John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

.

The fact that we know that Phillips methods were unreliable plus the testimony of Richardson and Cadosch (supported by Long) proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Annie couldn’t have been killed until around 5.30.

So you are looking for a dark, foreign-looking man, in his forties?

Even though the man seen with Eddowes looked about 30 and had a fair moustache?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you are looking for a dark, foreign-looking man, in his forties?

Even though the man seen with Eddowes looked about 30 and had a fair moustache?

That man might not have been her killer.

[Wickerman]

I have no idea what the specific circumstances were. There are a wide variety of possible reasons. But let me just point out that a difference in body temperature between 1 hour and 2 hours is roughly 1.5 degrees centigrade.

So if you think that Chapman was "almost completely cold" when examined by Philips and he put the time of death at 2 hours rather than 8 or more, you simply have to agree that he wasn't using accurate science, and that she died a few hours before she was seen drinking beer in the lodging house. And therefore thats another round of witnesses Fishy needs to sweep aside.

If that IS the case, that Philips said she was almost completely cold and Brown said Eddowes was still warm, then it seems more likely that Brown somehow measured core temperature within the lower area of the torso and Philips did his on a surface area close to the wounds. (maybe he owned a thermometre???)
Or maybe Philips was wearing gloves up to the point where he needed to feel her skin and took them off and then felt the skin, which would make the bodyy feel far colder than it was. THIS is the sort of junk they didn't understand NOT to do that would skew their examination.
Like I keep trying to explain... they didn't understand that their methodology was as badly flawed as it was.

Or you need to revise your opinion on whether "...one almost completely cold and the other still warm". Because then we'd be talking far more than dead for 2 hours.

The only cautionary note I would add is that in the mid 1800's Prof. Rudolph Virchow published his Post-Mortem Examinations, which detailed all the procedures to conduct a legitimate and accurate post-mortem. I'm sure Dr Phillips would have been well aware of this publication, the thermometer was a required tool in the medical bag.
These inquests don't mention the doctor using a thermometer so some members have questioned if they did, I believe they had to, but that's just me.
A doctor of the time was called as a professional witness, the only witness who is permitted to given an opinion. The doctor is not required to explain, or provide details on how he arrives at his conclusions. He has many tools at his disposal, scalpuls, saw's, etc. he does not mention them at an inquest, the thermometer is just another tool.

In Virchow's publication it records the belief that at the time a body looses heat at a rate of 1 deg F. per hour following death. I mention this as I feel it is necessary to use the numbers they used, not our modern equivalent, just to obtain a clearer picture of how they arrived at their conclusions.

[Wickerman]

But you don't know more about forensic pathology than Dr Biggs do you?

Oh dear, you now resort to making a serious allegation which I strongly refute, I think you should apologise for making that allegation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Is there any proof?

[GBinOz]

The real question is...

Was John Richardson the man who murdered Chapman?

RD

Hi RD,

That is a good question. But what is there that could cause us to think so? The urgency that he displayed in seeking out Chandler to perhaps pre-empt any suspicion that may arise, as did Goldstein at Berner St after he was spotted by Mortimer? Did John wonder if he had been spotted entering the building, or being in the yard, at the vital time? Did he form his stories to cover such eventualities should they occur? Phillips really dropped him in it with his ToD, with his time of 4:45 even managing to comply with the legendary caveat. He really need to insist that the body wasn't there when he was there. But he was such a nice young man, working for his dominant religious mother after his father was gone. And it was very convenient for him, living and working only a hundred yards apart in an area he knew well, that just happened to be at the centre of the geographically profiled target area. The freshly washed leather apron and the available bolt-hole in the cellar - nothing to see there. The knife that just happened to be on the table at home when its retrieval was requested by Baxter. The one that would have been doing well to cut butter or an old soft carrot for the rabbit. That must have been the knife he confessed to carrying that night, the one with which he managed to cut leather from the inside of his boot. But from his demeanour at the inquest, he didn't look like a villain, just an ordinary guy...isn't that what is suggested that Jack would appear to be?

So what do you think RD? Was he the man that murdered Annie Chapman?

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The only cautionary note I would add is that in the mid 1800's Prof. Rudolph Virchow published his Post-Mortem Examinations, which detailed all the procedures to conduct a legitimate and accurate post-mortem. I'm sure Dr Phillips would have been well aware of this publication, the thermometer was a required tool in the medical bag.
These inquests don't mention the doctor using a thermometer so some members have questioned if they did, I believe they had to, but that's just me.

So, after our having been assured that Phillips could not have had a thermometer with him, and, if I remember correctly, that thermometers had not even been invented, it turns out that he may well have had one on him.

Thank you, Jon.

[A P Tomlinson]

How can they reliably estimate the time of death when they have had no opportunity to examine the body?

No... they understand that his methodology was flawed.
The only people ascribing any sense of Time of Death not supported by witnesses are you, and Philips. Philips was using methodology that was badly flawed, and would never stand up in a modern court.
The science (or absolute lack of it) is, and has been for many many years shown to be wrong in far more cases than it was right.
Going back again to the stopped clock analogy... You and Philips are pointing at the stopped clock saying "Look it says 4.30... so it MIGIHT be 4.30!" while other people are showing you working wathces that say its closer to 5.30. That's the level of accuracy of Philips estimate.

