John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

Do you know the difference between a surgeon and God? God doesn’t think he’s a surgeon.

Hi Doc,

I think that doctors in 1888 were confident in their profession, but were also cognisant that they were providing an estimate. The profession had an established routine to formulate that estimate - body temperature and rigor onset at the crime scene, with the addition of an analysis of stomach content at the autopsy. I note that the "Caveat" included only a consideration of the effect of a cold morning and blood loss on the body's temperature. I believe that Phillips must have also had in mind that rigor usually commenced after two hours, and was retarded by cold temperature , and that "Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.". As I have said, IMO he was confident about the "at least two hours" but felt that under the circumstances, the "probably more" fell into the category of uncharted territory.

Modern theory is that the 1888 methods were unreliable, and I do not dispute that assertion. I do wonder, how unreliable. As you stated, they seemed to be less unreliable with the shorter times involved with Nicols, Stride and Eddowes, and more unreliable, with a larger difference between doctor's estimates, in the case of Kelly, which was even further into uncharted territory. IMO, the one hour since death in the case of Chapman is too little by comparison to Nicols, Stride and Eddowes given the warmth of their bodies, and the coldness of Chapman. The additional rigor and stomach content analysis persuade me that, overall, there is a likelyhood that she had been dead longer than one hour.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

We appear to be more or less in agreement about the expertise and confidence of Victorian police surgeons, and our real differences are in the area of the exact significance of Phillips' caveat. For me, he doesn't say a single word steering us to a revised ToD, only a recognition that he could be wrong - and I do recognise that he doesn't say that he was wrong. I therefore cannot see any evidence that he expressed confidence about the "two hours" only. His complete lack of any revised ToD, or any apparent guidance in that direction, led to the allowing of the witness evidence to be considered. As an experienced police surgeon, he must have realised that this would have been inevitable.

But we've been here before, and I am happy to agree to differ on this, rather than repeat old arguments. I would however, be happy to consider anything you see in his caveat that suggests only a partial withdrawal of his original ToD, and a suggestion of how much later he thought it might possibly have been. .

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's an astonishing inability to read an article and consider that which is presented to you. By the way, not the only article, hundreds of them on the same subject at the click of a google button, on the first page, and the second page, and so on.

Unless you’re talking about another article and not the one entitled Eyewitness Testimony And Memory Bias I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. There is no second page. It’s a one page article with 6 section headings plus a Conclusion paragraph.

The first section is What Is Eye Witness testimony - self-explanatory.

The second section is Why Is Eyewitness Testimony An Important Area Of Psychological Research - self explanatory.

The third section is about The Misinformation Effect and it’s not relevant to Richardson or Cadosch.

The fourth section is about Identifying Perpetrators so clearly not relevant to Richardson or Cadosch.

The fifth section is Kinds Of Memory Bias which aren’t relevant to Richardson or Cadosch.

The sixth section is False Memory which isn’t relevant to Richardson and Cadosch.

The a conclusion.

Cadosch wasn’t an eyewitness and Richardson sat on a step and all that he had to do was to recall looking into a yard less than three hours earlier and state if he could have missed seeing an entrails-strewn corpse that hadn’t been there the last time he’d visited.

As I said……totally irrelevant.

[Hair Bear]

Just to lighten the mood[ATTACH=JSON]n820807[/ATTACH]

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to lighten the mood[ATTACH=JSON]n820807[/ATTACH]

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I think you have defined a major problem with Cadosch's testimony, that being the gap between the "No" and the bump against the fence. The gap would actually be more than four minutes as that is how long Cadosch testified he was in the house, and the unknown time he spent in the Loo the second time has to be added. To me, his initial story to the press involving a single visit to the Loo, with a conversation, the "no", a scuffle and the sound of a fall against the fence occurring consecutively was more credible. But of course there is the possibility that the "No" was unrelated.

