John Richardson

[Paul Sutton]

A dark, foreign-looking (probably Jewish) man in his forties, who probably did not write the graffito.

It's massively annoying for someone to turn up and say: 'What the hell is the point of this discussion?'. Pompous and maddening - guilty as charged.

But to me falls that task! I take up my role without complaint, a trusty warrior plunging into battle (can't recall Jonathan Aitken's exact words).

I've read fantastic and illuminating work, on JtR - I'd single out Christer and Mr Bank Holiday Murders (always forget the name - Tim W). Also the stuff on House of Lechmere. It matters not that I don't agree.

This sure as hell ain't that, the early vs late. It's pointless. Now, it's 'rude' of me to decry an innocent and harmless activity - but surely one person saying this can't be so outrageous!

[Paul Sutton]

Since 1998 we've debated the in's & out's of practically everything in these cases, except perhaps the colour of Diemshutz's cart horse.
So now, we often get bogged down in the minutae of the cases. In this instance the debate (although it has not been mentioned for what seems like a Coon's age), whether Richardson could have seen the body of Chapman laying beside the house steps at 4:45 am, as he sat on the steps, or stood by the top of the cellar steps.
Not the first time this has been debated either.

However, recently, the debate has shifted to what Dr Phillips was meaning when he told the court Chapman had been dead "for at least 2 hours, probably more", then to correct his statement by calling the courts attention to the fact the morning was sufficiently cold, the body sufficiently mutilated, and blood loss sufficient to cause the body to loose it's temperature more rapidly than the accepted charts/tables/formulae's would suggest.

So, did she die at 4:30 (Phillips initial assessment), or about 5:30 (witness testimony)?

Edit: By the way, Phillips is supposed to have said "at least 2+ hours" about 6:30 am, - hence the 4:30 ToD.

I know what the debate is about, and the how - but why?

It's like in '1984' - the question that truly maddens O'Brien, from Winston, is when he asks that - Why?

After adding to the torture, O'Brien answers - 'Power' (I'm paraphrasing).

Isn't it the same here? Or perhaps 'authority'?

[Abby Normal]

1. The letters give an insight into JtR, plus details.
2. Ditto the graffito - the debate on Judaism.
3. Any witness sighting is relevant, though the endless semantical/lexical analysis soon removes that.

But this one - how would it affect who JtR is? Yes, time is relevant, but there's no path I can see between either time and that. I know about the supposed later sighting of Chapman, but with whom?

Hi PS
Well for one thing it helps rule in or out certain suspects/theories. It helps the lech theory because earlier TOD is more in line with when he was going to work and beleivers in the royal theory (yes there is still of them left) because it more likely she would be dumped there in dark of light.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But to me falls that task! I take up my role without complaint, a trusty warrior plunging into battle (can't recall Jonathan Aitken's exact words).

He said: If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it.

Following his subsequent libel trial fiasco, it was said that he had been impaled upon his own sword.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And I accept that he should be considered but I think that he’s a poor suspect. And you could be right about there might be some piece of important information that we’ve missed. And you’re right in that we should argue the point not the poster but that should apply to all and not just me.

Agreed, it should be applied across the board.

You're entitled to think he's a poor suspect.

I think the vast majority of those generally viewed as decent suspects, are poor suspects.

Look at someone like Bury. How many serial killers kill their wife? That's just not the way they are. It's not unheard of but it is highly unusual. Serial killers just don't think like that. They ambush what they see as weaker targets, strangers. And, it is known that Lechmere was at one murder site.

Comparing Lechmere with Bury, I'd say Lechmere is more likely for the reasons mentioned.

So, maybe those quick to pour scorn on Christer's opinion do not necessarily have a great argument themselves.

Anyway, we agree on 'argue the point', that's the main thing.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, but Stride was seen by Brown on the corner by the Board School at 12:45, but also Schwartz saw Stride in the gateway by herself being assaulted at 12:45, they can't both be correct.

The same with Packer who claimed he saw Stride about 11:00pm, standing outside his window buying grapes, yet Best & Gardner saw her at the Bricklayers Arms about 11:00, they can't both be right.

