John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

Conclusion the ''Noise '' uncertain as to whether it was the noise of a female body that made it .

Correct. Albert himself, who was there at the time, heard nothing to arouse suspicion; nor did he state that the "no" was in any way, shape or form a voice of concern.

And then of course, other witnesses are discarded, such as Amelia Richardson who said she would have heard somebody pass through after three in the morning.

It's a case of pick and choose your witness according to whatever suits.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How can this silliness continue?

“I was awake at three a.m., and only dozed after that.”

What’s that supposed to mean? That she was sometimes asleep and sometimes awake? Or that while she was asleep she was able to judge how deep her sleep was? Either way it clearly means nothing in terms of the killer. If she was awoken just by someone walking then how did she ever sleep?

“People are coming in or going out all the night.” Every night a sleepless one apparently.

So could someone have passed down that corridor without her hearing them?

“[Coroner] On Saturday morning you feel confident no one did go through? - Yes; I should have heard the sound. They must have walked purposely quietly? - Yes; or I should have heard them. “

Mystery solved. Apparently yes if they walked quietly.

Hard to imagine Annie and Jack dancing along the corridor singing “Knees Up Mother Brown,” I’d suggest.


Come on! Total desperation.

[Indian Harry]

Periodically I check back in on this thread. I recall that a lot of the debate is centered around how the three witnesses, Richardson, Cadoche and Long compliment each other in helping to establish the time of the murder. This is put forth as a reason to rank the later time of death as a greater probability than the earlier. Kind of a three against one countering Dr. Philips. The testimonies of Cadoche and Long also combine to exonerate Richardson of any involvement in the actual murder because they recall events after John Richardson left the yard.

There is one interesting side effect of this strength in numbers approach, and that is in Long's description of the man seen with Chapman. She describes a man in his forties. If you trust Long as a witness you have to be prepared to downgrade other witness accounts that describe a much younger man sighted before the other murders. Does it also follow then that Lechmere and Tumblety are elevated somewhat in that they more closely match the age of Long's man. I do recall that Long also described a foreigner. So even if this does not apply to Lechmere or Tumblety do you focus in on middle aged foreigners above younger men like the sailor or clerk types reported by other witnesses?

Or... do we acknowledge that the strength in numbers argument isn't as strong as first thought once you step outside the specifics of the Chapman murder and look at the evidence from the series as a whole?

[GBinOz]

How can this silliness continue?

“I was awake at three a.m., and only dozed after that.”

What’s that supposed to mean? That she was sometimes asleep and sometimes awake? Or that while she was asleep she was able to judge how deep her sleep was? Either way it clearly means nothing in terms of the killer. If she was awoken just by someone walking then how did she ever sleep?

“People are coming in or going out all the night.” Every night a sleepless one apparently.

So could someone have passed down that corridor without her hearing them?

“[Coroner] On Saturday morning you feel confident no one did go through? - Yes; I should have heard the sound. They must have walked purposely quietly? - Yes; or I should have heard them. “

Mystery solved. Apparently yes if they walked quietly.

Hard to imagine Annie and Jack dancing along the corridor singing “Knees Up Mother Brown,” I’d suggest.


Come on! Total desperation.

Hi Herlock,

If you ever develop sleep apnea you will discover that there are five stages of sleep, and dozing falls into category N1 (Stage 1) - Light Sleep (5%). There's a treatise here, if you're interested:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/N...20stages,stage %20a%20progressively%20deeper%20sleep.

The full discussion at the inquest was:
I can hear anybody going through the passage. Being wood, it sounds.

You mean if you are awake?-Yes, and the least sound wakes me.

But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle.

Did you hear anybody go through the passage on Saturday morning?-No, sir; I did not.

People frequently do go through, don't they?-Yes; they go into the back yard.

I suppose sometimes people go through who have no business there?-Yes, sometimes; but on Saturday morning nobody went through. If they did, they must have been very quiet.

They must have gone quietly intentionally?-Yes.