The other major problem that you mentioned is the daylight murder (sunrise was 5.23) not being the M.O. of Jack, with its exposure to an audience of potential witnesses, and on that I am in full agreement with yourself and Trevor. The time taken to visit the injuries upon the body is disputed, but the only person that I know with actual experience of surgical procedures (my daughter) considers that 15 minutes could be considered reasonable, even for a slash and grab.

While Cadosch did mention crates in #29, I think the evidence points to the fact that there were none there that morning. While there is a definite possibility that animals such as rats or a cat may have been attracted to the body, I'm not sure that they would have been deterred by someone next door, and I think their activity would have been noticed by Phillips.

I have experienced the bump noise that occurs in a building or structure, such as a fence, when the sun goes behind, or emerges from behind a cloud, and at sunrise and sunset, so I don't dismiss that possibility either. But it also has to be considered that it could have been related to the murder, and that is why, IMO, "the bump" only forms part of the jigsaw that needs to be examined when forming an opinion.

Cheers, George

Thank George , As we know already, the more the evidence is discussed and examined closely , the more evident it becomes that witness testimony in the Chapman murder is unreliable , ambiguous and full of uncertainty as to determine an accurate t.od . .

The debate will no doubt continue for those who refuse to acknowledge this fact .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank George , As we know already, the more the evidence is discussed and examined closely , the more evident it becomes that witness testimony in the Chapman murder is unreliable , ambiguous and full of uncertainty as to determine an accurate t.od . .

The debate will no doubt continue for those who refuse to acknowledge this fact .

The more evidence is discussed the more it becomes apparent how much effort it takes to try and invent stuff to bolster this fallacy that the witnesses are ambiguous. Trivialities have to be exaggerated; molehills into mountains. So much so that we get you resorting to inventing packing cases that weren’t there just to bolster an idea. Something which as usual you won’t admit to and that you’ll just ignore hoping that no one notices.

Cadosch heard a noise from number 29 - nothing uncertain about that, nothing ambiguous, he said it in English. There’s no reason for assuming that he lied. There’s no reason for assuming that he’s mistaken. And you have the nerve to suggest rats!! Then try and paint yourself as if you’re the one taking a balanced view. Give me strength.

Cadosch heard a ‘no’ and if he was using the English language in a normal way then it actually tells us that he was talking about which side of number 29 the noise came from. There is not a single argument that anyone can put up which can dismiss or disprove this interpretation. At best someone can say “I interpret it differently.” No problem but that only gives us at best 50-50 possibility that he expressed any doubt about whether the ‘no’ came from number 29 side or number 25 side. And of course, even if he was cautious about the ‘no’ this has nothing to do with his hearing of the noise. Which he was definitely totally certain of. The denigration attempted of Cadosch’s testimony is deliberate and totally without merit. Cadosch is an excellent witness unless you are rigidly adhering to an agenda. Which you are. And you’re doing it purely because it benefits the theory that you support.

Could Richardson have lied about what he’d done. No. It’s a babyish, silly, utterly devoid of merit idea which should be categorically dismissed without a second thought. But it won’t be of course because it’s felt that Philips has to be defended. There is no issue with his testimony. Could he have missed seeing a corpse sprayed across the yard. Not a chance. Richardson is an excellent witness.

The faith in Phillips is ludicrous and contrary to the known facts. A medical man in 1888 simply didn't have the ability to accurately estimate time of death of a corpse because medical science itself wasn't sufficiently advanced by this time - see David Barrat's 2023 book The Temperature of Death". But it won’t tell you what you want to hear and I know that you only read books that tell you what you want to hear. Others should try it though and they might see sense and drop once-and-for-all this infantile faith in a Victorian Doctors abilities.

The evidence if viewed fairly and without bias clearly, obvious, transparently, overwhelmingly points to a later ToD whether it fits your theory or not. You should try being more objective.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy.
Sorry to point out, you have fallen into the same trap of not comparing the press reports.
Your example has been edited, it is not correct.
I'm not sure which paper you got it from, but here is the Daily News version of Chandler's testimony that contains more detail.

