John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Nothing wrong with differing opinions and civilised discussion on same.

I was suggesting that the evidence vindicated the doctor's ToDs, but you seem to be suggesting that they may have cribbed their estimates by knowing the answer?

I notice that you left out MJK. I find it curious that Richardson's evolving story can be preferred to Phillip's estimated ToD, but Maxwell's solid unbreakable (Abberline) evidence is discredited in favour of an "unreliable" ToD.

Cheers, George

All that I’m saying George is that the doctors did have other evidence that they would have been aware of which would have assisted the process of narrowing down. Another way of putting my point perhaps is that in assessing Richardson we have to consider, a) the location (the door, the steps, the position of the body etc) b) the visibility at the time, c) Richardson’s competence as a witness and d) his honesty.

So my opinion would be that with a) the location would preclude the suggestion of him missing the body if he’d sat on those steps - I realise of course that you agree with this point and that your doubt comes from a suggestion that he might just have stood on the top step and looked into the yard - which, if that happened, I’d agree that it could have been possible for him to have missed the body. b) I think that we all agree that the light couldn’t have been an issue, especially with the body being so close to the steps. c) we have no reason for challenging Richardson’s competence as a witness whilst stressing his awareness of the position of the body and the possibility that a door might obscure a body.

Your doubt comes from d) of course. As you know, my point is that Richardson has no reason that we’re aware of to have deliberately lied. In fact I’d say that he would have done himself a favour if he had just said that he’d opened the door slightly and glanced over to the cellar. Why add that he’d sat on the step if it wasn’t true? Why introduce the knife when he could have said that he’d smoked his pipe for example? For me the lie isn’t just unnecessary but he was creating issues for himself. As I suggested in an earlier post, what if the killer had been discovered and he’d told the police that he’d killed Chapman at 3.30? It’s also worth remembering that he had ample time between the murder and the inquest to think about what he was going to say. Why complicate? It’s just my opinion of course but I think that it’s possible that he might have told Chandler that he’d sat on the step but he might not have mentioned the boot at the time but he thought that he’d mentioned it. This was an interview in a corridor at a busy crime scene after all. Equally Chandler could have misremembered. I tend to favour understandable errors of communication rather than deliberate lies.

So I compare the above with the fact that we know from modern day medical experts how hit and miss TOD’s can be and how we’ve scene examples even in the modern day, of Doctors being wildly out in there estimations by way more than Phillips might have been out. So basically for me two witnesses (3 including Long) trump a Doctors unreliable estimation.

[Trevor Marriott]

All that I’m saying George is that the doctors did have other evidence that they would have been aware of which would have assisted the process of narrowing down. Another way of putting my point perhaps is that in assessing Richardson we have to consider, a) the location (the door, the steps, the position of the body etc) b) the visibility at the time, c) Richardson’s competence as a witness and d) his honesty.

So my opinion would be that with a) the location would preclude the suggestion of him missing the body if he’d sat on those steps - I realise of course that you agree with this point and that your doubt comes from a suggestion that he might just have stood on the top step and looked into the yard - which, if that happened, I’d agree that it could have been possible for him to have missed the body. b) I think that we all agree that the light couldn’t have been an issue, especially with the body being so close to the steps. c) we have no reason for challenging Richardson’s competence as a witness whilst stressing his awareness of the position of the body and the possibility that a door might obscure a body.

Your doubt comes from d) of course. As you know, my point is that Richardson has no reason that we’re aware of to have deliberately lied. In fact I’d say that he would have done himself a favour if he had just said that he’d opened the door slightly and glanced over to the cellar. Why add that he’d sat on the step if it wasn’t true? Why introduce the knife when he could have said that he’d smoked his pipe for example? For me the lie isn’t just unnecessary but he was creating issues for himself. As I suggested in an earlier post, what if the killer had been discovered and he’d told the police that he’d killed Chapman at 3.30? It’s also worth remembering that he had ample time between the murder and the inquest to think about what he was going to say. Why complicate? It’s just my opinion of course but I think that it’s possible that he might have told Chandler that he’d sat on the step but he might not have mentioned the boot at the time but he thought that he’d mentioned it. This was an interview in a corridor at a busy crime scene after all. Equally Chandler could have misremembered. I tend to favour understandable errors of communication rather than deliberate lies.

So I compare the above with the fact that we know from modern day medical experts how hit and miss TOD’s can be and how we’ve scene examples even in the modern day, of Doctors being wildly out in there estimations by way more than Phillips might have been out. So basically for me two witnesses (3 including Long) trump a Doctors unreliable estimation.

So who do you believe the doctors estimated TOD based on his examination and experience, or several witnesses who are all over the place with their testimony which each conflicting with the other amd the reliance the sound of bangs against the fence, and Cadoch not recalling whether he went out to use the outhose once or twice these witnesses are unsafe to rely on to support an earlier time of death.

Not forgetting you are sugesting that the murder took place after 5am when people ewere moving about and the fact that no murders took placce at that time of the morning suggests that Phillips TOD must not be far off.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So who do you believe the doctors estimated TOD based on his examination and experience, or several witnesses who are all over the place with their testimony which each conflicting with the other amd the reliance the sound of bangs against the fence, and Cadoch not recalling whether he went out to use the outhose once or twice these witnesses are unsafe to rely on to support an earlier time of death.