It "might" have been right, but was far more likely to be wrong because he used ONE basic, rudminentary method, that carried zero scientific merit and determined body temperature without even taking a bloody thermomettre out of his case, and you think he was able to determine a time of death that Medical examiners in 2023 would not be brave enough to attempt with an arsenal of equipment (some of which actually tells the temperature of the body!!!) and years of further research and understanding to rely upon. But no... the back of Philips' hand is good enough for him so it is goood enough for you.

Unless you can show that the scientific method WAS reliable to the degrees that these doctors claim, which is far more reliable than modern methodology and technology provides, you are stuck with Philips NOT being reliable for Time of Death. However much that time of death is what you want it to be.
Because I think I've shown by now just how bloody useless they actually were at determining time of death accurately.

Comparing mistaken data with other mistaken data and saying "Both are of equal standing" still doesn't make any of it reliable, without further substantive evidence to show that it was anywhere near right.

The witness testimonies are the only way you can say with any degree of certainty that any of the doctors were right.
Yet it's the one where people want an earlier time of death where the methods you use to substantiate the doctors is dismissed in favour of the far less reliable ToD ass-pull to contradict the method you use as the benchmark for efficacy in all the others.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That man might not have been her killer.

We know that Lawende saw him about nine minutes before Eddowes was found dead, because there were other witnesses.

We do not know that Long saw her suspect before Chapman was killed.

[Wickerman]

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)

Proving the point. An earlier ToD was favoured but a later one was considered possible due to the circumstances.

It would likely be easier for some to understand if we talked in terms of body temperature rather than rigor mortis. In the late 19th century I suspect they thought the two were connected, though after looking through many medical journals I have been unable to find a clear 19th century explanation of what they thought rigor mortis was.

Regarding what Phillips said, he seems to have used the academic tables & procedures to determine the hour of death, that the body lost more than 1 deg. F per hour which would suggest to him the murder took place at least two hours prior, but possibly longer.
Then he applies his caveat.
Except, that due to the coolness of the morning, the extreme loss of blood, & extensive abdominal mutilations, the loss of body heat was quicker than the accepted 1 deg. F. per hour.
The body temperature dropped rapidly so that in about 45 minutes the body had lost so much heat so as to make it appear the murder had taken place two or more hours previous.
The professionals at the Lancet seem to agree.


By the way, how are you getting on with Imgur?
If you're having any problems, just ask, I can try help.

[GBinOz]

Hello George. "Richardson did what Chandler said he was told." Where does Chandler say Richardson opened the back door "just enough to put his left foot on the middle step and bend/crouch down to check the lock" or indeed anything like that? Is this merely your theory? Because it reads as though you are attributing it to Chandler.

Below are some comparisons of Chandler's testimony. I see that Chandler said he "might" not "would" have missed the body, but (it reads to me) only after being asked if it was possible. It wasn't something he thought to bring up. On the contrary, there's a nod from Chandler that he accepted Richardson had sat down to cut his boot in the Daily News ("from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable") and from the same passage we have "it was allowed that in this position he must inevitably have seen the murdered woman". There's was an even bigger nod from the police in a later of edition of the Echo that Richardson did sit down... "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...". I'm unsure how anyone can refute this. Here they are clearly saying they accept his boot story. All the same, as I've said below I have cobbled together Chandler's initial testimony. There is stuff to support your theory, of course, but I don't see anything specific in any of them about opening the back door "just enough to" or crouching/bending.

[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. Telegraph
Did you see young Richardson? - I saw him later on - about seven o'clock - in the passage. Echo
Did you see young Richardson? - I saw him later on in the morning, about a quarter to seven o'clock. His name is John. He was in the passage of 29 Hanbury street at the time. He told me he had been at the house at five o'clock. Evening Standard
Witness saw young John Richardson a little before 7 o'clock in the passage of the house. He told witness he had been to the house about a quarter to 5 that morning, Times
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. Daily news

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. Telegraph
Did he tell you he had been to the house that morning? - Yes, at about a quarter to five. He told me he went to the back door, and looked down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market. Echo
Did he say what he went there for? - He said he went to the back door and looked round to see that all was right [interesting], and then went away to his work at the market. Evening Standard
he went to the back door and looked down at the cellar to see that all was right. He then went away to his work in the market. Times
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. Daily News

[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No. Telegraph
Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - Not then. Echo
Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No. Evening Standard
He did not say anything to witness about cutting his boot Times
Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No. Daily News

[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes. Telegraph
Did he say he was sure the woman was not there when he went? - Yes. Echo
Did he say he was sure the woman was not there at the time? - Yes. Evening Standard
, but said he was sure the woman was not there at the time. Times
Did he say he was sure the woman was not there? - Yes. Daily News

