John Richardson

[Wickerman]

...

But as for Richardson, his entire witness account is just a big distraction.

His only relevance is IF he was in fact the killer.

But it just doesn't fit right with me and I can't believe that he would murder someone on his own doorstep.

Killing Chapman in his own backyard would be too much for even the most astute of serial killers.

In other words, Richardson is a waste of time because even if he lied and wasn't even there, it changes nothing because Long and Cadosh are more reliable IMO.
RD

Swanson writes, (Richardson)..."as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him".

And that was before the inquest, then the coroner required his presence, so it seems the authorities had a very different view of Richardson.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

It appears that you may have forgotten to highlight the coroner's caveat?

Cheers, George

I don't see how your point is relevant George.

[Lewis C]

Hi George, sorry for my delayed response to your post regarding Richardson as a potential suspect rather than being regarded as a witness of any value.

I personally think that the entire Richardson story is unreliable, not in terms of it's authenticity, but in that his story is saturated, clouded and nonsensical.

He's a pointless witness because he's a perfect case of "show and tell"

He seemingly tells us everything without actually revealing or showing us anything.

This is evidenced by the fact that this particular thread has become trapped in a continuum with no end in sight, and achieved virtually nothing in the process.


Richardson himself would have been proud of all the attention no doubt.


Cadosh and Long are the only 2 valuable witnesses, especially Cadosh who heard an audible "No" and later the sound of something (someone) hitting the fence.

The fact that a woman is later found murdered and mutilated on the opposite side of the fence is far too much of a coincidence.


Cadosh IF HE WAS TRUTHFUL almost certainly heard the moment that the killer was attacking Chapman.

The "No" that he heard was from Chapman...and this occurred AFTER Long saw them standing outside the front of the residence.

Long stated she heard the clock chime, but the time via an audible source is unreliable compared to someone who LOOKS at a large clock on the side of a large church.


IF Long was 15 minutes out and got her chimes wrong, then the murder would have been committed sometime between 5.15am - 5.35am.

The killer would have escaped via another exit point other than back through the front of the residence.
There's no way that the killer would have walked BACK into Hanbury Street AFTER the murder. I believe that the killer exited the scene just as Cadosh went back through the back door of 27 Hanbury Street.


But as for Richardson, his entire witness account is just a big distraction.


His only relevance is IF he was in fact the killer.


But it just doesn't fit right with me and I can't believe that he would murder someone on his own doorstep.


Killing Chapman in his own backyard would be too much for even the most astute of serial killers.


In other words, Richardson is a waste of time because even if he lied and wasn't even there, it changes nothing because Long and Cadosh are more reliable IMO.


RD

Hi RD,

The length of this thread only proves that opposing sides are insistent on their view, nothing more, same as the Maybrick thread that's much longer than this one.

I would say that Richardson is the most valuable witness, although Cadosch is valuable too. I don't know what you mean by saturated or clouded, but I see nothing nonsensical about his testimony. The gist of it is that he didn't see a body when he visited the yard, and that if it had been there, he couldn't have missed it. When considering all the facts, I agree that he couldn't have missed it. So either Chapman wasn't dead yet when Richardson visited the yard, or he lied, and I see no reason to believe that he lied. So unless he lied, Richardson establishes Chapman's TOD as later than 4:50, which makes him valuable.

[A P Tomlinson]

While you are, or were, on the subject, have you read Phillips's post-mortem of Alice McKenzie?
It's in the Ultimate, by Evans & Skinner, there's a pdf online for those who do not have the book.

It runs for 5 pages, very detailed. Interestingly, although he refers to taking temperatures, he records no number, only uses words like; "moderate", "warm", "cold". It kind of pulls the rug out from under those of us who think he used the thermometer, though I'm wondering if he intentionally chose to use adjectives in place of numbers?
Or was it only a reflection of a casual approach to the death of a prostitute, as opposed to someone of status?
Walter Dew writes that he knew Dr Phillips, that he was held in high regard, highly skilled.

"I knew Dr. Phillips well. He lived in Spital Square, close to Commercial Street Police Station, and had been the local divisional surgeon for a great many years.

He was a character. An elderly man, he was ultra-old-fashioned both in his personal appearance and his dress. He used to look for all the world as though he had stepped out of a century-old painting. His manners were charming; he was immensely popular both with the police and the public, and he was highly skilled."
I Caught Crippen, The Hunt of Jack the Ripper, Dew, 1938.

