John Richardson

[Lewis C]

1 .You prove that it was ? his testimony only mentions that he couldn't be certain where it came from, your making assumptions that he meant left or right to fit your theory . So your guessing.

You asked for unreliable evidence regarding Cadosch. I gave it .

In Cadoschs case uncertainty = unreliable .that's a fact.

2.Ive never ignored the fact that he heard the noise against the fence.

The question that's never been answered or proved is that no one can say for sure that it was Annie chapmans body that actually made the sound Cadosch heard .

Once again this all has been discussed over and over on this thread by myself and others ,your just going round and round in circles ending up with the same result , t.o.d earlier or later can't be accurately determined one way or the other based on all the evidence when examined as a whole.

Has anyone said that Annie Chapman's body made the noise? I thought that everyone that believed in the later TOD thought that it was at least as likely that it was the killer's body that made the noise. If it wasn't one of those two, who was it? Someone who went in there, bumped into the fence for whatever reason, and left without ever reporting seeing the mutilated body to authorities. It's not impossible, but I think rather unlikely, especially when you also consider Richardson's testimony.

[Lewis C]

So...

after nearly 5000 posts, can we just take a beat and evaluate in summary the main points of contention here?


Essentially, am I correct in assuming that the main problem relates to the proposed TOD of Chapman and that it conflicts with multiple witness statements?

And so either all the witnesses are wrong, or the TOD was wrong?


Is that the argument in a nutshell?


I would suggest that compared to the complexities of the subsequent Stride, Eddowes and Kelly cases; this is much more clear-cut. Hence Chapman's murder is the least discussed overall and without this particular thread would be even less so.

This thread does for Chapman what Lechmere does for the Nichol's threads


Okay, so Richardson...he was either a complete moron for not seeing the mutilated dead body of Chapman lying inches away from his left foot...or he lied and was the killer, or covering for osmeone...

OR...he didn't see anyone because...and here it is... she wasn't there.

Bearing in mind that the killer was not a concealment killer and deliberately displayed the bodies to be found in a certain theatrical way. Had Chapman of been covered completely under a dark blanket or dumped in the cellar, then there's scope for Richardson missing her being there.

But unless someone is willing to suggest that he was the murdere, then why not just accept that he never saw Chapman for the reason that she wasn't there and was murdered AFTER Richardson left?


IF the only thing that contradicts Richardson is her initial perceived TOD, then I would suggest that the TOD is wrong..based on the fact that assessing a TOD in 1888 for a mutilated body left exposed to the elements, the scope for being wrong about her TOD is much greater than Richardson not seeing her.


If we discount everything, then it only serves to inflate an inaccurate agenda to support the subjectivity of the person who chooses to disbelieve everything.


So, was Richardson...

Truthful
Lying
Mistaken
Inaccurate
A complete moron


One of the above has to be true... or otherwise, we start questioning whether 1 plus 1 is actually 2, or whether it could be seen as something else.



Bizarre methodology


RD

I don't think that stupidity is an adequate explanation for not seeing the body. I think that there are 2 realistic possibilities:
1. Chapman was killed after 4:50.
2. John Richardson was lying.

Some have argued that the door could have blocked Richardson's view of the body, but I don't think that's plausible.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The interpretation you have offered makes no logical sense as you either ignore the caveat, or you say it means the same as the statement, which is bizarre because it clearly does not.

- Jeff

This is what Dr Phillips stated at the inquest:

I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

That is a perfectly ordinary statement in accordance with the English language, and there is no interpretation required: you simply have to take his words:

1) At least two hours. 'At least' meaning the minimum time possible in the English language.
2) And probably more.
3) There are factors which mean I cannot be certain on that probably more, nor quantify it; which is why I say probably.

'At least' is a categorical statement meaning the minimum time possible, meaning Dr Phillips was convinced that Annie was dead by half four in the morning at the latest. 'Probably' means only one thing in the English language. That's his belief, that being Annie was dead before half four in the morning, but he cannot be certain on that and he explains why with his 'cold morning' comment.

What you and a few more are suggesting is a monumental bending of his words. I can only guess why a few of you are so keen to do that.

This is what you're suggesting:

At least two hours, and probably more, but due to the fairly cold morning possibly less than at least two hours.

It is nonsensical.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1 .You prove that it was ? his testimony only mentions that he couldn't be certain where it came from, your making assumptions that he meant left or right to fit your theory . So your guessing.

Both interpretations fit. Mine fits perfectly though.

You asked for unreliable evidence regarding Cadosch. I gave it .

In Cadoschs case uncertainty = unreliable .that's a fact.

Another one that can’t understand the English language.

I’m uncertain about who Jack the Ripper was.

I’m certain about where my brothers live.

Does my uncertainty about JTR make me unreliable about where my brothers live?

No.

Grow up.

2.Ive never ignored the fact that he heard the noise against the fence.

The question that's never been answered or proved is that no one can say for sure that it was Annie chapmans body that actually made the sound Cadosch heard .