By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps. Telegraph
By the Jury - The back door opens outwards, into the yard on the left hand. Probably, Richardson might not have seen the body on account of the door. Echo
In answer to the Foreman, the witness said the back door opened so that young Richardson might not have seen the body at the time, even if it was there, as the door might cover the sight of it. Evening Standard
By the Foreman. -The back door opened outwards into the yard, on the left-hand side. That was the side on which the body was lying. Richardson might not have seen the body if he did not go into the yard. If he went down the steps and the body was there at the time he was bound to see it. Richardson told witness he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boots. Times
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. Daily News

Back to me. I would love to know how far into the building the cellar door was, but I don't see anything in anyone's testimony to support there being a canopy. I have probably missed this, so would be grateful if someone could let me know where. If there was a canopy this would surely make it impossible to see the lock without walking to the bottom of the yard steps to the top of the cellar steps. If there was no canopy and the door wasn't too far indented, I can buy your glimpse from the top of the yard steps, George. I do believe, however, that Richardson sat on the steps, particularly since the police allowed for this.

Hi Hair Bear,

You're quite right, there was nothing about where he put his foot or him bending or crouching. I added that to pre-empt the usual claims that the canopy would have prevented him seeing the lock. The press sketches at the time did show a canopy, although no one at the inquest mentioned it or questioned whether it could have obstructed his view. I was providing a method by which the lock might have been observed. The fact is that both Richardson and his mother testified under oath that the lock could be seen from the back door steps, and to quote the naysayers, why would they lie?

The comment about only opening the door enough to see the lock was in a way supported:
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body.

With regard to the report in the Echo, on what basis could the police have refuted his testimony about him sitting on the step. There were no witnesses. They had only his assertion, so they tested out his story and concluded that, even if he had sat on the step he would still have missed the body. To be sure of this I would contemplate that they requested he do a re-enactment to determine this possibility. Remember, at this stage he was being investigated on suspicion of being involved in the murder, and their question was, if the body was there, how could he have missed it. They could produce no proof of his involvement, as again, there were no witnesses and they had only Richardson's word.

Thanks for the compilation of news reports. I have bookmarked your post for further reference.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The fact that we know that Phillips methods were unreliable plus the testimony of Richardson and Cadosch (supported by Long) proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Annie couldn’t have been killed until around 5.30.

I think that is wrong.

Long does not support Cadoche.

Cadoche did not actually see anything or anyone.

We cannot be certain that Richardson was in a position from which he could have seen the body had it been there.

We cannot be certain that Long got the day right, nor that the couple she saw were standing in front of number 29, nor that they entered it.

We cannot know that because Phillips used now out-of-date methods, his conclusions were wrong.

We cannot arrive at a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence available.

[GBinOz]

Mr. George Baxter-Phillips:

“I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there. I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police.”


Inspector Chandler:

“After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman. A portion of an envelope was found near her head, which contained two pills.”


So which one of these two was lying?

The usual suspect - a reporter that had been on the sauce the night before.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know that Lawende saw him about nine minutes before Eddowes was found dead, because there were other witnesses.

Its still not a certainty though. It’s possible, even likely but she could have spoken to the man and then, just after Lawende passed, they parted company.

We do not know that Long saw her suspect before Chapman was killed.

We can’t be certain of course but, if we assume for a second that she was telling the truth, then she saw a man talking to a woman that looked like Annie Chapman just feet from the door of number 29 at just the right time allowing for a very minor 5 minute margin for error on time. It could have been a coincidence but it also might not have been.

[Wickerman]

I quote a writer in The Lancet, who shared Phillips' opinion about

a far longer interval between death and discovery

than allowed for by the coroner

and yet YOU are the one who has been trying to get that point across to ME?

No, no.
The writer at the Lancet is agreeing with the standard procedures used by Phillips which dictated to him the earlier time of death (4:30), as opposed to the Coroner's unstated preference of later (5:30?), 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."
They acknowledge the caveat added by Phillips will reduce the time he initially offered.
The hastened cooling only made it appear the murder had taken place earlier.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would likely be easier for some to understand if we talked in terms of body temperature rather than rigor mortis. In the late 19th century I suspect they thought the two were connected, though after looking through many medical journals I have been unable to find a clear 19th century explanation of what they thought rigor mortis was.

Regarding what Phillips said, he seems to have used the academic tables & procedures to determine the hour of death, that the body lost more than 1 deg. F per hour which would suggest to him the murder took place at least two hours prior, but possibly longer.
Then he applies his caveat.
Except, that due to the coolness of the morning, the extreme loss of blood, & extensive abdominal mutilations, the loss of body heat was quicker than the accepted 1 deg. F. per hour.
The body temperature dropped rapidly so that in about 45 minutes the body had lost so much heat so as to make it appear the murder had taken place two or more hours previous.
The professionals at the Lancet seem to agree.


By the way, how are you getting on with Imgur?
If you're having any problems, just ask, I can try help.

I didn’t try it yet Wick. It’s weird but the last twice that I posted an image it worked perfectly. The evidence is that it’s my incompetent tech skills rather than the system.