John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

I think you may have been mislead by the way it is worded.
I don't think Phillips establish, at 6:30 (when he arrived), that the body had been dead for two or more hours. I'd be surprised if the doctor would commit to anything so early in the investigation.
It's not like modern TV detectives where the first question they ask is 'when was she murdered doctor?'

Chandler does say Phillips arrived about 6:30, Richardson came about 6:45, and Chandler went to the mortuary a few minutes after 7:00.
If Chandler took a brief statement from Richardson when he arrived, he certainly spent some time talking to him. He may have been too busy to speak with Phillips, he gives no hint that they spoke for any length except that Phillips had to hand the bits he found in the yard to Chandler.

Hi Wick,

Yes, I think I must have misremembered something! Chandler, I thought, gave evidence that Phillips had said "at least two hours" or something similar at the site, but I can't find it - either I am wrong (probably) or it was in a different newspaper account.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I guess it strongly suggests he was taken there by Chapman and thought 'this is perfect, provided I don't get blocked in.' He felt secure there, which to me (not having followed the timing argument) means it was dark and quiet, not with people getting up for a slash. If it was dark, he may not even have realised how much of a trap it was.

I'm not up to speed on what the rigor mortis argument says, but I think the murder was as early as possible, just from the location.

Those who seem to think, judging by remarks made in this thread, that those who are sceptical about the value of assertions made here that Chapman must have been murdered at about 5.30 a.m. must be suffering from some mental defect, which prevents the truth - which it is claimed has been established beyond any reasonable doubt - from sinking in, are expecting readers to believe that the murderer was prepared to go into a back yard as it was starting to get light, knowing he could easily be seen by a third party and that it was a potential trap.

Further, that he just got lucky and was not there when Richardson called, nor when Davies entered the yard about an hour later.

Further, although in Dutfield's Yard he was able to see anyone entering the yard, and in Mitre Square he could sense anyone entering from Mitre Street or Church Passage, in this case he could not see whether anyone was entering the house from the street, nor even whether someone was coming down the stairs with the intention of entering the yard to go to the lavatory.

In such circumstances, why would someone who committed all the other outdoor murders in the series in dark places where he could sense any stranger's approach, commit the murder in Hanbury Street in a potential trap when it was starting to get light?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, Dutfield's was the riskiest in terms of getting seen or caught in the act, but surely Hanbury was in terms of not being able to get away? How would one, other than down the passage, which could easily be blocked. Hopping the fence(s) still traps one in a neighbouring back-yard.

Hi Paul,

I think that the problem for JtR with the locations would be that the victim would be the likely one to choose the place from her previous experience.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doctor,

I would add that there's nothing to suggest that Richardson really changed his story anyway. He seems to have given more details in later versions of the story, but he didn't contradict himself. When a person tells a story more than once, they might give a more detailed version in one case than in another. Especially if they are asked questions; some details may be given in response to questions.

Agreed. But it is difficult to believe that Richardson didn't provide the sitting on the steps part of the story at the outset, because that is the relevant bit that established, for him, that the body couldn't have been there.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Paul,

I think that the problem for JtR with the locations would be that the victim would be the likely one to choose the place from her previous experience.

And the problem for those who are committed to such a late time of death is that the murderer chose the time and whether to go with a prospective victim, and moreover that he is not known to have committed a murder anything like that late any other time.

In fact, it appears that the latest he committed a murder was 3.45 a.m., or perhaps 4 a.m., and that was two months later, when it got light rather later and when he was indoors.

[Doctored Whatsit]

And the problem for those who are committed to such a late time of death is that the murderer chose the time and whether to go with a prospective victim, and moreover that he is not known to have committed a murder anything like that late any other time.

In fact, it appears that the latest he committed a murder was 3.45 a.m., or perhaps 4 a.m., and that was two months later, when it got light rather later and when he was indoors.

The Nichols murder was committed earlier, and in a very dark area, and the abdominal slashings that he performed might have been intended to be more of an evisceration as were his later kills, but possibly he couldn't see well enough. Or maybe he just realised that with a bit more light he could do much more next time.

We are all speculating, but I don't feel that there is good evidence that he worked to some sort of timetable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are you so deluded that you cannot see the flaws in the witness testimony along with the conflicting evidence they give

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You can get as angry as you like Trevor but the simple fact is that you just keep parroting the same phrases over and over and over again. Unsafe to rely on, unsafe to rely on, blah, blah. You have proven time and again that you simply can’t assess evidence fairly and logically. You have no judgment.

All that you’ve done is to pick a conclusion first, which in your case is earlier ToD, just because the 4 other murders occur earlier and you think that the ripper was working to a timetable, then you set about shaping your evidence to fit.

