John Richardson

[GBinOz]

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?

Yes, Richardson was very anxious to tell his story, and insist that the body wasn't there. What about the press reports from Richardson on the 8th that reflected what Chandler said he was told - no boot repair mentioned? If a fuller interview had taken place Chandler could have reported that when Baxter asked him about the boot cutting. He was in charge of the investigation. As Vanderlinden suggests "He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness."

Cheers, George

[Hair Bear]

With regard to the report in the Echo, on what basis could the police have refuted his testimony about him sitting on the step.

Cheers, George

At the end of the day we can speculate all we want, the fact remains that they must have believed him. Sure, they must have been guessing, but like Phillips' guess about the ToD, it would have been based on their own reasoned logic. We can't simply sweep it under the carpet, or should I say, the flagstones.

[Hair Bear]

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?

With Jack the Ripper all things appear possible. Chandler said Richardson did not tell him about faffing with his boot, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. As I understand it, at no point did Richardson claim to have told him either - unless I missed that one ('cadet' for a reason)? So we can conclude that Richardson kept that under wraps. The question is why, and as you pointed out the 'interview' can't have been a long one. I believe that to be the case, with Richardson imparting only what seemed necessary at the time. That's just a guess, of course, but one that's backed up by the Daily News' "Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable" and the later Echo report: 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".

[Trevor Marriott]

Is there any proof?

You are the accuser I should ask you to prove what you have inferred but I know you cant do that.

But I will help you out with that quote along with other material relative to the question of Rigor was sent to me by e mail by Dr Biggs at 9.31am on 21st August 2019 and it is also contained in my book "Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth" So can I expect that apology now.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

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.

That's going to make an interesting couple of evenings reading.
Excellent find!

Fellow was ahead of his time.
It's not yet refined, but the basics are there and he certainly (page 49) notes an awareness of the slight curve rather than line of the drop in temp.

Shame the London boys hadn't yet read it or adopted it.
Or... perhaps they had, and as was fairly common at the time, the old guard regarded it as poppycock, and continued to use their old, reliable, methods.

Even if they were aware of all this, taking the temperature from the mouth was obviously out of the question, considering the condition of the neck.
And I have little doubt that a gentleman of Bagster Philips' standing would have ever used his thermometre to test the other way. Definitely not at the scene at any rate.
Propriety and all that.

I'm going to drive my Mrs mad with "Did you know, that in 1882 they had already worked out that..." over the next week.
Her initial musings were that they should have been using the rectal thermometre by that period for core temp. I'll let her know that Dr Tidy agreed with her.
I know just how excited she will be to hear that.........

[Doctored Whatsit]

I see. More argument by distraction.

Whenever you're ready to comment on the absurdity of this:

At least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.

Feel free to explain how and why this is a perfectly ordinary statement in the English language.

Outside of that, we've pretty much gone 'round the houses and exhausted the conversation.

My apologies to everyone for what follows, because it will seem that I am "talking down" to you, but the punctuation of Phillips' statement indicates one meaning and one meaning only.

A semi colon is correctly used to indicate the end of one statement, followed by a related comment, such as a caveat, which applies to that statement.

So, "...at least two hours , and probably more; but it was right to mention ..." is a clear indication that the caveat applies to everything before the semi colon. It can mean nothing else.

What others believe it meant, should have been written as "....at least two hours; and probably more, but it is true to say...". That would put the caveat and therefore the doubt on the "probably more", but leave the "two hours" as agreed.

So anyone who disagrees with me - and you are all welcome to do so - is, as far as I am concerned, arguing with the journalist who wrote the item. He was there, and decided that the relevant pause was after "and probably more", and this can only be correctly interpreted in one way. The Coroner thought so too., and he was also there, and very experienced.

Sorry to be so pedantic, but I can only explain my positive interpretation by doing this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't think you're talking down to anyone, Dr W, but I cannot see how your essay on punctuation can alter the fact that Phillips thought that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours.

He seems to have thought that she was probably dead for three hours 'before the semi-colon'.

How can he then possibly have conceded that it could have been less than an hour?

[A P Tomlinson]

I don't think you're talking down to anyone, Dr W, but I cannot see how your essay on punctuation can alter the fact that Phillips thought that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours.

He seems to have thought that she was probably dead for three hours 'before the semi-colon'.

How can he then possibly have conceded that it could have been less than an hour?

Maybe he HAD read that book?

[Herlock Sholmes]

My apologies to everyone for what follows, because it will seem that I am "talking down" to you, but the punctuation of Phillips' statement indicates one meaning and one meaning only.

A semi colon is correctly used to indicate the end of one statement, followed by a related comment, such as a caveat, which applies to that statement.

So, "...at least two hours , and probably more; but it was right to mention ..." is a clear indication that the caveat applies to everything before the semi colon. It can mean nothing else.

What others believe it meant, should have been written as "....at least two hours; and probably more, but it is true to say...". That would put the caveat and therefore the doubt on the "probably more", but leave the "two hours" as agreed.

So anyone who disagrees with me - and you are all welcome to do so - is, as far as I am concerned, arguing with the journalist who wrote the item. He was there, and decided that the relevant pause was after "and probably more", and this can only be correctly interpreted in one way. The Coroner thought so too., and he was also there, and very experienced.

Sorry to be so pedantic, but I can only explain my positive interpretation by doing this.

It’s perfectly logical. It follows precisely the rules of the English language and grammar. It makes 100% sense.