Did you see John Richardson? - Later on in the morning, a little before seven o'clock. It was in the passage of 29, Hanbury-street. He told me he had been in the house that morning, about a quarter to five.
Did he say what for? - He said he went into the back yard and down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market.
Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
Did he say he was sure the woman was not there? - Yes.
By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down.

We have to compare press accounts to get the complete story.
The above being a more detailed account demonstrates why Richardson was so sure the body had not been there. It would have been pretty impossible to have missed it when he was standing at the top of the cellar steps.

Hi Wick ,

The version i quoted from comes from the ''Daily Telegraph'' which is shown here on casebook when referencing inquest testimony , im not entirely sure how you know for a fact, how anyone can prove it was incorrect or ''Edited'' for that matter . IF anything what you have shown is what myself and others such asTrevor and George have been saying all along. That is, all the conflicting testimony in regards to .t.o.d where witnesses are concerned that shows high levels of inconsistancies of what may or may not be true .

This in my opinion the whole problem with all things JtR related, its the ''which source'' of information one refers to that supports his/or her theory that lead to never ending unprovable debate . I just dont see how someone can say '' my press article is right and yours therefor must be wrong. !. cheers tho

[GBinOz]

The evidence if viewed fairly and without bias clearly, obvious, transparently, overwhelmingly points to a later ToD whether it fits your theory or not. You should try being more objective.

Hi Herlock,

Don't water it down, tell it to us straight.

I think we are all aware of your strongly held opinions. My probabilities meter is still hovering just above half way, so if, as you asked me before, incontrovertible evidence were found, and it established without doubt that the murder was later, I would be justified in saying that I was slightly out in my assessment of the preponderance of evidence. I don't know that I would change my opinion about the testimony of Long. I would have to say that the likelihood of Richardson's story being true would increase, although I may still have some reservations about the boot repair. I would say that even though Cadosch presented his testimony with a caveat that he did not venture to glance over the fence because what he heard was not unusual, I would have to assess that what he heard was murder related.

If incontrovertible evidence were found, and it established without doubt that the murder was earlier, having nailed your trousers to the mast, how would you then explain the Richardson testimony, the "No", and the bump? Having answered your question, I would hope that, on the proviso that any answer you provide would be strictly reluctant speculation, you will return the favour. It is only reasonable that alternatives be at least considered.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Hi Herlock,

Don't water it down, tell it to us straight.

I think we are all aware of your strongly held opinions. My probabilities meter is still hovering just above half way, so if, as you asked me before, incontrovertible evidence were found, and it established without doubt that the murder was later, I would be justified in saying that I was slightly out in my assessment of the preponderance of evidence. I don't know that I would change my opinion about the testimony of Long. I would have to say that the likelihood of Richardson's story being true would increase, although I may still have some reservations about the boot repair. I would say that even though Cadosch presented his testimony with a caveat that he did not venture to glance over the fence because what he heard was not unusual, I would have to assess that what he heard was murder related.

If incontrovertible evidence were found, and it established without doubt that the murder was earlier, having nailed your trousers to the mast, how would you then explain the Richardson testimony, the "No", and the bump? Having answered your question, I would hope that, on the proviso that any answer you provide would be strictly reluctant speculation, you will return the favour. It is only reasonable that alternatives be at least considered.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

As another who thinks that the later TOD is more likely, I'll take a stab at that one. If an early TOD were incontrovertibly proven to be the case, I would conclude that Richardson was almost certainly lying about something, and probably lying about having not seen the body. As it is, I consider Richardson a longshot Ripper suspect, and not even one of the stronger longshots, but in the proven early TOD scenario, he would be one of my top suspects, though there could be other possible reasons for him to be lying. It would mean the noise against the fence was caused by a very improbable scenario such as the ones that you and I mentioned yesterday. The "no" could be part of such an improbable scenario, or it could be that Cadosch was mistaken about where the "no" came from, a possibility that he allowed for according to my interpretation of what he said.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick ,

The version i quoted from comes from the ''Daily Telegraph'' which is shown here on casebook when referencing inquest testimony , im not entirely sure how you know for a fact, how anyone can prove it was incorrect or ''Edited'' for that matter . IF anything what you have shown is what myself and others such asTrevor and George have been saying all along. That is, all the conflicting testimony in regards to .t.o.d where witnesses are concerned that shows high levels of inconsistancies of what may or may not be true .