What about Maxwell who swore she saw Kelly outside, several hours after she was confirmed dead?

Your argument works both ways.
Witnesses can be mistaken.

Yes.

You are right about Brown.

I had read that before, but this time I confused him with Smith, and then read online an earlier time for Brown's sighting.

Of course witnesses can be mistaken, and that is the view that the police took of Long's testimony.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How many serial killers kill their wife?

John Reginald Halliday Christie

[Wickerman]

I know what the debate is about, and the how - but why?

It's like in '1984' - the question that truly maddens O'Brien, from Winston, is when he asks that - Why?

After adding to the torture, O'Brien answers - 'Power' (I'm paraphrasing).

Isn't it the same here? Or perhaps 'authority'?

Ok, "why?"
Meaning - Why does it matter?
We all might have different reasons, we don't ask each other "why does it matter to you?". Though we know some members hold theories that require Chapman being murdered early - 4:45 am. A few have suggested Richardson should be a suspect. Other's just like to sort out what witnesses meant by their published statements.
My interest is more like the latter - sorting out the true meaning of what witnesses said or meant.

I don't have a ripper suspect, though there is one unidentified character that I am suspicious about, but he plays no role in the Chapman case that we know of.
Opinions are certainly divided between the 4:30 & 5:30 arguments.
If you're looking for a reason that is important, one probably doesn't exist, this is our entertainment - a distraction from the daily grind. Though some of us are out of the rat-race so we have other reason's.

[Fleetwood Mac]

John Reginald Halliday Christie

There are a couple more, I'm pretty sure an American not too long back.

But it is highly unusual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Here we go again. Yet another person who simply thinks that he knows more than the authorities on the subject.


Yet another person who agrees with Swanson about the reliability of Long's sighting of Chapman.

But perhaps you don't include Swanson in the authorities?


Ok. There’s a relevant point that eyewitnesses can be mistaken. It certainly happens and this can’t be denied and I’ve never tried to PI. I’ve made two points on this.

1. It’s almost universally accepted that Lawende saw Eddowes and I’m not saying that he didn’t. But he saw her at night and from across the road (and yes, I’ll mention that he’d just exited a club so that there is a reasonable chance that he’d been drinking.) Long saw ‘Chapman’ in daylight as she walked directly past her and looked at he face from a much shorter distance) This doesn’t prove her correct of course but it doesn’t allow us to simply dismiss her testimony on the ‘eyewitness can be mistaken grounds) So at the very least we should say that it’s possible that she saw Chapman.
2. Because we have 2 other witnesses who support a later ToD then it’s reasonable to ask ourselves ‘what are the chances of a woman, with no reason to lie or to show an exaggerated level of confidence, seeing a woman who looked just like Chapman at that spot at that time?’

So yes, witnesses can be mistaken. Long could have been mistaken. But we should assume it but consider it.

His opinion isn’t being downplayed in any way. It’s being described exactly as it was. It’s irrelevant how you or I or anyone sees Phillips estimate. He could have been right; he could have been wrong. You cannot skew it one way purely because of wish-thinking.

If the accusation of wishful thinking can be made, why should it be made only against those on one side of the argument?

Because when I, or others, say that Phillips was employing unreliable methods with Victorian-level knowledge we aren’t making it up to prove a point PI. We are simply stating a fact. And as I’ve said numerous time this doesn’t mean that a Victorian doctor could never get a ToD estimation correct only that we have to consider his estimate in light of what the experts conclusively tell us.


So you say…in light of….no one saw came forward and said that they’d seen Annie…Phillips estimate looks reasonable. Brilliant.

That's right.

Yes, I was being sarcastic but it’s difficult to understand how can think this a valid point (and this is why I think that some are working too hard to prove an earlier ToD) Just because the other women were seen doesn’t mean that Chapman must have been. She might have been seen by a few who paid her no attention. She could have been seen by someone who didn’t want to be involved with the police. We can’t assume something from an unknown or a gap in our knowledge.


What about….. in light of…..a witness who was 100% confident that she wasn’t in the yard at 4.45…..a witness. Who heard a noise and a voice coming from the yard…….a witness who said that she saw Annie at 5.30.