I think it would be fair to say that she was more likely to have heard someone after 3am when she was awake and only dozing, than before when she was asleep. She does say that her ability to discern someone in the passage at around 5:30am was compromised by the noise of the "bustle" of people in the street. She also failed to say that she heard John arriving and leaving, but he may have been being considerate not to disturb the residents. There is no record of which I am aware of Mr Waker (Walker), whose window was about 6 ft from where Annie was murdered, or the Copley sisters on the floor above, saying that they heard Jack and Annie, or John Richardson.

Is it more probable that someone would have heard something at 5:30 in the morning when the inhabitants were arising for work, or at 2:30am when the majority were sound asleep? Why did Waker or the Copley sisters not hear Cadosch's "No", or were they actually the source of that sound? Why didn't they hear the fall against the fence, or did they but thought, as Cadosch testified, that a bump in the yard was nothing unusual?

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Periodically I check back in on this thread. I recall that a lot of the debate is centered around how the three witnesses, Richardson, Cadoche and Long compliment each other in helping to establish the time of the murder. This is put forth as a reason to rank the later time of death as a greater probability than the earlier. Kind of a three against one countering Dr. Philips. The testimonies of Cadoche and Long also combine to exonerate Richardson of any involvement in the actual murder because they recall events after John Richardson left the yard.

There is one interesting side effect of this strength in numbers approach, and that is in Long's description of the man seen with Chapman. She describes a man in his forties. If you trust Long as a witness you have to be prepared to downgrade other witness accounts that describe a much younger man sighted before the other murders. Does it also follow then that Lechmere and Tumblety are elevated somewhat in that they more closely match the age of Long's man. I do recall that Long also described a foreigner. So even if this does not apply to Lechmere or Tumblety do you focus in on middle aged foreigners above younger men like the sailor or clerk types reported by other witnesses?

Or... do we acknowledge that the strength in numbers argument isn't as strong as first thought once you step outside the specifics of the Chapman murder and look at the evidence from the series as a whole?

Hi IH,

First of all, I consider Long an unnecessary witness. Richardson and Cadosch alone are enough to make the later TOD the more likely option. It's possible that she was wrong about the woman being Chapman.

Secondly, even if she was right about the woman being Chapman, she didn't see the man's face, so I consider her estimate about his age to be unreliable.

[GBinOz]

Periodically I check back in on this thread. I recall that a lot of the debate is centered around how the three witnesses, Richardson, Cadoche and Long compliment each other in helping to establish the time of the murder. This is put forth as a reason to rank the later time of death as a greater probability than the earlier. Kind of a three against one countering Dr. Philips. The testimonies of Cadoche and Long also combine to exonerate Richardson of any involvement in the actual murder because they recall events after John Richardson left the yard.

There is one interesting side effect of this strength in numbers approach, and that is in Long's description of the man seen with Chapman. She describes a man in his forties. If you trust Long as a witness you have to be prepared to downgrade other witness accounts that describe a much younger man sighted before the other murders. Does it also follow then that Lechmere and Tumblety are elevated somewhat in that they more closely match the age of Long's man. I do recall that Long also described a foreigner. So even if this does not apply to Lechmere or Tumblety do you focus in on middle aged foreigners above younger men like the sailor or clerk types reported by other witnesses?

Or... do we acknowledge that the strength in numbers argument isn't as strong as first thought once you step outside the specifics of the Chapman murder and look at the evidence from the series as a whole?

Hi Indian Harry,

Swanson's report. "Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer". "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

Inspector Walter Andrews: "The police are perfectly powerless, no one ever having seen the murderer except the victims."

Macnaghten Memoranda: "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer, unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was a beat [sic] near Mitre Square."

Like yourself, the police were similarly unimpressed with Long's sighting.

Cheers, George

[Indian Harry]

Hi IH,

First of all, I consider Long an unnecessary witness. Richardson and Cadosch alone are enough to make the later TOD the more likely option. It's possible that she was wrong about the woman being Chapman.

Secondly, even if she was right about the woman being Chapman, she didn't see the man's face, so I consider her estimate about his age to be unreliable.