And it’s not being claimed that it must have been her body. That was a point that you made to try and make things sound unlikely. It could have been the killer which I’ve told you a hundred times. The main point though is one so obvious that it’s sad that I have to keep repeating it to you. If there was a mutilated corpse in that yard when Cadosch heard that noise WHAT ELSE COULD IT HAVE BEEN! There hasn’t been a single sensible suggestion. Just people like you insisting that it wasn’t connected to the murder.

Stop talking nonsense Fishy. Or just stop talking.

Once again this all has been discussed over and over on this thread by myself and others ,your just going round and round in circles ending up with the same result , t.o.d earlier or later can't be accurately determined one way or the other based on all the evidence when examined as a whole.

And you’re just repeating the same desperate, illogical nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is what Dr Phillips stated at the inquest:

I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

That is a perfectly ordinary statement in accordance with the English language, and there is no interpretation required: you simply have to take his words:

1) At least two hours. 'At least' meaning the minimum time possible in the English language.
2) And probably more.
3) There are factors which mean I cannot be certain on that probably more, nor quantify it; which is why I say probably.

'At least' is a categorical statement meaning the minimum time possible, meaning Dr Phillips was convinced that Annie was dead by half four in the morning at the latest. 'Probably' means only one thing in the English language. That's his belief, that being Annie was dead before half four in the morning, but he cannot be certain on that and he explains why with his 'cold morning' comment.

What you and a few more are suggesting is a monumental bending of his words. I can only guess why a few of you are so keen to do that.

This is what you're suggesting:

At least two hours, and probably more, but due to the fairly cold morning possibly less than at least two hours.

It is nonsensical.

I’m beginning to think that you’re not mistaken on this.

You’re misreading of it has to be deliberate.

[Doctored Whatsit]

This is what Dr Phillips stated at the inquest:

I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

That is a perfectly ordinary statement in accordance with the English language, and there is no interpretation required: you simply have to take his words:

1) At least two hours. 'At least' meaning the minimum time possible in the English language.
2) And probably more.
3) There are factors which mean I cannot be certain on that probably more, nor quantify it; which is why I say probably.

'At least' is a categorical statement meaning the minimum time possible, meaning Dr Phillips was convinced that Annie was dead by half four in the morning at the latest. 'Probably' means only one thing in the English language. That's his belief, that being Annie was dead before half four in the morning, but he cannot be certain on that and he explains why with his 'cold morning' comment.

What you and a few more are suggesting is a monumental bending of his words. I can only guess why a few of you are so keen to do that.

This is what you're suggesting:

At least two hours, and probably more, but due to the fairly cold morning possibly less than at least two hours.

It is nonsensical.

I can't help noticing that you have omitted "when he first saw her" from your quote. This is the clear indication that he was specifically referring to his statement of ToD made at the murder site, and nowhere else.

Nobody is arguing with the meaning of his original ToD, nor do we suggest that he didn't mean it at the time he said it.

I have asked you several times, and you have ignored every one - what do you think the caveat means if it doesn't mean that he could be wrong and the ToD could be later? And why did he say it at the inquest if he didn't mean it to be considered in conjunction with his original ToD?

Is this is what you are suggesting? - At least two hours and probably more, but it is right to point out that due to the rapid cooling of the body in the cold morning air, it is still two hours and probably more. Why would he say that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't help noticing that you have omitted "when he first saw her" from your quote. This is the clear indication that he was specifically referring to his statement of ToD made at the murder site, and nowhere else.

Nobody is arguing with the meaning of his original ToD, nor do we suggest that he didn't mean it at the time he said it.

I have asked you several times, and you have ignored every one - what do you think the caveat means if it doesn't mean that he could be wrong and the ToD could be later? And why did he say it at the inquest if he didn't mean it to be considered in conjunction with his original ToD?

Is this is what you are suggesting? - At least two hours and probably more, but it is right to point out that due to the rapid cooling of the body in the cold morning air, it is still two hours and probably more. Why would he say that?

That’s it in a nutshell Doc.

Phillips didn’t need to say anything after “At least two hours and probably more.” That’s all that the Coroner wanted to know. But Phillips felt compelled to make an addition and he had to have made it for a reason. And the only effect that the ‘rapid cooling’ might have had was to give a false impression of the time required for that level of cooling to have occurred. Meaning that she could have been killed later than his lower estimate.

As you say, why add the caveat if it didn’t have any effect on the original proposition? How much more obvious could this be?

And to top it off, the Coroner (who was there) totally agrees with us:

“ It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces.”


This is yet another manufactured argument by people pursuing an agenda. It has to be.

[FISHY1118]

Has anyone said that Annie Chapman's body made the noise? I thought that everyone that believed in the later TOD thought that it was at least as likely that it was the killer's body that made the noise. If it wasn't one of those two, who was it? Someone who went in there, bumped into the fence for whatever reason, and left without ever reporting seeing the mutilated body to authorities. It's not impossible, but I think rather unlikely, especially when you also consider Richardson's testimony.

Yes they have . Its only speculation that it was the killer that brushed up against the fence,but there is no evidence of that..