You admit that Phillips ToD was unsafe and yet you still go with it, which is one of the most mind-bending pieces of lunacy that I’ve ever heard (and coming from a former Detective!!) Then you still keep spouting that the witnesses are ‘unsafe.’ I thought ‘unsafe’ was ok? It’s ok for Phillips to be ‘unsafe’ and to be believed so why isn’t it ok for the witnesses to be ‘unsafe’ and be believed? There were 3 of them after all.

Albert Cadosch is not ‘unsafe.’ There is absolutely nothing that he said which even slightly indicated incapacity, or dishonesty and there are no reasonable alternative suggestions for what he heard. Can witnesses in general be mistaken? Of course they can but that would apply to every single one. You can’t just keep spouting the same generalities. You have to assess and any fair unbiased assessment would have to make him a good witness. We can’t even get an unbiased assessment of the English language when I made the perfectly sensible and plausible and likely suggestion that he wasn’t unsure about what side of number 27 the sound came from but unsure about what side of number 29 it came from.

John Richardson is one of the strongest witnesses in the whole case. Phillips earlier ToD should be dismissed with a 95+% certainty on Richardson testimony alone. The suggestion that this perfectly normal bloke came up with a lie is silly. That he would have invented the knife story is nothing short of barking mad! The suggestion is that he was trying to prove that the body couldn’t have been there right?

So first, why did he need to? Why not just say “yeah perhaps I it was behind the door?” He wasn’t being suspected by Chandler but Chandler was asking him if he could have innocently missed it. So again…..why did he need to lie? Secondly, if he did lie to try and prove that the body wasn’t there, why didn’t he come up with this fiendishly clever, Professor Moriarty-like like……” because I pushed the door all the way back to the fence and looked down and….whaddya know….no body!” But no, that’s too easy isn’t it? He also ignores “I stepped into the yard and the door shut…no body!” Or…”I went to the outside loo and coming back I saw….you guessed it….no body!” But no, you and others expect everyone to believe that he invented a lie involving carrots, a rabbit, some boot repair and a knife…..at the seen of a brutal knife murder!!!! You simply couldn’t make this stuff up. Richardson is only ‘unsafe’ if we cherrypick our way through the various reports and pick the bits that we like and then interpret them to suit.

Long, like all eyewitnesses, could have been mistaken, but it’s interesting that no one appears to doubt Lawende’s testimony and yet Long saw the couple in better conditions and from closer at hand. Lawende is believed and Long is constantly dismissed by those who choose to do it.

Three witnesses, however imperfect, trump a Doctors unreliable estimation. That’s if, for once you could assess evidence fairly, evenly and without resorting to denigrating witnesses by the repetition of stock phrases.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But considerably more reliable than Philips' ToD.

Long, Cadoche and Richardson's statements are considerably more reliable than Phillips' estimate of the time of Chapman's death?

If you really believe that, there is a huge chasm between your understanding of the evidence and mine.

We know that Phillips saw Chapman but we do not know that Long saw her.


If you believe that Long saw Chapman, then do you think that the police should have been looking for a dark foreigner in his 40s?

[A P Tomlinson]

If you really believe that, there is a huge chasm between your understanding of the evidence and mine.

Finally we agree on something.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Long, like all eyewitnesses, could have been mistaken, but it’s interesting that no one appears to doubt Lawende’s testimony and yet Long saw the couple in better conditions and from closer at hand. Lawende is believed and Long is constantly dismissed by those who choose to do it.

Swanson chose to believe that Lawende was far more reliable a witness than Long.

And he was undoubtedly right, in my opinion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Finally we agree on something.

Thanks, APT.

I thought you might try to answer my question, though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson chose to believe that Lawende was far more reliable a witness than Long.

And he was undoubtedly right, in my opinion.

That’s your opinion. I don’t. She was closer and in better light.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We are all speculating, but I don't feel that there is good evidence that he worked to some sort of timetable.

Of course, he did not work to a timetable.

But we are asked to believe that in this one case, the murderer chose to commit a murder as it was getting light even though he was in a location where he would be unable to sense anyone's approach, that the victim's body cooled unusually quickly, that rigor mortis set in unusually quickly, and that the murderer chose not to wash his bloodstained hands with the water from an easily visible tap.

It is unlikely.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That’s your opinion. I don’t. She was closer and in better light.

But opinion is, and always has been, divided on the question of whether Chapman was alive at the time that Long thought she saw her.

We know that Eddowes was still alive.

[Wickerman]

I think it was Baxter who said that as far as the witnesses go, if there's a discrepancy of about 15 minutes, it doesn't really matter.
It's not like we've got a bus to catch, the difference is only minutes not hours, so the witnesses are more accurate than Phillips's initial estimate.