John Richardson

[GBinOz]

Hi George

"the police can not be assumed to have been completely stupid". I would argue that your 12 Angry Men analogy actually points away from your suggestion. There were twelve intelligent men in that room and yet only one thought to question what seemed obvious, just as there are several (highly) intelligent people on this thread and yet only one thought to mention Richardson's positioning when lowering and rising. I have been reading these debates for years (often wishing people wouldn't cat call each other, since I've grown rather fond of you all) and to the best of my knowledge never once until I mentioned it has anyone ever talked about where Richardson would be positioning himself before and after sitting on the step - despite years of debate. It is ALWAYS 'would he or would her not close the door behind himself to fettle with his boot' or else 'could he see the body from his sitting position?' I didn't think of it myself until recently, and that's after many years of Ripper reading. So yes, I do believe that the police missed that one.

Moot point (or is it) "Remember the incontrovertible evidence from the man awakened by a passing train" - it was a woman not a man. Note as well that after juror number ten explains that he believes the boy, whom he assumes is a liar because he's "one of them", is guilty based on said woman's testimony, Fonda's character (Davis) says: "I'd like to ask you something. You don't believe the boy's story. How come you believe the woman's? She's one of them, too, isn't she?" This reminds me of your recent "I think that the entire boot repair story was an embellishment". Well, if the police "can not be assumed to have been completely stupid" how come they believed him?

Hi Hair Bear,

The possible methods used by Richardson to sit on the step were discussed in the early months of this thread. My view is that for his usual procedure he would have had his right foot on the top step and put his left on the middle step while holding the door jamb with his right hand and the edge of the door with his left hand to enable him to keep his balance while he leaned down to view the lock. That's what I think happened on the 8th, but for sake of argument, I think he would then have put his right foot on the flags between the house stairs and the cellar stairs and sat down on the middle step turned clockwise towards the cellar. This would have the door resting against his left arm. I have lately been wondering if there was any lighting in the passageway. With both doors closed it would have been very dark for those attempting to negotiate their way along it. If there was lighting, it would have assisted his boot repair sitting in the above position. I am guessing that maybe I am the only one old enough to have worn a full lace-up pair of boots and to know how ridiculous it is to suggest that a boot could be unlaced, removed, trimmed of leather from the toe by manoeuvring a blunt knife around the ankle bend, putting the boot back on and re-lacing it all in under two minutes. But having effected his repair and replaced and laced the boot, he stands up, still turned to his right, turns to the right and up the stairs and away. JMO.

I watched "Twelve Angry Men" again tonight and you are right, the witness was a woman...the frailty of memory in action. I was impressed with a number of parallels to these discussions. The old man hearing the argument and a thump upstairs, which he could not have done due to the noise of the train, being attributed attributed to transference of an earlier argument. The timing of his trip to his door to see the suspect running away. The unrelenting insistence of the Lee J Cobb character that the evidence was overwhelming and his constant questioning of why would the witnesses lie, which they didn't, being rather fooled by their memory.

As for your last question - why did the police believe him? I don't think they did, but I will expand on that in my next post in a reply to Doc.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I believe that you are once again using a newspaper article as fact, whereas the official report made by Swanson, which is fact, does not say anything about Phillips calling for a conference with the police, nor deciding that the door would have obstructed Richardson's vision.

Swanson actually wrote on 19th October, that if Dr Phillips was correct with his ToD, "it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body". That is clear evidence that the police did not conclude that the door would have obstructed his vision. He stressed that the police investigated Richardson's story thoroughly and could not fault it. Slightly odd if we are expected to believe that Richardson kept changing his story! It is likely, but not firmly established, that their investigation included checking Richardson's line of vision at the site, and that he had borrowed a knife at the market when he arrived there etc.

Swanson basically muses that if Phillips was correct he could not understand that Richardson missed the body, and also that if Mrs Long was correct, then Phillips was incorrect. So, it seems that the police were not persuaded that Phillips was correct, and it seems to be certain that Swanson was keeping an open mind. The ToD was not positively accepted.

Hi Doc,

"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

"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."

I fully appreciate that we are once again deriving different interpretations from the same text. You are seeing Swanson questioning Phillip's ToD in favour of the witnesses. I see it the other way around. IMO it does not follow that because the police were unable to prove anything against Richardson that they necessarily agreed with him over Phillips. My opinion in this regard is also swayed by this, from the files of the Home Office (Ref. HO/144/220/A49301C, f 8g);

" doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl."