This in my opinion the whole problem with all things JtR related, its the ''which source'' of information one refers to that supports his/or her theory that lead to never ending unprovable debate . I just dont see how someone can say '' my press article is right and yours therefor must be wrong. !. cheers tho

Hi Fishy.

Have you read Jack the Ripper & The London Press?
There are many alternate sources, but it's likely the easiest source to get a copy of. The author explains how the press handled these stories and why some can read different to others. I made a post of it some time back.
As for editing, that was normal. All the press accounts are edited to a greater or lesser degree. Stories had to be made to fit available columns on designated pages.
There's one very obvious example in the Daily News, 13 Oct.
Note all the testimony between the two lines I made bold.

This extract:

Was the front door open on Saturday morning.
The Witness-No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot.
What sort of a knife did you use?-One four or five inches long.
What do you usually use that knife for?-I had been using it to cut up a piece of carrot for the rabbit, and I afterwards put it in my pocket.
Do you generally keep it in your pocket?-No.
Why did you put it there on this occasion?-I suppose it was a mistake on my part.
When you had cut the piece of leather off your boot did you leave the house?-Yes. I tied my boot up and went out. I did not close the back door. It closes itself. I shut the front door. I was not in the house more than two minutes at the most. It was not quite light, but enough for me to see.
Did you notice any object in the yard?-No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.
You have heard where she was found?-Yes, I saw the body.
How came you to see it?-A man in the market told me there had been a murder in Hanbury-street. He did not know at which house. I saw the body from the adjoining yard.
When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.
Then all you did at Hanbury-street was to cut your boot?-That's all, sir.
Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.


Then you look for the same section of testimony in The Daily Telegraph, 13 Oct.


Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.

Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.

You can see for yourself all the omitted testimony in the Daily Telegraph version, but then a rephrased and abbreviated paragraph is appended.
I know this is an unimportant section, I spend hours going over press stories comparing sentences and paragraphs, so it isn't a case of one preferred version, but as I always maintain, we need to collate as many sources as we can to build a broader picture of what happened.

The testimony that refers to Richardson sitting or standing on the steps, and which of the two sets of steps, is confused between some press versions which suggests to me the press at the inquest were unsure what the witnesses were trying to describe.
Couple that with editing and we are left with an incomplete description of what Richardson did, that he evidently sat on the house steps, but stood at the top of the cellar steps.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy.

Have you read Jack the Ripper & The London Press?
There are many alternate sources, but it's likely the easiest source to get a copy of. The author explains how the press handled these stories and why some can read different to others. I made a post of it some time back.
As for editing, that was normal. All the press accounts are edited to a greater or lesser degree. Stories had to be made to fit available columns on designated pages.
There's one very obvious example in the Daily News, 13 Oct.
Note all the testimony between the two lines I made bold.

This extract:

Was the front door open on Saturday morning.
The Witness-No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot.
What sort of a knife did you use?-One four or five inches long.
What do you usually use that knife for?-I had been using it to cut up a piece of carrot for the rabbit, and I afterwards put it in my pocket.
Do you generally keep it in your pocket?-No.
Why did you put it there on this occasion?-I suppose it was a mistake on my part.
When you had cut the piece of leather off your boot did you leave the house?-Yes. I tied my boot up and went out. I did not close the back door. It closes itself. I shut the front door. I was not in the house more than two minutes at the most. It was not quite light, but enough for me to see.
Did you notice any object in the yard?-No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.
You have heard where she was found?-Yes, I saw the body.
How came you to see it?-A man in the market told me there had been a murder in Hanbury-street. He did not know at which house. I saw the body from the adjoining yard.
When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.
Then all you did at Hanbury-street was to cut your boot?-That's all, sir.
Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.