I don't think a thermometre would have been used for the reasons above. Oral was pointless given the state of the connection between head and body, and I don't think a doctor with Victorian values would have conducted a rectal exam in the back yard of a slum terrace, with street hawkers and carmen gawping over the fence.
I'm a little surprised that there's no reference to a temperature being taken at autopsy.
Though given how it wasn't recorded at the SoC, and how long it was between observations, it would have needed to be known in situ, and checked periodically for the rate of decline to give a better way to work backward to when it started. So I suppose it would have been a pointless endeavour anyway. Although it would have given people more to argue over.

For a writer in 1938 to use a phrase like "ultra-old-fashioned" I'm going to take a punt and say Philips probably hadn't read the 1882 treatise by Dr Tidy.
I've never doubted his skills, only his knowledge, which would have been at best... "Of its time..." somewhere behind Tidy. And while he was on the right track, his work has been refined and improved upon over the 141 years since it reached the printers.

[Lewis C]

I’m just wondering if, looking at things generously, some might be misunderstanding a point. You never know.

“……the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.”

Does anyone think that this, as a medical statement, is ambiguous in any way?

Hi Herlock,

I don't see how. I think it's saying that the body lost more blood than is typical, and therefore would have been more apt to cool rapidly than what is typical.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Jeff,

In reply to your # 5848: I did suggest that probably more referred to whole numbers, but I think you may have gathered from the fact that I cited his estimate of the length of the weapon, again using probably more, that I had changed my mind.

As far as I can see, in your long discussion about temperature, you did not mention rigor mortis.

According to Phillips, it had just commenced, was not marked, and affected more than one limb.

These observations dispose of the theory that the signs of rigor mortis had been caused by cadaveric spasm.

Phillips' estimate of two hours was a standard estimate which has not changed in 135 years since.

It is not carved in stone, but it is a reasonable estimate.

There is no evidence that Chapman ate anything after eating a potato at 1.50 a.m., and yet there was food in her stomach at death.

Cooked potato is very digestible and there is general agreement that it should have left the stomach after about an hour.

Like Eddowes, she had been drinking, and like Eddowes, she had her intestines thrown over her right shoulder.

Weather conditions were similar.

It seems both had been strangled.

Eddowes was examined about 42 minutes after death, was still warm and rigor mortis had not yet commenced.

It is possible that potato remained in Chapman's stomach for three and three-quarter hours, that rigor mortis set in after about an hour, and that her body cooled unusually quickly.

But it is unlikely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I don't see how. I think it's saying that the body lost more blood than is typical, and therefore would have been more apt to cool rapidly than what is typical.

Hi Lewis,

Thats exactly what he was saying. It can’t mean anything else. I was just wondering if anyone bizarrely thought that he’d meant the opposite.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi PI,

Nobody disputes that Dr. Phillip's gave as his estimate for the ToD as being at least 2 hours prior to his arrival at 6:30, and that he thought 2 hours was a starting point in that estimate. The probably more is just an indication of "more time", not "more hours". Time is a continuous dimension, which we refer to in various units to describe the quantity of time. Apart from technical papers, say a research paper where one might refer to 2 hours as 120 minutes if the calculations being performed are based upon some rate per minute type thing, then one will refer to time intervals in things like hours and minutes. Dr. Phillips does not give an amount for his "probably more", so we cannot infer any upper limit to his estimate. For all we know, he might respond to your 3 hour suggestion as "oh, no, that's too much more", or he might also have said "possibly as long as that, but not much more", or even "yes, it could easily be 3 hours too". He's not clear on that point.

However, estimation of the ToD was based upon trying to work backwards from the temperature of the body at the time of discovery (or at whatever point one takes the body temperature), and then comparing it with the temperature of the body at the actual time of death. One then estimates how much time has passed in order for a body to have cooled by the difference in the body temperature at the time of the death (the starting temperature) and the body temperature at the time of measuring it using a mathematical equation that models the change in temperature over time for a human body. One also has to know the environmental temperature, because obviously, if a body were found in a room that is body temperature, the body will not cool at all, but remain at a stable temperature. Moreover, the body will only cool to the point it reaches the room (or environmental temperature) temperature, at which point it stops cooling. Also, the rate a body cools slows down as the difference in its temperature the environment decreases (so it cools rapidly at first, and slows as time passes). To make it even more complicated, sometimes, but not always, the body will heat up following death before eventually starting to cool. There is no way of knowing if this has, or has not happened in a specific case unless, of course, one has been taking temperature readings from the moment of death and tracking it over time.

The body temperatures referred to above are not the temperature of the skin. Rather, they refer to the internal core body temperature, taken rectally. And the equations one uses are derived from having measured intact bodies, and finding the equation that, in general, minimizes the error of the predicted ToD (it's not going to get each and every case exactly right, rather, it will provide an estimated value around which the individual cases vary, which refers to the margin of error).