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Maybe I’m wrong but I even think that if I wasn’t on here favouring a later ToD some (I’m not saying all) might be more receptive to it.
To quote Slartibartfast "that's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the Universe has that.”

PS, you previously demanded examples where a doctor had altered his ToD estimation to fit witness testimony. I mentioned two cases where this occurred. You never acknowledged that I’d done what you asked.

Hi Herlock,

I have to admit that I missed those cases too. Can you give me a post# please?

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

I have to admit that I missed those cases too. Can you give me a post# please?

Cheers, George

To be honest George i vaguely remember seeing them, but im sure herlock will provide the post for us , that doesnt mean that Baxter or Browm altered their t.o.d with Stride and Eddowes tho . So i believe you post about them cribbing their notes still stands . #4636 i think it was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many times do I have to keep telling you I am not dismissing the witnesses all I am doing is pointing out the flaws in their testimony which you cannot seem to see or appreciate the impact the flaws have in determining a TOD.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And how many times do I, and others, have to keep explaining to you how inconsequential or even non-existent these flaws are. It’s only because certain people, like yourself, raise them to a level of importance that they don’t merit that they become issues.

Whatever you keep saying Trevor, apart from the obvious - that witnesses can be mistaken, there is absolutely no solid evidence that throws any doubt on Cadosch for example. So any balanced assessment of him leaves us with no option but to say that the chances of him hearing a noise from a distance away and mistakenly believing that it came from the fence next to him is unlikely in the extreme. And as we know that a sound couldn’t reasonable have come from a yard that contained a corpse then we are left with no alternative explanation that isn’t barking mad. Add the ‘no’ which he, at least initially, believed came from number 29 and our conclusion can’t be other that that it was overwhelmingly likely that he heard someone alive in that yard when he said that he did.

Why can’t you accept this? Why do you keep trying to brush witnesses off with generalities and assumptions? And what’s most staggering of all is that you, a former Police Officer, rely on these trivialities and non-issues to bolster a ToD estimate which you yourself admit was unreliable. How does that make sense?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I have to admit that I missed those cases too. Can you give me a post# please?

Cheers, George

Hello George,

I’ll cut and paste rather than link (but it’s post 4666)


The classic case was Dr Charles Graham Grant in the 1904 Emily Farmer murder case. His estimated time of death didn't match witness evidence about the movements of the alleged murderers and he changed his estimate.

David also showed that Professor Bernard Knight changed his evidence about the time of death of Peggy Pentecost in 1939 following witness evidence showing that the accused man was innocent if his original estimate was correct.

Just two examples but examples nonetheless. And Bernard Knight was a bit of a legend in Forensic medicine.

——————

No one is suggesting that this always happened or even happened regularly George and I’m not claiming with certainty that it happened in this case but it has happened. Doctors are human of course and if a Doctor had estimated a ToD of say 2.00 - 3.00 but a reliable witness (or two) put the victim alive 3.45 would we really expect the Doctor to rigidly adhere to his original estimation? Or revise it to 2.00 - 4.00?

[Hair Bear]

Hi Hair Bear,

The possible methods used by Richardson to sit on the step were discussed in the early months of this thread. My view is that for his usual procedure he would have had his right foot on the top step and put his left on the middle step while holding the door jamb with his right hand and the edge of the door with his left hand to enable him to keep his balance while he leaned down to view the lock. That's what I think happened on the 8th, but for sake of argument, I think he would then have put his right foot on the flags between the house stairs and the cellar stairs and sat down on the middle step turned clockwise towards the cellar. This would have the door resting against his left arm. I have lately been wondering if there was any lighting in the passageway. With both doors closed it would have been very dark for those attempting to negotiate their way along it. If there was lighting, it would have assisted his boot repair sitting in the above position. I am guessing that maybe I am the only one old enough to have worn a full lace-up pair of boots and to know how ridiculous it is to suggest that a boot could be unlaced, removed, trimmed of leather from the toe by manoeuvring a blunt knife around the ankle bend, putting the boot back on and re-lacing it all in under two minutes. But having effected his repair and replaced and laced the boot, he stands up, still turned to his right, turns to the right and up the stairs and away. JMO.

I watched "Twelve Angry Men" again tonight and you are right, the witness was a woman...the frailty of memory in action. I was impressed with a number of parallels to these discussions. The old man hearing the argument and a thump upstairs, which he could not have done due to the noise of the train, being attributed attributed to transference of an earlier argument. The timing of his trip to his door to see the suspect running away. The unrelenting insistence of the Lee J Cobb character that the evidence was overwhelming and his constant questioning of why would the witnesses lie, which they didn't, being rather fooled by their memory.