Then you look for the same section of testimony in The Daily Telegraph, 13 Oct.


Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.

Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.

You can see for yourself all the omitted testimony in the Daily Telegraph version, but then a rephrased and abbreviated paragraph is appended.
I know this is an unimportant section, I spend hours going over press stories comparing sentences and paragraphs, so it isn't a case of one preferred version, but as I always maintain, we need to collate as many sources as we can to build a broader picture of what happened.

The testimony that refers to Richardson sitting or standing on the steps, and which of the two sets of steps, is confused between some press versions which suggests to me the press at the inquest were unsure what the witnesses were trying to describe.
Couple that with editing and we are left with an incomplete description of what Richardson did, that he evidently sat on the house steps, but stood at the top of the cellar steps.

Sorry Wick,But im still not sure how we get to Richardson standing at the top of the cellar door looking at the lock , just because one press report says it and the other doesnt . I just dont see how based on your above post that makes the Daily Telegraphs version wrong . Jmo. I think we,ll just disagree on this one .

[FISHY1118]

The more evidence is discussed the more it becomes apparent how much effort it takes to try and invent stuff to bolster this fallacy that the witnesses are ambiguous. Trivialities have to be exaggerated; molehills into mountains. So much so that we get you resorting to inventing packing cases that weren’t there just to bolster an idea. Something which as usual you won’t admit to and that you’ll just ignore hoping that no one notices.

Cadosch heard a noise from number 29 - nothing uncertain about that, nothing ambiguous, he said it in English. There’s no reason for assuming that he lied. There’s no reason for assuming that he’s mistaken. And you have the nerve to suggest rats!! Then try and paint yourself as if you’re the one taking a balanced view. Give me strength.

Cadosch heard a ‘no’ and if he was using the English language in a normal way then it actually tells us that he was talking about which side of number 29 the noise came from. There is not a single argument that anyone can put up which can dismiss or disprove this interpretation. At best someone can say “I interpret it differently.” No problem but that only gives us at best 50-50 possibility that he expressed any doubt about whether the ‘no’ came from number 29 side or number 25 side. And of course, even if he was cautious about the ‘no’ this has nothing to do with his hearing of the noise. Which he was definitely totally certain of. The denigration attempted of Cadosch’s testimony is deliberate and totally without merit. Cadosch is an excellent witness unless you are rigidly adhering to an agenda. Which you are. And you’re doing it purely because it benefits the theory that you support.

Could Richardson have lied about what he’d done. No. It’s a babyish, silly, utterly devoid of merit idea which should be categorically dismissed without a second thought. But it won’t be of course because it’s felt that Philips has to be defended. There is no issue with his testimony. Could he have missed seeing a corpse sprayed across the yard. Not a chance. Richardson is an excellent witness.

The faith in Phillips is ludicrous and contrary to the known facts. A medical man in 1888 simply didn't have the ability to accurately estimate time of death of a corpse because medical science itself wasn't sufficiently advanced by this time - see David Barrat's 2023 book The Temperature of Death". But it won’t tell you what you want to hear and I know that you only read books that tell you what you want to hear. Others should try it though and they might see sense and drop once-and-for-all this infantile faith in a Victorian Doctors abilities.

The evidence if viewed fairly and without bias clearly, obvious, transparently, overwhelmingly points to a later ToD whether it fits your theory or not. You should try being more objective.

shown to

Well thats your interpretation of the evidence ,and you,ve repeated it often enough , but you haven t presented anything ''New'' since the topic begain that hasnt already been shown to be uncertain , unreilable and contradictory as far as witness testimony goes .

The fact that Goerge and Trevor who are also of the same opinion as myself with regards to a ''possible'' earlier .t.o.d , and have both presented agruments that have shown the points in your above post to be found wanting and unsafe and opinion based. But Not Factual .

[GBinOz]

I would conclude that Richardson was almost certainly lying about something, and probably lying about having not seen the body.