What about the contradictory character of that witness' testimony, the fact that the second witness could not be certain as to where the voice came from, and the police scepticism of the value of the third witness' testimony?

You see contradiction I don’t, and neither do others. Ok, let’s take your point against Cadosch….he said:

“As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.”

Dont you think that’s a strange way of putting it? He seems to be saying ‘I think it came from number 29 but I can’t say where it came from?” It’s clumsy…awkward. Is there an interpretation that fits the wording better? I’m sure there is.

I think he was saying “I think it came from number 29 but I cannot say which side of that yard it came from.”

So instead of not being sure what side of himself it came from (number 29 or number 25) he wasn’t sure what side of number 29 it came from (his own side [the fence next to him] or the number 31 side)

Whatever you think about that I was surprised when Abby told me that he’d always assumed that my interpretation was what he’d meant.

So no, we can’t even be certain that he was unsure about the ‘No.’

But he was totally certain about the noise and so unless he was having aural hallucinations then someone was moving around in that yard between 5.25 and 5.30.


Three witnesses that you spend ages trying to demonise and denigrate.

That is completely untrue and, since you are often keen on challenging me to find someone who agrees with me, I challenge you to find someone who agrees with you about that.

A strange point PI considering those that clearly agree with me on the witnesses and who believe that over-strenuous efforts are made in an effort to try and dismiss them. AP for one.

John Richardson alone is enough to kick Phillips guess into touch.


That is ridiculous.

We know that Phillips examined the body.

We cannot know that Richardson sat on the step.

Yes we can. He told us at the inquest. He had no reason to lie and even if he wanted to lie to prove that he couldn’t have missed the body why would he tell such a story as the boot repair on the step - this just introduced the suggestion that the body was behind the door and it put a knife in his hand to boot. How insanely stupid would he have had to have been to have done this when all that he had to say was “I pushed the door all the way back to the fence so I couldn’t have missed the body,” and it’s point proven. It’s clear then that he wasn’t lying. So why do you assume that he would have?



Later ToD overwhelmingly likely now, overwhelmingly likely tomorrow.


I think you are overstating your case, as always.

In spite of my being treated as if I am an heretic, I have never made similar claims of near certainty about an earlier TOD to yours about a later TOD.

I have simply made the case for it and have noticed that it causes remarkable irritation and even sometimes explosive responses, and wonder why.

Its not actually the opinion of a later or earlier ToD that’s irritating. It’s the claim that the evidence favours an earlier ToD. The evidence favours a later ToD. We have only three relevant witnesses and every one points to a later ToD and Phillips estimate isn’t strong enough on its own to challenge them.



Desperate attempts to prove otherwise are noticeably getting more and more embarrassing.


What is desperate about presenting a case?

Why should someone be embarrassed by obviously-exaggerated denunciations of it?

You’re seeing a lack of balance on the wrong side of the debate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1. The letters give an insight into JtR, plus details.
2. Ditto the graffito - the debate on Judaism.
3. Any witness sighting is relevant, though the endless semantical/lexical analysis soon removes that.

But this one - how would it affect who JtR is? Yes, time is relevant, but there's no path I can see between either time and that. I know about the supposed later sighting of Chapman, but with whom?

But every discussion doesn’t have to be directly concerned with who the killer was Paul. I don’t know if you’ve ever looked over on JTRForums but suspects are almost never discussed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A dark, foreign-looking (probably Jewish) man in his forties, who probably did not write the graffito.

You seem to have a thing about the Jewish PI. it’s a regular theme with you. If the killer did write the grafitto (and I’m not saying that he did) why couldn’t he have been Jewish?

[Lewis C]

We sort of have an idea that they did.

[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.

But... DOCTOR SAID FOUR THIRTY!!!!!!!!!

Good point, AP. "Immoral purpose" does seem to refer to prostitution.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You seem to have a thing about the Jewish PI.

I can provide you with a long list of highly-inappropriate things about the Jewish from other threads, written by a small collection of posters, and I did not write any of them.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If the killer did write the grafitto (and I’m not saying that he did) why couldn’t he have been Jewish?

For the same reasons that the police at the time concluded that he was not.