When faced with a mutilated body, like Chapman's, there is a big problem. The body is not longer intact, and the internal body cavity is now exposed to the colder environment. This means the internal core temperature will drop more rapidly than the equation models (the equations are based upon the cooling profile of intact bodies).

Nowhere does Dr. Phillip's ever mention taking a rectal temperature measurement with a thermometer. He only describes the temperature state of the body using subjective terms of cold, and "residual heat" and so forth. Given his statements, he may very well have based his estimation not on any equations inputting temperature etc but simply based upon feeling the surface temperature of the skin. If that is what he did, then his opinion, no matter how confident he may have been in it, is not worth considering at all.

It has, however, often been mentioned that it seems improbable that Dr. Phillips would not have taken an actual body temperature reading. To use an equation to estimate the ToD, he would, also have to have recorded the outside temperature, although again, we only have him stating subjective descriptions of that as well.

We do know that there were people looking over the fence from next door at the time the crime scene was being examined. Richardson, for example, was there. We know the body was removed somewhere around 7:00, giving Dr. Phillip's 30 minutes to perform his entire crime scene examination (including writing down his observations of the state of the body, it's placement, where blood was seen, her items arranged at her feet, and so forth). It seem improbable to me that, in front of a onlooking crowd, that Dr. Phillips would insert a thermometer into Annie's rectum in order to take temperature reading. This seems to me to be something that might be considered improper to the onlooking public, and one might expect to see at least some mentioning of "outraged the poor woman" in the press. Of course, the press might just not have covered such things, so it's more something to keep in mind rather than any sort of definitive proof.

What it means, however, is that we seriously do have to consider the possibility that Dr. Phillip's estimate was based upon simply feeling the body. And if this possibility is what actually happened, then his estimate is useless. I would like to point out that the concerns about the witnesses are based upon this very same argument "Because they might have got things wrong, that means the earlier ToD is supported - which of course is ludicrous, because might have got things wrong doesn't preclude them having gotten it right, it only means we cannot be sure if they did get it right. Furthermore, if the witnesses got it wrong, that does not "lend support to the earlier ToD", it only means that the evidence against it would reduce, which is not the same thing. For the same reason, if Dr. Phillip's did just touch the body and make his estimate that way, then his estimated 2+ hours is meaningless, but that doesn't mean a later ToD is supported, only that Dr. Phillip's estimate isn't evidence against it in any way, shape, or form.

But what if he did take body temperature readings, which we do not know for sure he did, but remains a possibility we have to consider. And let's also presume he took the environmental temperature as well. I would like to point out, these attentions to detail seem out of character for doctor's at the scene of the crime; we have to recall that Nichol's abdominal mutilations were not spotted at her crime scene, and again there was only around 30 minutes between Dr. Phillip's arrival and the removal of the body to the mortuary, so there's only so much he could do. Those points aside, though, we do have to consider the possibility he actually took an objective core body temperature reading, and an objective temperature reading of the environment.

The estimation of the time period that has passed requires him to guess at Annie's body temperature at the time she died. It's not the same for everyone. There are a range of temperatures that reflect normal healthy people, and Annie's body temperature would be somewhere in that normal range. The normal range varies with age, but tends to be considered somewhere between 97 and 99F, with 98.6 generally considered the "typical" value (which would suggest a left skewed distribution, in which case the median body temperature would be less than 98.6 as the median for left skewed distributions falls below the mean/average). Dr. Phillips would have used 98.6 as his guess as to Annie's body temperature at the time of her death, but we have to consider the range, because she's an individual case. If her actual body temperature was less than 98.6, which is more likely than it being higher, means he's already going to overestimate the time interval for this specific case. Of course, there is also the possibility that her temperature was higher, in which case the calculated interval will underestimate the true interval.

The most important parameter one has to guess is the cooling rate. And very small errors in that parameter will translate to quite large errors in the estimated ToD interval. Dr. Phillips cannot use the cooling rate from the medical literature at the time because the core body temperature for a disembowled body will cool much faster than an intact one, which the medical literature at the time would have based things on. Moreover, liquids retain heat well, so the loss of blood means the body will cool more quickly as well (as he notes in his caveat).

There are other complications as well. Bodies in a room, for example, will generally cool more slowly than a body outside, even if the temperatures are the same. The reason being is that outside there are more breezes, while inside the air is still. A breeze wicks away heat surrounding the body, resulting in it cooling slightly faster. There tends to be more breezes in the morning than the middle of the night due to the rising of the air temperature associated with the change in the environmental temperature resulting in slight air currents, but of course that's far from a universal truth! Just one of the things that affects the accuracy of ToD estimations and has to be factored in to reduce the error associated with the estimation.

