John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

You must have noticed how many versions there are of that canopy?
Journalists only described the scene to the artist, which accounts for the variety.
My concern is in the photograph.
The level of the marks beneath the window shows where some kind of roof/canopy touched the wall. It was almost the same height or just a little above the top step of the house.
None of the sketches I have seen show a canopy so low, so none of them are reliable, in my view.

Tru but difficult to know exacly what those markings are wick , its makes it all more interesting tho when we have at least 3 sketches to look at whilst trying to work out a perticular senario as to what Richardson claimed he did .

Im still of the opinion as Trevor and George on this one, and i guess with the two sketches i showed make it possible he could have looked down at the lock then turn back inside and left without seeing Chapmans body , others may see if differently .

[FISHY1118]

Eastern Post Sep 15, 1888:

Coroner & John Richardson: Did you go into the yard at all? - Not at all, sir.
I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right? - Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

Mrs. Richardson, recalled in her son's absence: Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door? - No, he can see from the steps.

Phillips observed that Chapman's body was cold and rigor mortis was just beginning when he examined the body at 6:30AM. Brown said that Eddowes body was still quite warm with no rigor mortis when he examined it at 2:20AM, and estimated she had been dead roughly 40 minutes.
I remain unconvinced that an extra 20 minutes made that much difference in body temperature and rigor. So, to answer your question Fishy, I believe Phillip's ToD estimate of 2 hours or more.

Cheers, George

Thanks George , I alway thought that was the case too .

[Aethelwulf]

Thanks George , I alway thought that was the case too .

but Phillips did caveat with: 'but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood'

[FISHY1118]

but Phillips did caveat with: 'but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood'

Yes he did say that , but how are we to read what that means in terms of did he want to suggest '' So take an hour off that time '? i dont know, how could anyone interpret exactly what that means for certain ?

[Aethelwulf]

Yes he did say that , but how are we to read what that means in terms of did he want to suggest '' So take an hour off that time '? i dont know, how could anyone interpret exactly what that means for certain ?

it just means there is uncertainty and to suggest with certainty that the ToD was 2 hours or more before the examination is incorrect.

Phillips is implying that in his professional opinion 'this is my best estimate but due to these factors I can't be certain'.

GB said 'I remain unconvinced that an extra 20 minutes made that much difference in body temperature and rigor'. Is he a pathologist? No. Taken with the witness statements, however problematic, there is more than enough material to lean away from 2 hours or more IMO

[Herlock Sholmes]

There were also factors that affected TOD assessments that Phillips wouldn’t have been aware of in 1888 that doctors know now.

[FISHY1118]

it just means there is uncertainty and to suggest with certainty that the ToD was 2 hours or more before the examination is incorrect.

Phillips is implying that in his professional opinion 'this is my best estimate but due to these factors I can't be certain'.

GB said 'I remain unconvinced that an extra 20 minutes made that much difference in body temperature and rigor'. Is he a pathologist? No. Taken with the witness statements, however problematic, there is more than enough material to lean away from 2 hours or more IMO

Agree , im not saying his was right with any certainty, just that in his opinion best estimate of 2 hours probably more suggest to me that he himself believed it was in the ball park.

If he was uncertain to the point of ''i could be way way out'' why not be a bit more conservative with his estimate ?. Just a thought.

[Wickerman]

Tru but difficult to know exacly what those markings are wick , its makes it all more interesting tho when we have at least 3 sketches to look at whilst trying to work out a perticular senario as to what Richardson claimed he did .

Im still of the opinion as Trevor and George on this one, and i guess with the two sketches i showed make it possible he could have looked down at the lock then turn back inside and left without seeing Chapmans body , others may see if differently .

Sometimes opinions crop up here on Casebook that for the life of me I can't believe are supposed to be taken seriously, this is one of them.

Chapman's head (as described) was in front of the bottom step, her body extended 5+ feet out into the yard, her legs were bent out at the knee (butterfly-style), so her right knee would have been in front of Richardson. The body was not hidden behind the door in any way, and him sitting on the middle step only serves to emphasize the point.
He couldn't possibly have missed the body, had it been there.
I don't know where you live, but it is pretty light at 4:50 in the first week of September.
The whole idea that he couldn't have seen the body, in my view is preposterous, a purely unrealistic argument, sorry.

[GBinOz]

Sometimes opinions crop up here on Casebook that for the life of me I can't believe are supposed to be taken seriously, this is one of them.

Chapman's head (as described) was in front of the bottom step, her body extended 5+ feet out into the yard, her legs were bent out at the knee (butterfly-style), so her right knee would have been in front of Richardson. The body was not hidden behind the door in any way, and him sitting on the middle step only serves to emphasize the point.
He couldn't possibly have missed the body, had it been there.
I don't know where you live, but it is pretty light at 4:50 in the first week of September.
The whole idea that he couldn't have seen the body, in my view is preposterous, a purely unrealistic argument, sorry.

Hi Jon,

I totally agree that if he sat on the second step he couldn't possibly have missed the body, had it been there. But I don't believe he sat on the second step, or the boot story, but rather what he told Chandler. I think he opened the door just enough to check the lock and then left for work. There would have been a lot more light at 5:30 so the murderer would have been highly observable by the many people in the building up and about preparing to go to work, instead of sleeping peacefully two hours earlier. I don't see that as characteristic of JtR murders..