I don't fault your logic when you say that Richardson and Cadosch out number Dr. Philips. Unlike others here I am not overly preoccupied with the time of death. I am one of those that thinks John Richardson's testimony is a little shakey and I do entertain him as a suspect. So I throw Long out. Now we only have Cadosch and the sounds he's hearing through the fence as the only witness supporting Richardson's innocence.... and as far as that is concerned I don't know that his judgment can be 100% infallible as to where sounds are coming from.

[Lewis C]

I don't fault your logic when you say that Richardson and Cadosch out number Dr. Philips. Unlike others here I am not overly preoccupied with the time of death. I am one of those that thinks John Richardson's testimony is a little shakey and I do entertain him as a suspect. So I throw Long out. Now we only have Cadosch and the sounds he's hearing through the fence as the only witness supporting Richardson's innocence.... and as far as that is concerned I don't know that his judgment can be 100% infallible as to where sounds are coming from.

It's not just a question of 2 against 1, it's also the nature of their testimony. Philips' estimate of time of death was based on 1888 methods, which is to say, unreliable methods. Apparently, he was aware of this, which is why he said that a later TOD was entirely possible.

I once found Richardson a bit suspicious too, but now I see that all he did as his testimony changed was give greater detail. He didn't contradict himself. The police were aware that he was admitting to having a knife in the vicinity of a knife murder, and checked him out, and determined that he was credible.

[GBinOz]

I'm not quite sure why the earlier TOD is pushed; when the only person who stated that it was earlier, then stated that he could have been mistaken by his own admission.

The problem that we face with the ripper murders, is that we sometimes prioritize our own favored suspect/s and then try and fit everything to suit that particular suspect.

Instead of starting with logic, reason, math, science, and probability...we choose to believe the unlikely at the expense of everything else, just to fit in with our preferred suspect.


I fail to see the reasoning behind why 3 witnesses are dismissed, in favor of a man who then subsequently admitted he may have been mistaken.


RD

Hi RD,

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.

I would say that Phillips had rarely, if ever, had to do a ToD on a body with Chapman's amount of blood loss and intestinal removal, and he was exercising a degree of caution by commenting that this could have have an effect on his estimate. However, three weeks later another body had similar conditions, blood loss and intestinal removal. After 30-40 minutes, Eddowes body was still warm. While I agree that the two cases are not directly or completely comparable, an additional 20-30 minutes to go from warm to completely cold is just too big a difference to reasonably contemplate. I also see it as vindicating Phillips estimate for Chapman.

I think you are aware that I don't have a favoured suspect or any barrow to push, and I'm sure you know my assessment of the reliability of the witnesses, so I'll leave it at that.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Hi Indian Harry,

Swanson's report. "Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer". "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

Inspector Walter Andrews: "The police are perfectly powerless, no one ever having seen the murderer except the victims."

Macnaghten Memoranda: "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer, unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was a beat [sic] near Mitre Square."

Like yourself, the police were similarly unimpressed with Long's sighting.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I'm unimpressed by Long's sighting even if she really saw the murderer, because whoever the man was, Long didn't get a good look at him.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I'm unimpressed by Long's sighting even if she really saw the murderer, because whoever the man was, Long didn't get a good look at him.

Hi LC,

That's because she wasn't taking much notice of them:
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

Three days after the event she suddenly realises that she saw a woman she had never seen before in a street "bustling" with people, after having not taken much notice of them.

I don't think so.

Richardson - I believe what he told Chandler and two press reporters on the day, not the story of the errant leather that he suddenly started mentioning two days later.

Cadosch - I believe him when he testified that he didn't see or hear anything unusual.

Phillips - I don't know that any doctor would admit that his methods were unreliable. That's a modern day assessment, but strangely, other ToD's were surprisingly accurate, relatively speaking. I know the common answer to this suggestion is that the others cribbed their ToD's by finding out the answer first, but I see no evidence that the doctor's interrogated beat cops or witnesses before they produced their ToD's so as to ensure they got the right answer.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi LC,

That's because she wasn't taking much notice of them:
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

Three days after the event she suddenly realises that she saw a woman she had never seen before in a street "bustling" with people, after having not taken much notice of them.

