Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

    If Phillips meant for his original ToD to stand, then why did he feel the need to add the caveat, and what do you claim that he meant by it? I think that the Coroner fully understood it, and he was there at the time. We are only reading various accounts from the newspapers.
    Hi Doc,

    [Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - 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 am inclined to agree with PI, that the caveat applied to the "probably more" part of his estimate. I would think that the alternative that is being proposed would have been expressed as:

    I should say at least two hours, but it could have been less because it was a fairly cold morning, and the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

    I just don't think he would have added the "probably more if he meant possibly less. JMO.

    Cheers, George


    They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
    Out of a misty dream
    Our path emerges for a while, then closes
    Within a dream.
    Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      No ‘context’ is required. If you can explain how Richardson managed to put his feet on the flags to sit down without going down the steps then a Nobel Prize might be heading your way.
      Hi Herlock,

      I can't speak for Fishy, but what is being proposed by Jon and Jeff is that he stood on the flags at the top of the cellar steps, but that he was still not in the yard. In my view, he may have put his left foot on the middle step, then his right foot on the flags (or the top of the brickwork of the cellar steps wall) and then the left foot on the bottom step in order to sit on the middle step. I can see that if (in England) the back door steps are not to be considered as part of the yard, then perhaps sitting on the middle step with just the feet on the flags could be considered as not going into the yard, but maybe this is just an Australian interpretation (btw, we call the ground floor the floor that is at ground level and the floor above that the first floor, or in some cases the mezzanine, and the driver sits on the right side of a car and drives on the left side of the road).

      So when can I pick up my Nobel Prize?

      Cheers, George
      They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
      Out of a misty dream
      Our path emerges for a while, then closes
      Within a dream.
      Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        No he didn’t make a mistake. It meant that he could understand the English language perfectly well. And as an experienced Coroner he had years of listening to Doctors and understanding what they meant. He understood exactly what Phillips meant. That he couldn’t possibly have added a caveat if it had no affect on his estimation. People don’t add caveats for no reason PI. Phillips added his caveat for a reason and that reason can only have been that he was making allowances for a later ToD whilst still favouring an earlier one.

        It really is very simple if people stop performing logical acrobatics to make it mean something illogical.

        ​We also have to ask why, if Baxter was wrong, did Phillips allow this misinterpretation of his professional opinion to go unchallenged? It appears all over the Press and he just keeps quiet? Is that believable?
        Not quite:

        Echo Sep 19:

        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.
        They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
        Out of a misty dream
        Our path emerges for a while, then closes
        Within a dream.
        Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          By the way Trevor. Over the years haven’t you been one that suggests that the same person didn’t kill all of the c5?
          Baxter thought that Eddowes was killed by an imitator, and not everyone is convinced that Kelly was killed by Jack.
          They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
          Out of a misty dream
          Our path emerges for a while, then closes
          Within a dream.
          Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

            A few obvious points. Chandler did not interview Richardson and take a statement from him at the site. He spoke to him briefly in the passage. Chandler said that he saw Richardson "a little before 7 o'clock", and then says he was at the mortuary "a few minutes after 7 o'clock". So his conversation with Richardson was very brief. He probably just satisfied himself that Richardson had valid evidence. There was no reason, nor was there time for Richardson to go into detail about everything that happened. So Richardson didn't tell him everything, because he couldn't have been asked.

            Richardson's sworn evidence was that he sat on the steps with his feet on the yard flagstones.

            Swanson makes it crystal clear that Richardson's story was checked thoroughly, and that they were unable to find fault with it. No suggestion from Swanson that Richardson changed his story.
            Hi Doc,

            Just a few comments.

            Chandler didn't seek out Richardson, Richardson sought out Chandler while the latter was engaged in investigating the crime scene and arranging the removal of the body.
            Daily Telegraph Sep 14:
            [Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

            Apparently Chandler considered Richardson's story to be of insufficient significance to warrant a follow up interview, as by the time of Richardson's testimony Chandler still knew nothing of the boot cutting story and Richardson was still in possession of the knife.

            Richardson became a person of interest when he testified that he had a knife at the scene, but exonerated himself by producing to Baxter a knife obviously inadequate for the task of Annie's murder, or shoe repair. Whatever suspicions the police had about Richardson, they had no proof, because they had only Richardson's word for what happened.

            Cheers, George
            Last edited by GBinOz; 10-15-2023, 12:59 AM.
            They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
            Out of a misty dream
            Our path emerges for a while, then closes
            Within a dream.
            Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


              Well, according to Jon Wickerman's standard, if Eddowes was drunk five hours before she met her murderer, and Chapman was drunk about 3 hours 40 minutes before her supposed time of death, then Chapman should have been nice and warm when Phillips examined her.
              Lets be clear, Eddowes was wailing like a fire engine, lying on the sidewalk, couldn't stand by herself, totally drunk, 5 hours before her murder, while Chapman was not acting drunk, even walking straight, so clearly nothing like as drunk as Eddowes.

              Lets compare apples with apples.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Thats not quite correct Timothy Donovan was asked by the coroner " [Coroner] "Was she the worse for drink when you saw her last?" - Donovan "She had had enough; of that I am certain"

                Dr Phillips stated "I am convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death" He falls short of saying no alcohol.
                So if Donovan is correct she had consumed alcohol, which leads us back to Dr Biggs comments which now again becomes relevant

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                I think you need to quantify how PC Robinson describes Eddowes, with how Donavon describes Chapman.
                Then explain how my post is "not quite correct".
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                  Talking of conflicting accounts: how could John Richardson have sat on the middle step and cut a piece of leather off his boot when the knife was evidently not sharp enough for that purpose and he had to borrow a sharper one?
                  The whole saga is littered with ambiguous, conflicting, uncertain accounts of what happened.
                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                    I am not sure that I understand the question.