So basically, faced with Annie's situation, Dr. Phillips, if he even took a core body temperature reading at the crime scene, and also recorded the environmental temperature at the time, has to use an estimated body temperature during life (which is likely to be slightly on the high side, overestimating the interval since death), and he has to guess at how the cooling rate will have changed due to the mutilations and loss of blood.

Having made his assumptions, to the best of his ability, he then performs his calculation, and gets something like 2 hours.

But that estimate will be associated with a range of values that reflect the error of the estimate, which has to be larger than the error of estimate based upon intact bodies because he's also had to guess at the cooling rate.

The error of the estimate today, using far more sophisticated models (equations) of how bodies cool over time is still +-3 hours.

So when Dr. Phillips estimates 2 hours, we have to consider from -1 hours to +5 hours as the range of times in which the actual death occurred. Now, clearly we can dismiss her death being after the time of discovery (but note, that is using witness based information to help zero in on the actual ToD that the calculations produce).

The other extreme would be a ToD at 3 hours prior to 4:30, so 1:30am, but we know that Annie was still alive up to around 1:45am as she was at the doss house around then, so we can further reduce the medical based time window based upon witness information.

What that means, is that the medical estimate, trimming the two ends, indicates that Annie died sometime after 1:45am, and sometime before her discovery at 6:00am. An actual time of death, anywhere in that time window, is considered consistent with his estimate.

Moreover, given the fact that he has to base his estimate on a number of modifications to the equation, the error of estimate for his particular ToD estimation will be larger than +-3 hours; but that really doesn't matter too much given we still trim that window based upon the witnesses who tell us she was alive at 1:45ish, and dead by 6:00. It would, however, mean that which side of 4:30 would be preferred becomes more equally distributed.

Anyway, given all of the above, Dr. Phillips caveat, which refers to factors which would influence the accuracy of estimating the ToD based upon temperature, it is clear he is simply acknowledging that he may have underestimated the increased cooling rate for a body in Annie's condition (and so overestimated the interval since death). And he's absolutely right to do so, and it reflects his professionalism.

- Jeff

Excellent post Jeff. Perfectly well reasoned. Totally logical. Completely unbiased. Sadly, absolutely wasted on some.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No, it is what he means, it's just a strange way to present it. He does mean "I estimated 2 hours, probably longer, but I may have overestimated it", it's just strange to present such a clear intention using your phrase "and possibly less than at least two hours". It's a very clumsy construction, and it is the clumsiness that makes it sound odd, rather than the gist of what he's saying being odd.

- Jeff

This is equally as illogical as that which you believe Dr Phillips intended.

1) You acknowledge you're claiming that Dr Phillips intended: at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.
2) You think there is something strange in this. Rather than acknowledge that it is your interpretation of Dr Phillips' statement that is strange, you claim it is my presentation of your interpretation that is strange even though you agree that my presentation of your interpretation is accurate.

'Strange old world.

By the way, Dr Phillips didn't say: "I estimated 2 hours", he said: "at least two hours", which is entirely different because "at least" means the minimum time possible in the English language, and that is pertinent to the whole discussion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff,

In reply to your # 5848: I did suggest that probably more referred to whole numbers, but I think you may have gathered from the fact that I cited his estimate of the length of the weapon, again using probably more, that I had changed my mind.

As far as I can see, in your long discussion about temperature, you did not mention rigor mortis.

According to Phillips, it had just commenced, was not marked, and affected more than one limb.

These observations dispose of the theory that the signs of rigor mortis had been caused by cadaveric spasm.

Phillips' estimate of two hours was a standard estimate which has not changed in 135 years since.

From Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition…..again!

“as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

From the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology…….again!

“The time of onset and duration of Rigor is varied by multiple factors as will be discussed shortly but in general it is likely to be apparent in about 1-2 hours after death,”

Do me a favour PI. Could you please post on here you’re qualifications in Forensic Medicine (perhaps alongside Fleetwood Mac’s or Fishy’s? I think it’s only reasonable that I should request this so that I can evaluate you’re suitability to suggest that the standard textbooks on this subject should be re-written in line with your own interpretations.

Thanks in advance.


It is not carved in stone, but it is a reasonable estimate.

There is no evidence that Chapman ate anything after eating a potato at 1.50 a.m., and yet there was food in her stomach at death.

And we have no evidence that she used the toilet, farted, picked her nose or sneezed. If you consider that proof that she did none of those things then I can only suggest that your logic is slightly…..askew.

