John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

You omitted Phillips' use of the word more.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I did not mean that we know that Lawende saw the killer!

I meant that the presence of Levy and Harris confirms that he was there at that time on that day.

No such confirmation exists for Long.

[GBinOz]

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.

Yikes Jon,

That's a bolt from the blue. I recall suggesting some time ago that it would be preposterous to imagine that decades after its invention, doctors would not carry a thermometer. I was assured that was not the case. If you are correct, which would seem logical, it puts pay to the subjective temperature argument.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

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.

Working thermometers were around in the 1700's, but I'm wondering if I had a different publication in mind, I don't see a reference to thermometer in Virchows book, but the search function in some of these pdf's doesn't work too well.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that is wrong.

Long does not support Cadoche.

Yes she does unless we apply an unreasonably rigid interpretation of timings. Five minutes margin for error is nothing.

Cadoche did not actually see anything or anyone.

But he heard something from the yard where the murder occurred and an hour after it’s being assumed that Chapman was lying dead and mutilated. No innocent explanation can reasonably be put forward.

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

He had absolutely no reason to lie (affect that some appear impervious too) The chances of him being in a position where he could have missed the body and not been aware of the fact is about as close to impossible as can be. I don’t know how anyone who doesn’t have an agenda would give the suggestion a moments credence.

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.

And we can’t be certain that Chandler was always honest.

We cannot know that because Phillips used now out-of-date methods, his conclusions were wrong.

Not of itself no. But the witness show that he was wrong. I’d suggest that if Phillips estimated a ToD of 5.30 or earlier no one would be questioning Richardson or Cadosch….and probably not Long either.

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

The evidence clearly points to a later ToD beyond any reasonable doubt.

[A P Tomlinson]

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

Hi George

I think that's overlooking the fact that Chandler had been there and seen the body, from the stairs, if HE thought that Richardson was unable to have done so. Would he not have stated so at the inquest? Maybe had a word with Baxter "in chambers" or whatever approximated for them, and voiced his doubts?

Trevor asserted that Chandler wasn't in court for Richardson's Day 2 testimony and therefore wouldn't have been privvy to hearing it as a reason for why he wouldn't have spoken up. But he is reported in the morning as having handed a piece of evidence to Baxter, and was recorded as being one of three detectives represnetiing H division in the afternoon session. He would have heard Richardson's testimony (both bits). And his own was given the following day.

I can't see a situation where Chandler, of all the people involved, could have NOT noticed whether or not a man standing or sitting as Richardson said, and taking into account that Richardson was pretty adamant that he could "...see all over the place" was telling the truth about how easy it would have been to see the body. He walked through the doorway and down the steps, he would have known how easy or hard it would have been to see the body.

If there was any feeling (especially after Philips' testimony) that Richardson was lying, then they actually have a suspect. He placed himself there. He had a knife, and... according to the ME... the body was there at the time HE was, and he therfore lied about being able to see one had it been there! Even if the ultimate truth was that he simply hadn't seen it and exagggerated his position for a bot of attention... they would have wanted to hear WHY there was disparity between HIS statement and the Doctors medical opinion.

They would call him back. It's H division... they would possibly arrest him and drag him back.
Unless they accepted that he would have been able to see the body the way he had said, and that THAT, along with Cadosche and Long all suggested a later time, and that the ME may have been out with ToD. But even with both the others, it was Richardson who was pivotal to whether a body was there or not at around 4.45 - 4.50.
And without Chandler feeling the need to step in and say that he wouldn't have been able to see the things he said he saw... they believed him.

For Chandler to miss all that he would have to be beyond being "a bit thick" he'd have to be an utter moron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

If Chandler was willing to stretch the truth to exaggerate his role in the gathering up of the evidence at the scene how can we be sure that he didn’t say that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair to cover up his brief and hardly penetrating questioning of him, especially if he superiors had criticised him in some way?

[Wickerman]

Working thermometers were around in the 1700's, but I'm wondering if I had a different publication in mind, I don't see a reference to thermometer in Virchows book, but the search function in some of these pdf's doesn't work too well.

I had the wrong volume.
Extensive coverage of how & where to use a thermometer in a post-mortem is given in Legal Medicine, Charles Meymott Tidy, vol. I, 1882.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]Witness saw young John Richardson a little before 7 o'clock in the passage of the house.;

It’s also worth pointing out that Chandler said that he got to the mortuary a few minutes after 7.00. With a journey of 5 minutes. With Chandler having other duties apart from talking to Richardson and with the Doctor in the yard it illustrates the nature of this ‘interview.’

As it was rushed, and as the story of the boot-cutting appeared in the Press less than 48 hours later, we can see how confusion might have arisen. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the story appeared in the Press (less than 48 hours later) after the journalist spoke to a police officer rather than Richardson himself (or both) After speaking to Chandler isn’t it possible that a fuller interview took place?

[Wickerman]

Legal Medicine, pg. 38 - the use of a thermometer.

"All observations on temperature should be thermometric".

[Wickerman]

If Chandler was willing to stretch the truth to exaggerate his role in the gathering up of the evidence at the scene how can we be sure that he didn’t say that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair to cover up his brief and hardly penetrating questioning of him, especially if he superiors had criticised him in some way?

The thing is, Chandler is in charge of the yard.
If anyone finds evidence scattered around the yard, typically some assisting constables, in this case also Dr. Phillips, they are required to hand it over to Chandler.
It's reasonable for Chandler to declare to the coroner that he found the articles, because they were found under his watch.
It's not a case of anyone lying.

[GBinOz]

If Chandler was willing to stretch the truth to exaggerate his role in the gathering up of the evidence at the scene how can we be sure that he didn’t say that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair to cover up his brief and hardly penetrating questioning of him, especially if he superiors had criticised him in some way?

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.

The items were near the railing. Phillips thought they had been arranged there, so he wouldn't have disturbed the evidence. Chandler said he searched after the body had been removed ( he wouldn't have disturbed the doctor), but the "arranged" items would be still in place. No cause for "creative" thinking here.

[GBinOz]

Legal Medicine, pg. 38 - the use of a thermometer.

"All observations on temperature should be thermometric".

Great find Jon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The thing is, Chandler is in charge of the yard.
If anyone finds evidence scattered around the yard, typically some assisting constables, in this case also Dr. Phillips, they are required to hand it over to Chandler.
It's reasonable for Chandler to declare to the coroner that he found the articles, because they were found under his watch.
It's not a case of anyone lying.

No problem Wick. Fair point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From The Encyclopaedia Of Forensic and Legal Medicine 2005

“Thus the two important unknowns in assessing time of death from body temperature are: (1) the body temperature at the time of death, and (2) the length of the postmortem temperature plateau. For this reason assessment of time of death from body temperature cannot be accurate in the first 4–5 h after death when these two unknown factors have a dominant influence”