But of course, those dogmatically determined to take the opposite view of course, will say that it doesn’t apply. Why should the rules of grammar apply when the rules regarding the assessment of ToD can be discarded when it’s convenient.

Well spotted Doc

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think you're talking down to anyone, Dr W, but I cannot see how your essay on punctuation can alter the fact that Phillips thought that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours.

He seems to have thought that she was probably dead for three hours 'before the semi-colon'.

How can he then possibly have conceded that it could have been less than an hour?

Because of the state of the corpse and the conditions he was admitting that the body could have cooled more rapidly than he’d calculated in his estimation. He made it clear that he still favoured 2+ hours but he was admitting that the gap could have been less.

[Wickerman]

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”

Good point, as for the first item - body temperature at time of death.
Just suppose the victim had fought for her life, perhaps being strangled?, how much did her body temperature rise in those few moments above the normal 98.4?
It's an unknown factor.

As for the second item - the temperature of the local environment.
I think we all know how the temperature outside can change from hour to hour. In the late 19th century they had no way of knowing what the ambient temperature was in Bucks Row at 3:45, or Hanbury St. at 5:30, Berner St. at 12:45, or Mitre Square at 1:30. Even when the doctors arrived, they were taking a temperature roughly a half hour after the assumed time of the murder.

A body, regardless of it's internal temperature (item 1), assuming a sudden death, will reduce to the ambient temperature (item 2) for an unknown period of time.
In a controlled environment (inside) they understood a body temperature reduction of 1 deg. F per hour, but in an uncontrolled environment (outside) the body temperature fall is debatable, maybe more, maybe less.

[Wickerman]

Yes, Richardson was very anxious to tell his story, and insist that the body wasn't there. What about the press reports from Richardson on the 8th that reflected what Chandler said he was told - no boot repair mentioned? If a fuller interview had taken place Chandler could have reported that when Baxter asked him about the boot cutting. He was in charge of the investigation. As Vanderlinden suggests "He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness."

Cheers, George

Hi George.

A few years back I was a principal witness in a suicide, a man walked onto the highway and threw himself in front of an 18 wheeler. I was the first to arrive at the body to see if he was alive.
Anyway, a constable came into my cab and took a statement from me. After giving the statement, he was leaving and I remembered, f**k I had a dash-camera. I felt so stupid, I ran after him to tell him I had this camera that must have seen everything, I totally forgot.
The camera had just been installed in all our trucks the day before, so I wasn't even thinking about the damn thing.
So, what I mean is the witness isn't always thinking clear enough to remember every detail.
Police will tell you the interviewing constable automatically assumes the witness can miss things, it's common in an initial first statement.
You can compare the first witness statements to Abberline in Millers Court on the Friday, with what the same witnesses say at the inquest on the Monday. They have a more complete recollection.

[Wickerman]

You are the accuser I should ask you to prove what you have inferred but I know you cant do that.

But I will help you out with that quote along with other material relative to the question of Rigor was sent to me by e mail by Dr Biggs at 9.31am on 21st August 2019 and it is also contained in my book "Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth" So can I expect that apology now.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hmm "accuser"?
When I was at school "if" was a question, not an accusation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, Richardson was very anxious to tell his story, and insist that the body wasn't there. What about the press reports from Richardson on the 8th that reflected what Chandler said he was told - no boot repair mentioned? If a fuller interview had taken place Chandler could have reported that when Baxter asked him about the boot cutting. He was in charge of the investigation. As Vanderlinden suggests "He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness."

Cheers, George

But that’s looking at it as if it’s an Agatha Christie though George. Richardson said at the scene that he couldn’t have missed the body if it had been there. He told journalists on the same day that the body couldn’t have been there. Not mentioning the boot repair on the step is hardly a cause for suspicion is it? If he simply told Chandler what he did and he felt that Chandler had believed him why bother adding a part about a knife which might cause suspicion to fall on himself. But by the 10th, when he’d been questioned further he mentions why he’d sat on the steps.

As I’ve said numerous times George why didn’t he say….

Yes, I suppose I could have missed the body. It’s possible.

Or,

I pushed the door back all the way to the fence so I couldn’t have missed it.

Or,

I walked into the yard to check the lock and the back door swung shut so I couldn’t have missed it.

Or,

I went to the outside loo so I couldn’t have missed it.

It doesn’t make sense George. But the what he said at the Inquest does make sense. Anything else requires colossal stupidity on Richardson’s part.

[Wickerman]

That's going to make an interesting couple of evenings reading.
Excellent find!

Fellow was ahead of his time.
It's not yet refined, but the basics are there and he certainly (page 49) notes an awareness of the slight curve rather than line of the drop in temp.

Shame the London boys hadn't yet read it or adopted it.
Or... perhaps they had, and as was fairly common at the time, the old guard regarded it as poppycock, and continued to use their old, reliable, methods.

Even if they were aware of all this, taking the temperature from the mouth was obviously out of the question, considering the condition of the neck.
And I have little doubt that a gentleman of Bagster Philips' standing would have ever used his thermometre to test the other way. Definitely not at the scene at any rate.
Propriety and all that.

I'm going to drive my Mrs mad with "Did you know, that in 1882 they had already worked out that..." over the next week.
Her initial musings were that they should have been using the rectal thermometre by that period for core temp. I'll let her know that Dr Tidy agreed with her.
I know just how excited she will be to hear that.........

Our dearly beloved spouses may be related I get the same bewildered attitude when I'm researching anything related to the Ripper crimes.
One solution is to phone my daughter, "come get your mother, take her shopping", or something like that.