Cooked potato is very digestible and there is general agreement that it should have left the stomach after about an hour.

Could you also point me in the direction of the evidence of Phillips specifically saying that he found potato in her stomach please. Much appreciated.

Like Eddowes, she had been drinking, and like Eddowes, she had her intestines thrown over her right shoulder.

Weather conditions were similar.

It seems both had been strangled.

Eddowes was examined about 42 minutes after death, was still warm and rigor mortis had not yet commenced.

And, for the 501st time…….bodies react differently. Forensics can’t be done like that. Do you think that doctors ever arrive at the scene and say…..well she’s about the same height, weight and age as that woman that was killed last week. She’s wearing similar clothes and it’s about as cold as it was them. Just put the time of death as the same for this one and we can get back in the warm car?

Your simply scampering round looking for ways to try and bolster your own preconception. As I’ve said before, we are all laymen…..when we read what experts tell us without fail we should simply accept it or we would face accusations of massive arrogance.

It is possible that potato remained in Chapman's stomach for three and three-quarter hours, that rigor mortis set in after about an hour, and that her body cooled unusually quickly.

The starting point for that discussion has to be absolute proof that Phillips found potato in Annie’s stomach. If you can’t….and you won’t….then neither you or I or anyone can possibly know what that food was. You can speculate all that you want but don’t try and present it as evidence. Because it isn’t by any means.

But it is unlikely.

No, it is very likely. Three witness outweigh a Doctors unsafe estimate. Especially when that Doctor clearly admitted the possibility of a later ToD. However unlikely he felt it to have been.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is equally as illogical as that which you believe Dr Phillips intended.

1) You acknowledge you're claiming that Dr Phillips intended: at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.
2) You think there is something strange in this. Rather than acknowledge that it is your interpretation of Dr Phillips' statement that is strange, you claim it is my presentation of your interpretation that is strange even though you agree that my presentation of your interpretation is accurate.

'Strange old world.

By the way, Dr Phillips didn't say: "I estimated 2 hours", he said: "at least two hours", which is entirely different because "at least" means the minimum time possible in the English language, and that is pertinent to the whole discussion.

And what does the more rapid cooling mean?

According to you’re interpretation it means…..2 hours or probably more or probably more than more.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

By reference to medical evidence, I concluded:

It is possible that potato remained in Chapman's stomach for three and three-quarter hours, that rigor mortis set in after about an hour, and that her body cooled unusually quickly.

But it is unlikely.

Now someone contradicts me and says

No, it is very likely.

And then cites the evidence of three witnesses, one of whom was only an ear witness.

He did not refer to any medical evidence.

[Fleetwood Mac]

2 hours or probably more or probably more than more

You've said this quite a few times and I haven't responded to it.

You have replied to my posts where I have stated this:

"At least two hours and probably more but due to the fairly cold morning I cannot be certain on nor quantify that probably more". A perfectly reasonable statement in the English language.

So, you know exactly what I'm saying, you know I'm not suggesting "probably more and probably more".

Yet you choose to claim that.

Two reasons:

1) This is what you do, in just about every discussion on every subject. You magic things out of thin air because you cannot reasonably discuss that which is put in front of you.

2) You know: "at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours", is ridiculous; and so your only response is to make up something equally ridiculous and assign it to the person you're replying to. The fact the person you're replying is demonstrably not saying such a thing, doesn't matter to you.

[Doctored Whatsit]

This is equally as illogical as that which you believe Dr Phillips intended.

1) You acknowledge you're claiming that Dr Phillips intended: at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.
2) You think there is something strange in this. Rather than acknowledge that it is your interpretation of Dr Phillips' statement that is strange, you claim it is my presentation of your interpretation that is strange even though you agree that my presentation of your interpretation is accurate.

'Strange old world.

By the way, Dr Phillips didn't say: "I estimated 2 hours", he said: "at least two hours", which is entirely different because "at least" means the minimum time possible in the English language, and that is pertinent to the whole discussion.

You, and only you, are claiming that others suggest that Phillips is treated as saying or meaning "at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than two hours". Everyone else is making the simple, direct and correct observation that he stated his original ToD, and then said that it could be incorrect, and it could have been a later time. We aren't inventing anything, you are, we are repeating what Phillips actually said.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You, and only you, are claiming that others suggest that Phillips is treated as saying or meaning "at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than two hours". Everyone else is making the simple, direct and correct observation that he stated his original ToD, and then said that it could be incorrect, and it could have been a later time. We aren't inventing anything, you are, we are repeating what Phillips actually said.

I think you need to pay more attention to Jeff's post.