                    When you use the word contest, perhaps you mean outweigh.

                    Biggs did not mention recent consumption of alcohol.

                    Why then should it be relevant?
                    An alcoholic has no alcohol in their digestive system, unless they drank alcohol in recent hours.
                    Just being an alcoholic has no bearing on rigor mortis.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                      I have the impression that not only do you think that you know more about what Biggs meant than we do, but that you think you know more about what Biggs meant than he did.
                      I'm reasonably sure we know more about the case than Biggs, that is evident from his vague comment, if it was actually written by Biggs.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post




                        We confess to sharing Mr. Phillips' view that the coldness of the body and commencing rigidity pointed to a far longer interval between death and discovery [than that suggested by the coroner]; but, as he remarked the almost total draining away of the blood, added to the exposure in the cold morning air, may have hastened the cooling down of the body.

                        (The Lancet, 29 September 1888)
                        ​​
                        Yes, and that is what some of us have been at pains to get across to you.

                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          Hi Herlock,

                          I can't speak for Fishy, but what is being proposed by Jon and Jeff is that he stood on the flags at the top of the cellar steps, but that he was still not in the yard. In my view, he may have put his left foot on the middle step, then his right foot on the flags (or the top of the brickwork of the cellar steps wall) and then the left foot on the bottom step in order to sit on the middle step. I can see that if (in England) the back door steps are not to be considered as part of the yard, then perhaps sitting on the middle step with just the feet on the flags could be considered as not going into the yard, but maybe this is just an Australian interpretation (btw, we call the ground floor the floor that is at ground level and the floor above that the first floor, or in some cases the mezzanine, and the driver sits on the right side of a car and drives on the left side of the road).

                          So when can I pick up my Nobel Prize?

                          Cheers, George
                          In all this kerfuffle we appear to have lost the point of the debate - that Richardson was correct when he said he must have seen the body if it had been there beside the fence.

                          You get your Noble Prize if you accept what he said.


                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • For what it's worth, regarding the never-ending debate about the meaning of Phillips' caveat, I forwarded the infamous "I should say [bla bla] greater portion of its blood" to an impartial mate for his opinion. He is the smartest cookie I know when it comes to the written word. He said:

                            I think it’s impossible to say, from the wording, whether he meant the caveat allowed for the possibility that it was less than two hours, or that the caveat merely challenged the ‘probability of it being longer’. I’m surprised he wasn’t asked to clarify.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              In all this kerfuffle we appear to have lost the point of the debate - that Richardson was correct when he said he must have seen the body if it had been there beside the fence.

                              You get your Noble Prize if you accept what he said.

                              ,
                              Hi Jon,

                              I see it as a kerfuffle in three parts:

                              Part 1: Richardson did what Chandler said he was told. Richardson went to the back door, opened it just enough to put his left foot on the middle step and bend/crouch down to check the lock, and then left to go to work. I rate this as the most likely possibility, and join Chandler and the Jury Foreman in questioning if, in this instance, he could have missed the body.

                              Part 2: From his position above he sits on the step to attempt to cut some leather from his boot. I consider it unlikely that he would even have contemplated attempting this task if the knife he had in his pocket was the knife he showed Baxter. If he was sitting facing at right angles to the house wall he would certainly have seen the body. If he was angled towards the cellar step with the door resting on his left arm, he was less likely to have seen the body. This appears to be what is suggested in the Echo on Sep19, which I am not prepared to dismiss or discard.

                              Part 3: He walked over to the top of the cellar steps and looked at the lock from there. This requires a re-definition of "going into the yard", and I regret to say that I'm not buying it.

                              I give no credence to Long's testimony, but I am less sceptical of Cadosch than of Richardson.

                              Against the witnesses, I fully acknowledge that Phillip's ToD can be thought to be unreliable, but I'm not persuaded that it was sufficiently unreliable to allow a time since death of one hour only.

                              If the 5:30 ToD is to be accepted, I wonder where Annie was, and what was she doing for three and a half hours in an area where she was well known without anyone reporting on having seen her. Would it have taken her that long to earn her lodging fee. Would she have still been on the street soliciting in daylight (did she decide to sleep rough and incur the wrath of Richardson). Would Jack have risked his only outdoor daylight attack with so many witnesses arising to begin their day. Had Davis felt the call of nature 15-30 minutes earlier he would have caught Jack in the act. Would Jack have preserved with Cadosch only feet away on two occasions, when he seems to have scarpered at the first sign of danger with Nichols and Stride.

                              Throwing all these factors on my preponderance of evidence scale it tilts slightly towards an earlier ToD. There may be evidence one day that tilts the scale in the direction of the later ToD, but not today.

                              Cheers, George

                              They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                              Out of a misty dream
                              Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                              Within a dream.
                              Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post
                                For what it's worth, regarding the never-ending debate about the meaning of Phillips' caveat, I forwarded the infamous "I should say [bla bla] greater portion of its blood" to an impartial mate for his opinion. He is the smartest cookie I know when it comes to the written word. He said:

                                I think it’s impossible to say, from the wording, whether he meant the caveat allowed for the possibility that it was less than two hours, or that the caveat merely challenged the ‘probability of it being longer’. I’m surprised he wasn’t asked to clarify.
                                Have you read P.I.'s post No.5575?
                                One thing thats always been a bit puzzling of Richardsons inquest testimony regarding the Chapman murder. [Coroner] 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. . [Coroner] Did he say


                                He posted an opinion by the Lancet, which is what I would expect, but obviously any modern opinion struggles to grasp what Phillips meant. A medical journal of the time has no problem understanding what Dr. Phillips meant.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X