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

GB said 'I remain unconvinced that an extra 20 minutes made that much difference in body temperature and rigor'. Is he a pathologist? No. Taken with the witness statements, however problematic, there is more than enough material to lean away from 2 hours or more IMO

I'm not a pathologist, and neither was Baxter. He was a solicitor. I'm going with the medical opinion, as did Scotland Yard and Swanson. Phillip's comment 'but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood' applied equally to Eddowes, and while there were factors that affected TOD assessments that Phillips wouldn’t have been aware of in 1888 that doctors know now, both Chapman and Eddowes were assessed using the same methodology of the time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t really see a reason for Richardson to have lied about sitting on the step though? If we look at the options

1) He sat on the steps and saw no body because it wasn’t there.
2) He sat on the steps and saw no body because the door obstructed his view of it.
3) That he only looked into the yard and therefore didn’t open the door wide enough to have seen the body.
4) That he did see the body but lied.

So,

1) Needs no comment.
2) He’d actually seen the body in situ and knew it’s position and, as Wick has pointed out, her body extended from an invisible line running across from the bottom step to the fence and out 5+ out into the yard. Her two knees were also pointed outward with her legs apart which considering the gap to the fence would have taken her right knee to around the line of the door if it was opened to around 90 degrees. Then look at that huge gap between the bottom of the door and the ground. Also, if he’d opened the door to step down onto the flags so that he could sit on the middle step then he would have pushed the door open easily wide enough to have made the body visible.
3) Then why did he insist on saying that he’d sat on the step? I can’t see the sense in him saying this if it wasn’t true? Why not just say “I only glimpsed toward the cellar so I haven’t a clue if there was a body there or not?”
4) Same as above or he could have called for the police knowing that he had no blood on him and that he had a genuine reason for being there.

In my opinion the chances of Richardson missing a mutilated corpse lying in that position and at that location is less that 1%. I think that Philips was simply wrong in his TOD estimation. We know little for certain about Richardson, Cadosch, Long, Chandler etc in terms of their honesty or intelligence or competence but one thing that we do know however is that TOD were unreliable at that time. So it’s witnesses over the doctor for me. And that’s no reflection on Phillips honesty or competence.

[FISHY1118]

Sometimes opinions crop up here on Casebook that for the life of me I can't believe are supposed to be taken seriously, this is one of them.

Chapman's head (as described) was in front of the bottom step, her body extended 5+ feet out into the yard, her legs were bent out at the knee (butterfly-style), so her right knee would have been in front of Richardson. The body was not hidden behind the door in any way, and him sitting on the middle step only serves to emphasize the point.
He couldn't possibly have missed the body, had it been there.
I don't know where you live, but it is pretty light at 4:50 in the first week of September.
The whole idea that he couldn't have seen the body, in my view is preposterous, a purely unrealistic argument, sorry.

And yet something as simple as Richardson standing on the top step with the door open on enough of an angle to look to his right then turn back and go inside is somehow preposterous and unrealistic !! im sorry but i dont agree .

Inspector Chandler has her head in a different position [ at the bottom of the step] , so again we have two different placements of her body position ] like the sketchers wick ,each opinion given by the evidence put forward allows you and me to come to a different conclusion , so based on what Chandler said about Richardson making no mention of sitting on the step and cutting his boot leather, and the position of her body according to Chandler, how is it your theory is any more believable than mine ?

Im truly at at loss as why some posters want to use the evidence in a certain way yet **** can someones opinion using the same evidence!!

This is an all to common occurrance here on casebook .

[GBinOz]

one thing that we do know however is that TOD were unreliable at that time. So it’s witnesses over the doctor for me. And that’s no reflection on Phillips honesty or competence.

Hi Herlock,

If the medical ToDs are compared to the generally accepted ToD for the C5, how much error is there in each case? Setting aside Maxwell for this exercise, four have errors in minutes or small percentages, but it is proposed that for Chapman's ToD, Phillips was out by an hour (100%) or more. Phillips testified that rigor mortis was just beginning, and that usually does not commence before two hours, and its onset is delayed by cold temperature. Then, as now with the aid of CCTV, witness testimony has been proved to be notoriously unreliable, so with all due respect to the opinion of your good self, I'll take the opposite side of the argument, which in itself in not unusual.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Jon,

I totally agree that if he sat on the second step he couldn't possibly have missed the body, had it been there. But I don't believe he sat on the second step, or the boot story, but rather what he told Chandler. I think he opened the door just enough to check the lock and then left for work. There would have been a lot more light at 5:30 so the murderer would have been highly observable by the many people in the building up and about preparing to go to work, instead of sleeping peacefully two hours earlier. I don't see that as characteristic of JtR murders..

Cheers, George

Just as a matter of interest George , i have a 3 step front entrance to my home with a screen door opening to the left as shown in post 2 ,youd be amaized at what you cant see holding the door open on a 40 degree angle.

[GBinOz]

3) Then why did he insist on saying that he’d sat on the step? I can’t see the sense in him saying this if it wasn’t true? Why not just say “I only glimpsed toward the cellar so I haven’t a clue if there was a body there or not?”

Hi Herlock,

I don't know why, but I'll ask you to consider that when the coroner started putting pressure on Richardson about his carrying a knife and ordered him to present it, he put forward a knife obviously unsuited to the task and commented that it was not sharp enough to cut leather and he had to finish the job at work with a borrowed knife. The was after this testimony:

[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.

It is far easier to contradict yourself if you are making up a story than if you are telling the truth.

Cheers, George