning.
                      Where does Dr. Phillips say the little food remaining in her stomach was potatoes? In the inquest testimony found on the site Dr. Phillips just says "...The stomach contained a little food. ...". For all we know it could have been bread, apple, etc.

                      While we know she ate potatoes at the doss house, we don't know it was potatoes that Dr. Phillips found in the stomach. If it wasn't, then she ate something else. Even if it was potatoes, the fact that a little remained in her stomach is not a big deal. While the stomach will generally move food on fairly quickly, that doesn't mean it completely empties itself of all of it. Fill a bag with food (flour, potatoes, whatever), and squeeze out the contents through a small hole - you will find some remains behind. Same with the stomach, finding a little food in it isn't unusual, it's the norm. I posted some studies on gastric emptying (which is what we're really talking about here, not "digestion", the majority of which happens in the intestines) and the range of times after the last meal (including soft things like potatoes, pulses, bread, etc) that food remains in the stomach are such that one would expect to find some of her potatoes no matter what time she was killed prior to discovery.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        There is nothing to indicate his boot repair testimony is deceptive. The knife he produced would be sufficient for the use he claims he originally used it (cutting up carrots for his rabbit), and if he had a piece of leather in the toe of his boot that was rubbing, it would also make sense for him to try and sort that out with whatever he had available. It wouldn't have to be a large piece of leather rubbing against his foot after all as even a small piece, sticking out with a corner to it, can be uncomfortable. A "repair" might entail little more than tucking it in properly, which may be what he was trying to do.
                        This is you rationalising it, none of that was said.

                        What he was asked to do was fetch the knife that cut his boot. Upon his return with said knife: "not this knife, one I borrowed at the market".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                          Do something what? What do you mean?
                          You are claiming you know she didn't eat during a period of time we know nothing of her activities. That is rarely considered an opinion based upon a solid foundation.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            we don't know it was potatoes that Dr. Phillips found in the stomach.
                            Nobody is suggesting otherwise, you're arguing against a point that hasn't been made.

                            The point is as stated above: just eaten, went out to get money for her bed, the vendors are asleep at 3 or 4 in the morning because the custom isn't there to make it worth their while, and so they're in bed until they have a business worth getting out of bed for.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                              This is you rationalising it, none of that was said.

                              What he was asked to do was fetch the knife that cut his boot. Upon his return with said knife: "not this knife, one I borrowed at the market".
                              You are misinterpreting his testimony. He was asked to produce the knife he had with him when he was at #29, which he did. He said he tried to fix his boot at #29 with the knife produced, but that the knife was insufficient to effect the repair. He went on to say he tried again at work with a different knife. But so what? If the first one wasn't sufficient why wouldn't he try a different one?

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                Hi Herlock, Steve, F.M. & others.

                                For anyone interested in what procedures were used in order to establish a legal Time of Death in 1888 might be interested in a set of volumes, in this case vol. I, which addresses these specific issues.

                                The title is, Legal Medicine, Charles Meymott Tidy, 1882 vol. I, which describes the use of:
                                - Body Temperature.
                                - Rigor Mortis.
                                - Lividity.
                                - Putrification.
                                Other methods are also mentioned to help the physician determine when the victim died.
                                This material has been provided by The University of Leeds Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Leeds Library

                                If you scroll down the right side of this page you should find a pdf that can be downloaded for free.
                                Thank you Jon, it's already in my collection.

                                This is a document from 1882 as you say, and as such it is deeply flawed. reliable methods of Determining TOD were in their infancy.

                                Let's however, look at those 4 items.7

                                Body temperature.

                                They on the whole did not take actual temperatures, but relied on touch for the most part.
                                They certainly did not take internal temperatures nor was the rate at which the body cools known at that time.

                                Rigor Mortis.

                                Once believed to be set in stone, modern science shows this is much more variable than was believed by doctors at the time.
                                The effect of temperature, was not fully understood, although they did know onset could be affected by temperature.
                                RM is unlikely to have been of any use in determining TOD in the Chapman case.
                                The only one of the murders where it may give some indication is MJK.
                                Unfortunately, in that case, the variability in onset does not preclude a later TOD of after 9am.
                                Personally I still prefer earlier.

                                Lividity

                                This is the settling of the blood, in the body after death. Also known as Livor Mortis.
                                It causes the body to discolour where blood pools.

                                This is probably more useful than Rigor Mortis, in that it can start very soon after death, and is often visible after some two hours.
                                However, this is also variable, and can be affected by temperature.
                                In the case of Chapman, the large amount of blood loss may also have had an effect on its onset.
                                I suspect that a full assesment of Livor Mortis would only take place once the body was at the mortuary, but we do not know, as Phillips makes no reference to it.
                                He only mentions temperature .
                                I respectfully suggest it would not greatly aid establish the TOD. It's too variable over shorter periods.


                                Purification

                                It's unlikely much would be visible in the first few hours after death in normal circumstances.
                                There would be gas build up caused by the decomposition process of the tissues and organs, the body swells.

                                However, in the case of Chapman, ( and Eddowes and Kelly) the wounds and damage to the body would mean that such indicators would be very hard to notice.


                                This document simply shows how limited the methods used at the time were.


                                Steve
                                Last edited by Elamarna; 09-05-2023, 09:37 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X