As for your last question - why did the police believe him? I don't think they did, but I will expand on that in my next post in a reply to Doc.

Cheers, George

Thank you for your reply. If ever you get near some steps that (reasonably) mirror 29 Hanbury St, I'd be interested in you filming this so I can see exactly what you mean, although I will attempt it myself.

"The possible methods used by Richardson to sit on the step were discussed in the early months of this thread" Indeed, but I went through them and no one mentioned anything along the lines of my suggestion.

I read your reply to Doc, and whilst I personally don't see that Swanson's report necessarily comes down on anyone's side, I get your drift (and doc's). That said, I'm more interested in your thoughts regarding Chandler's "but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable" followed four days later by "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 tells me that, contrary to your "why did the police believe him? I don't think they did" the police did believe Richardson. Perhaps they changed their view by the time Swanson wrote his report (subjective) but I don't see how the newspaper report about Chandler and then Phillips/the police can be interpreted any way other than their believing Richardson.

Finally, "I am guessing that maybe I am the only one old enough to have worn a full lace-up pair of boots and to know how ridiculous it is to suggest that a boot could be unlaced, removed, trimmed of leather from the toe by manoeuvring a blunt knife around the ankle bend, putting the boot back on and re-lacing it all in under two minutes." Haha, back to Fonda and the old man getting to the door, lol. I think I will have a go at this as well. Reckon I could do it in two minutes, but we shall see.

[GBinOz]

Body found in area where Cadosche heard a noise. And not even Fishy has come up with what may have made that noise

Hi AP,

I did post this before, but the response was a deafening silence (for good reason I'm sure you will suggest). But, on the basis that it is pure speculation:

The couple seen by Long in the street were not Jack and Annie, but they did enter into #29 for immoral purposes. They open the back door at the moment when Cadosch is in the doorway returning from his first trip to the Loo, and the woman exclaims a shocked "No". The couple is unaware that Cadosch has just disappeared into his house. The woman is in dire financial straits and during the 4 minutes that Cadosch is inside, the couple discuss robbing the body, and the chances of getting caught at a murder site (they are, after all, already there). The man wants no part of it and leaves, but the woman proceeds with her plan. When Cadosch appears at the door she hides behind the fence. When he returns from the loo, this time her attempt to hide results in her bumping the fence. Cadosch ignores the noise, returns inside and the woman scarpers.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

I’ll cut and paste rather than link (but it’s post 4666)


The classic case was Dr Charles Graham Grant in the 1904 Emily Farmer murder case. His estimated time of death didn't match witness evidence about the movements of the alleged murderers and he changed his estimate.

David also showed that Professor Bernard Knight changed his evidence about the time of death of Peggy Pentecost in 1939 following witness evidence showing that the accused man was innocent if his original estimate was correct.

Just two examples but examples nonetheless. And Bernard Knight was a bit of a legend in Forensic medicine.

——————

No one is suggesting that this always happened or even happened regularly George and I’m not claiming with certainty that it happened in this case but it has happened. Doctors are human of course and if a Doctor had estimated a ToD of say 2.00 - 3.00 but a reliable witness (or two) put the victim alive 3.45 would we really expect the Doctor to rigidly adhere to his original estimation? Or revise it to 2.00 - 4.00?

Thanks for that info Herlock. With regard to the above boldened, I daresay the temptation could present itself. Having read a little about Phillips I would be reluctant to apply that standard to him.......but on the other hand, I'm still waiting for someone to suggest that he was Jack.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

"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."

I fully appreciate that we are once again deriving different interpretations from the same text. You are seeing Swanson questioning Phillip's ToD in favour of the witnesses. I see it the other way around. IMO it does not follow that because the police were unable to prove anything against Richardson that they necessarily agreed with him over Phillips. My opinion in this regard is also swayed by this, from the files of the Home Office (Ref. HO/144/220/A49301C, f 8g);

" doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl."

Cheers, George

Hi George,

No, I am not trying to say that Swanson favoured the witness evidence, I am saying that he retained an open mind on the issue, that he says nothing about Phillips reverting to his original ToD, despite having expressed his reservations about it at the inquest, and that Swanson did not think that the door obstructed Richardson's vision. He doesn't say that he believed Richardson over Phillips, or vice versa, he mused that if one was correct, the other had to be wrong. I am not likely to be swayed by what, I think, were the Home Office opinions as they were not investigating the matter.

I was really saying that when we have newspaper speculation and a detailed official Swanson report, I favour the latter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for that info Herlock. With regard to the above boldened, I daresay the temptation could present itself. Having read a little about Phillips I would be reluctant to apply that standard to him.......but on the other hand, I'm still waiting for someone to suggest that he was Jack.