Hi LC,

That is a very interesting notion. Suppose Richardson cut the initial leather from his boot at home with a very sharp knife, and slipped that knife into his pocket to effect more repairs if necessary. The boot still hurts his toe and he sits on the step to try to remove some more leather. I don't believe that, having already tried to remedy the boot problem at home with a sharp knife, and failed, that he would even have contemplated trying again with a blunt, broken, rusty knife. He sits on the step, sees the body and thinks Oh #&@*, if I'm caught here, or if someone has seen me come in, or I have been seen in the yard so near the body, I could swing for murder. So he goes to the market and borrows a knife to support his boot repair story. He doesn't tell Chandler about the boot repair because he thinks that Chandler might search him and find the sharp knife, but he tells Chandler that he is sure the body wasn't there. When he falls under suspicion, and the coroner asks him to fetch the knife, he brings back a different knife that obviously could not have been used to kill Annie. Nothing can be proved against him because he didn't actually kill her....or did he?

Cheers, George

[Hair Bear]

EVERYONE: Since we actually have footage of 29 Hanbury St, let's use it. I maintain that it would be unnatural to slide from the top step into a sitting position. You would walk your feet to the flagstones and then sit back. Here I have freeze-framed Mason walking to the flagstone. Picture three is the most telling. I have in fact edited and moved 'Richardson' backwards from where the freeze-frame has him, because I think if you were proposing to sit back rather than walk forward, you wouldn't take as large a step. So this is where he would be before sitting back. Yes, the door would be more this way if it shuts on itself, but I believe it would be natural to hold it open whilst you got into position. Even if Richardson weirdly did not do that perfectly natural thing, I do not believe the door would impede his view.

GEORGE: I know part of your scepticism comes from your belief that he couldn't remove a boot and faff with it for under two minutes. I tried removing and putting on a mate's awkward boot last night. Took me 15 seconds for the entire thing. That leaves 105 seconds for everything else, which by chance is the same time as the famous 1980 Coe V Ovett Olympic 800m men's final. Watch it, and then ask yourself if during that time you could walk down a couple of steps, sit back, faff about a bit, get up and then go.

[The Rookie Detective]

EVERYONE: Since we actually have footage of 29 Hanbury St, let's use it. I maintain that it would be unnatural to slide from the top step into a sitting position. You would walk your feet to the flagstones and then sit back. Here I have freeze-framed Mason walking to the flagstone. Picture three is the most telling. I have in fact edited and moved 'Richardson' backwards from where the freeze-frame has him, because I think if you were proposing to sit back rather than walk forward, you wouldn't take as large a step. So this is where he would be before sitting back. Yes, the door would be more this way if it shuts on itself, but I believe it would be natural to hold it open whilst you got into position. Even if Richardson weirdly did not do that perfectly natural thing, I do not believe the door would impede his view.

GEORGE: I know part of your scepticism comes from your belief that he couldn't remove a boot and faff with it for under two minutes. I tried removing and putting on a mate's awkward boot last night. Took me 15 seconds for the entire thing. That leaves 105 seconds for everything else, which by chance is the same time as the famous 1980 Coe V Ovett Olympic 800m men's final. Watch it, and then ask yourself if during that time you could walk down a couple of steps, sit back, faff about a bit, get up and then go.

Also to note that Mason was 5ft 11". (roughly same height as Pipeman)

I know that this wasn't the same fence that would have been there nearly 80 years earlier (Mason footage 1967) but the dimensions would have been similar.
This fence looks around 5ft 6" bearing in mind that it's around the same height as Mason's shoulders.

If the dimensions were the same as the previous fence then a killer under 5ft 7" wouldn't have been seen.

However, Cadosh said he heard the word "No" as he went back through the back door of number 27.

IF the "No" had come from someone in the yard of 29 Hanbury, then the only way for Cadosh to have not seen anyone in the yard of 29; based on his elevated position on the steps of 27, would have been if the person who said "No" had been standing plush up against the fence, ergo, the spot where Chapman was murdered.

The "No" may have also come from a person in the ground floor bedroom IF the window was open.


RD