I don't think so.

Richardson - I believe what he told Chandler and two press reporters on the day, not the story of the errant leather that he suddenly started mentioning two days later.

Cadosch - I believe him when he testified that he didn't see or hear anything unusual.

Phillips - I don't know that any doctor would admit that his methods were unreliable. That's a modern day assessment, but strangely, other ToD's were surprisingly accurate, relatively speaking. I know the common answer to this suggestion is that the others cribbed their ToD's by finding out the answer first, but I see no evidence that the doctor's interrogated beat cops or witnesses before they produced their ToD's so as to ensure they got the right answer.

Cheers, George

Nor has any been provided when asked .

Hi George

Ive often mentioned this point as well over the course of this thread . I cant wait for the no doubt kind hearted replies youve become accustomed to now that youve given your opinion on the matter .

[FISHY1118]

I’ll accept a sensible response of course. And when I get one I’ll accept it.

What’s my point? You really can’t understand it?

Ill ask you directly….again….

If the noise wasn’t Chapman and her killer what could it have been? And whatever your suggestion, how likely would it have been given that there was allegedly a mutilated corpse lying there?

Ok, duck and dive away.

No you dont Herlock, you dont accept anything that goes against your theory of a earlier t.o.d, not even remotely, even when the evidence suggest otherwise.

So ill put it to you a second time seeing how you failed at your first attempt.


If Annnie Chapman was indeed already dead some time earlier, and a ''noise'' is heard by cadosch an hour or even two later ,whats your point ? How does the ''noise'' prove it was made by chapman or her killer . Based on the inquest testimony by the witness/s in question, it doesnt.


Avoid and dismiss as you no doubt will .

[FISHY1118]

As you might have observed Fishy (or possibly not?) that’s a drawing not a photograph. That quote is meaningless in regard to the discussion. Do you ever respond to anything without just pointing out what some other poster has said? Think for yourself Fishy and engage with the detail of the discussion. We get nowhere when you just keep evading and obfuscation. I don’t do it. Ask me a question and I’ll give you a full and detailed answer. I won’t just say “oh, Jeff answered that 6 months ago but I won’t post a link or repeat it.”

The drawings in case you failed to notice are contemporary [ of the present time] drawings of the day ,noticed how they show by two different artist the position of the cellar door ?. Thats called evidence Herlock, which is more than i can say for you when you guessed and speculated and invented that the cellar door was recessed inwards as so Richardson couLdnt possibly see the lock from standing at the back door looking downward . Heres another fact for you , you dont have one single piece of evidence that the cellar door was recessed inwards do you ? just your guesswork , maybe we should elevate you ''caution alert'' when guessing such things, after all the modern day cellar door experts wont take to kindly to your way of thinking .

Hows that for engageing in discussion and detail ? I dont evade anything when it comes to the evidence herlock, only your ifs buts, and maybe , and conjecture, there what really gets us nowhere

You do yourself no favours either when you accuse me of just copying or pointing out what others have said ,thats just ridiculous and in poor taste , it was my opinion that started this topic herlock , of the 4550 post to date go and count how many times ive posted my thoughts on the matter of t.o.d and the reason that ive come to those conclusions .

[FISHY1118]

Correct. Albert himself, who was there at the time, heard nothing to arouse suspicion; nor did he state that the "no" was in any way, shape or form a voice of concern.

And then of course, other witnesses are discarded, such as Amelia Richardson who said she would have heard somebody pass through after three in the morning.

It's a case of pick and choose your witness according to whatever suits.

It certainly seems to be the case in regards to the Chapman murder FM.

Neither witness or medical evidence shows us, or get us any certainty as to an accurate t.o.d being earlier or later.Those that would advocate one more '' certain'' that the other are dreaming and or just kidding themselves imo .
.