Cheers, George

No one has any reason to impugn Phillips integrity of course George. Or his knowledge or experience. But if new and solid information turned up? I know it never happened of course but if the ripper had been caught and he said that he killed Annie at 5.30 (and gave valid evidence for that time) he wouldn’t have had much choice. I’m guessing that he would have said something like “my original estimation was just that. An estimation. And I did mention the more rapid cooling which could account for a ToD later than my estimation.”

[Doctored Whatsit]

One thing that I have always wondered about Victorian doctors and their estimated ToDs, is that because we know nowadays just how approximate an estimated ToD can be, how accurate did Dr Phillips believe he could be? As a very experienced police surgeon, did he believe that he was merely helping the police by expressing a reasonably accurate opinion which might be of some guidance for them, or did he really believe he could be especially accurate? His inquest caveat may suggest that he was aware of the potential flaws in the method.

Some contributors here seem to believe that he was almost totally reliable, and that he was absolutely convinced of this himself. Personally, I think a thoroughly experienced police surgeon may well have been aware that he could only give a reasonable guide in many instances. In the cases of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes they could be fairly confident because they had fresh blood, not yet congealed, to take into account, so minutes rather than hours. When presented with a later ToD, as in the case of Kelly, they were very vague, and admitted they couldn't be sure.

[JeffHamm]

He wasn't there. There was no point, so he didn't bother. He just didn't go.

God knows how many days he pretended he'd done the pointless pre-work checking of a padlock to please his nutcase mother. And then, suddenly, there's a day that gets etched into history. And he wasn't there...

M.

And so, having not been there, he decides to show up, on the day, tell Chandler he was there. And then, just for jollies, decides to up the anti by saying he was there with a knife! And the keystone cops of the day couldn't find a flaw in all the lies he told, because, that's the sort of thing you make up when you want to fool people.

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi AP,

I did post this before, but the response was a deafening silence (for good reason I'm sure you will suggest). But, on the basis that it is pure speculation:

The couple seen by Long in the street were not Jack and Annie, but they did enter into #29 for immoral purposes. They open the back door at the moment when Cadosch is in the doorway returning from his first trip to the Loo, and the woman exclaims a shocked "No". The couple is unaware that Cadosch has just disappeared into his house. The woman is in dire financial straits and during the 4 minutes that Cadosch is inside, the couple discuss robbing the body, and the chances of getting caught at a murder site (they are, after all, already there). The man wants no part of it and leaves, but the woman proceeds with her plan. When Cadosch appears at the door she hides behind the fence. When he returns from the loo, this time her attempt to hide results in her bumping the fence. Cadosch ignores the noise, returns inside and the woman scarpers.

Cheers, George

As theories go, it has far more going for it than most and infinitely more than Albert simply having a phantom memory. Or just "They were al wrong because... 4.30!"

My instinct tells me that given the absolute state the body was in, that the likelihood of a reaction not involving a scream of some description is unlikely. I know these ladies were not the sort Jane Austen wrote about who would have swooned and fainted at the mere mention of blood, but at the very least a "What the ^&$%ing Hell is THAT!" kind of reaction.
My first thought was slightly different and that was that whoever led the other into the alley, would have probably thought, "Holy £$%^ is THAT why they brought me in here?" and some sort of defence mechanism would kick in and given that it's still only dawn but the sun is pretty close to peeping up... I think at least one would just leg it Does that make sense?

I'm trying not to sound like I'm negging it for the sake of it, but I'm struggling to get behind that situation where its both quiet at the moment they discover it, and kept quiet about it afterward. HE would have been terrified of being the main suspect of course so he would have kept his gob shut, but SHE would have had a tale to tell. (She would leave out the bit about nicking Polly's rings of course) and probably wouldn't have been too far away from her next skinful of gin amidst what would be the Talk of The Tavern.

While it's a good theory for dealing with Alberts noise, it still doesn't overcome the problem of Richardson not seeing the body half an hour or so earlier.

[A P Tomlinson]

In that James Mason short snippet, there is a gate just to the left of the privvy in the back wall facing the celler steps of #29. I've not seen or read anything about that ever being mentioned. Does anyone have anything on where it led? Was it added later? It looks original. Was it just leading to the back end of the yard or a running passageway? Or maybe a wider space?
The plans show a big building? Am I reading that right??

Can any of the cartographically inclined researchers give me a pointer on that?

Or is that a question for a more general Chapman discussion?