Not forgetting you are sugesting that the murder took place after 5am when people ewere moving about and the fact that no murders took placce at that time of the morning suggests that Phillips TOD must not be far off.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s as simple as this for me Trevor. Richardson was there at 4.45 and the body wasn’t there. Therefore Phillips must have been wrong. Then we have Cadosch hearing sounds from a yard that should have been empty apart from a mutilated corpse. So we have yet another two witnesses accused of lying?

By challenging the TOD estimation we aren’t saying anything outrageous. What’s a little strange is that I’m actually using your own, regularly (and very selectively imo) employed phrase. Dr Phillips TOD assessment is unsafe to rely on. A man simply looking all over a yard a seeing no mutilated corpse there is hardly a great skill. So I’d say that it would have been far easier for Phillips to have made an error than it would have been for Richardson to have done so.

[FISHY1118]

Its fairly simple really , ''If'' Richardson sits on the step [ the big one ] and cuts the leather from his boot, he sees the body .

''If'' he opens the door on a 40 degree angle and stands on the step looking to his right only to check the lock on the cellar door, he cant see the body.

All that remains is which one did he do ? and which one do people believe he did.

[Wickerman]

New shoes yes but there is no evidence that the shoes were new.

I read somewhere that the shoes had been hurting him the day before. so if that be the case he had ample opportunity to make the repair

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

For goodness sakes Trevor, maybe Richardson was a Leo.
I know a Leo who will whine & complain about something for days before she finally does something about it. This is not an argument, you're really sounding desperate now.

[Wickerman]

''If'' he opens the door on a 40 degree angle and stands on the step looking to his right only to check the lock on the cellar door, he cant see the body.

But, unless he sat down, he couldn't see the lock.
So, your second option is void, it also requires him to be seated (or at least positioned at a lower angle).

[FISHY1118]

But, unless he sat down, he couldn't see the lock.
So, your second option is void, it also requires him to be seated (or at least positioned at a lower angle).

Thats according to your sketch ,not the two i posted , so my second point is valid .

[GBinOz]

But, unless he sat down, he couldn't see the lock.
So, your second option is void, it also requires him to be seated (or at least positioned at a lower angle).

Hi Jon,

Both Richardson and his mother testified that the lock could be seen from the steps, no sitting down or crouching mentioned. The coroner put this question to Mrs Richardson specifically to clarify that point.

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.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely the point has to be that Richardson himself said that he’d sat on the step and I see no reason for him to have lied. I see this as very simple. He could see the whole of the yard and there was no body there. If there had been a body there he would have seen it. But he didn’t……because it wasn’t.

[Dickere]

Surely the point has to be that Richardson himself said that he’d sat on the step and I see no reason for him to have lied. I see this as very simple. He could see the whole of the yard and there was no body there. If there had been a body there he would have seen it. But he didn’t……because it wasn’t.

Or maybe because it wasn't that light but he didn't want to appear foolish at the inquest.

Sunrise in London at that time of year now is around 6.30. BST didn't exist then, so make that 5.30. Unless it was a clear sky, it would still be pretty dark 40 minutes before sunrise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or maybe because it wasn't that light but he didn't want to appear foolish at the inquest.

Sunrise in London at that time of year now is around 6.30. BST didn't exist then, so make that 5.30. Unless it was a clear sky, it would still be pretty dark 40 minutes before sunrise.

But it was light enough to see according to Richardson himself :

“[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.”

And the body was in such a position that from where he’d sat he could have reached and touched it.

[Wickerman]

Thats according to your sketch ,not the two i posted , so my second point is valid .

Forget the sketches, I posted a photograph showing how low the canopy over the cellar steps was, where it attached to the house wall.

[MrBarnett]

How far back was the cellar door?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Forget the sketches, I posted a photograph showing how low the canopy over the cellar steps was, where it attached to the house wall.

So the canopy would have been at or below the level of the top of Richardson’s head as he’d sat on the steps. With him standing on the steps it would have been around knee height.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Both Richardson and his mother testified that the lock could be seen from the steps, no sitting down or crouching mentioned. The coroner put this question to Mrs Richardson specifically to clarify that point.

George, we have him saying he sat on the steps - in the first exchange.

From, The Daily News, 13 Sept. 1888.

[Coroner]: Was the front door open on Saturday morning?

[The Witness]: No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot.


Then, in a later exchange he adds:


[Coroner]: Did you go into the yard at all?
[Richardson]: Not at all, sir.

[Coroner]: I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?
[Richardson]: 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.

[Coroner]: And that was the sole object you had in going there?
[Richardson]: Yes, sir.

[Coroner]: Did you sit on the top step?
[Richardson]: No, the second step.

[Coroner]: Where were your feet?
[Richardson]: On the flags of the yard.


So, George, you only posted the later exchange, where he didn't need to say he sat down, he had already made that clear in the first exchange.

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.[/COLOR]

Mrs Richardson only repeated what her son had already said - that he could see the lock from the steps. Which he could, while sitting down.