,"Something" not someone as per Cadoschs testimony.

Again this has been discussed at length previously .

[FISHY1118]

I don't think that stupidity is an adequate explanation for not seeing the body. I think that there are 2 realistic possibilities:
1. Chapman was killed after 4:50.
2. John Richardson was lying.

Some have argued that the door could have blocked Richardson's view of the body, but I don't think that's plausible.

Depends on what Richardson actually claims he did or did not do .

[FISHY1118]

''And you’re just repeating the same desperate, illogical nonsense.''


DITTO .

''Both interpretations fit. Mine fits perfectly though.''


So does mine and others so what .



''Another one that can’t understand the English language.

I’m uncertain about who Jack the Ripper was.

I’m certain about where my brothers live.

Does my uncertainty about JTR make me unreliable about where my brothers live?

No.

Grow up''



Dumbest comment so far, and proves just how little attention you pay to and lack of understanding regarding cadosch and his uncertainty .

He was uncertain about the ''No'', thats just a fact why do you dispute this ? and how could you not except it ? .The fact his wasnt uncertain about the ''noise'' has nothing to do with his previous comment about the no .

We dont know what the noise was ,it certainly hasnt been proven it was a body, so the two comments cant be reconciled that Chapman was in the yard being murdered at 5.30am .On that we can only speculate that given all the evidence at hand , your analogy is completley bogus and transparent . The fact you do this a lot shows you need to grow up indeed .





''Stop talking nonsense Fishy. Or just stop talking''


Since when is talking and discussing the evidence and having an opinon on a perticular subject matter talking nonsense ?


What a narrow minded view you have, that which you disagree with you want to silence . You know what they call that dont you .? Again grow up indeed .




You got answer regarding cadoschs 'uncertainty'', dont carry on like a spoilt child when you dont like or agree with it , move on .!!!!

[GBinOz]

Some have argued that the door could have blocked Richardson's view of the body, but I don't think that's plausible.

Hi Lewis C,

The police thought it plausible.
Echo 19 Sep 1888:
Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

IMO, for the police to have made this deduction they would likely have asked Richardson to show them the position in which he sat on the step, which would have removed all doubt.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

For anyone who is still interested, there is an interesting dissertation by the Associate Editor of Ripper Notes, Wolf Vanderlinden, here:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

This is what Dr Phillips stated at the inquest:

I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

That is a perfectly ordinary statement in accordance with the English language, and there is no interpretation required: you simply have to take his words:

1) At least two hours. 'At least' meaning the minimum time possible in the English language.
2) And probably more.
3) There are factors which mean I cannot be certain on that probably more, nor quantify it; which is why I say probably.

'At least' is a categorical statement meaning the minimum time possible, meaning Dr Phillips was convinced that Annie was dead by half four in the morning at the latest. 'Probably' means only one thing in the English language. That's his belief, that being Annie was dead before half four in the morning, but he cannot be certain on that and he explains why with his 'cold morning' comment.

What you and a few more are suggesting is a monumental bending of his words. I can only guess why a few of you are so keen to do that.

This is what you're suggesting:

At least two hours, and probably more, but due to the fairly cold morning possibly less than at least two hours.

It is nonsensical.

I am afraid the argument you have presented is manifestly incorrect and defies the nature of the English language. Your interpretation is not an alternative possible meaning, it is an incorrect meaning being assigned to Dr. Phillips' statement.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

For anyone who is still interested, there is an interesting dissertation by the Associate Editor of Ripper Notes, Wolf Vanderlinden, here:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

Cheers, George

Compelling isn't it George. ?

Yet this is some call waffle . Ahh the mind boggles at such ignorance of the possibility of an earlier t.o.d

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is what Dr Phillips stated at the inquest:

I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

That is a perfectly ordinary statement in accordance with the English language, and there is no interpretation required: you simply have to take his words:

1) At least two hours. 'At least' meaning the minimum time possible in the English language.
2) And probably more.
3) There are factors which mean I cannot be certain on that probably more, nor quantify it; which is why I say probably.

'At least' is a categorical statement meaning the minimum time possible, meaning Dr Phillips was convinced that Annie was dead by half four in the morning at the latest. 'Probably' means only one thing in the English language. That's his belief, that being Annie was dead before half four in the morning, but he cannot be certain on that and he explains why with his 'cold morning' comment.

What you and a few more are suggesting is a monumental bending of his words. I can only guess why a few of you are so keen to do that.

I have to say that I have more than a little sympathy for your interpretation.

I think the key phrases are "I should say" and "but it is right to say", which in context I interpret as meaning; "My professional opinion is ..., but another doctor might be inclined to put more weight on the effect of the fairly cold morning and heavy loss of blood on the rate of cooling of the body".

This is what you're suggesting:

At least two hours, and probably more, but due to the fairly cold morning possibly less than at least two hours.

It is nonsensical.

Right. Not only would that be nonsensical, but it implies that Phillips had yet to fully integrate the ambient temperature and blood loss factors into his ToD estimate. I don't believe Phillips would have undermined his professionalism, in that manner.