Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.
    Thats the way it looks to me, yet none of the sketches show a canopy so low, and none of them agree anyway, which indicates to me how inaccurate they are.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      How far back was the cellar door?
      It looks from the edge of the photo like the cellar door was recessed in about a foot from the edge of the brick wall.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        Thats the way it looks to me, yet none of the sketches show a canopy so low, and none of them agree anyway, which indicates to me how inaccurate they are.
        I think that the sketches can be dismissed as a source of properly accurate info Wick but it’s noticeable that in two of those sketches the top of the canopy is a few inches below the window whilst in the third the top of the canopy appears to be just over the level of the bottom of the window.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

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

          There was an exchange before that:
          The Coroner-Do you go every morning to see if the cellar is secure?-No; only on market mornings, when I am out early and there's a good lot of people about. I have done so for some months. Is that all you went for?-Yes, sir.

          Also with Mrs Richardson:
          The Witness-Oh, yes; I have missed a saw and a hammer, but that is a long time ago. They broke the padlock of the cellar door at the time. My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.

          Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.


          My interpretation is that the cross examination by the coroner is about the visits to check the padlock which Richardson had been making "for some months" and establishing that as his sole purpose for his being there, rather than any reference to the once only sitting on the steps. Likewise, I see his mother commenting on the "almost every morning before he goes to market" rather than the single step sitting claim. I appreciate that you have a different interpretation.

          I am placing more stock in the competence of the professionals, Phillips and Chandler, than the changing stories of three witnesses. I am also sceptical that Jack would have conducted a near daylight murder and then walked through the streets with at least some blood on his hands, particularly when there was a bowl of water in the yard, which he must have seen in that daylight, but didn't use. JMO.

          Best regards, George
          It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

          All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

          ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            .....I am placing more stock in the competence of the professionals, Phillips and Chandler, than the changing stories of three witnesses....
            George.
            Surely, your "changing stories" must include Dr Phillips, who first made a statement, only to qualify that by being vague?

            (Re: time of death?)...."...I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

            While it certainly may be true (effects of temperature), it hardly makes for a convincing argument as to a defacto time of death.
            Truth is, Dr Phillips was not sure.
            In fact, we may even go a step further and suggest that you, yourself, are arguing that you are more sure than Dr Phillips was?
            Now, how does that make any sense?

            I do agree with you the apparent time of the murder is later than the others, but Chapman was only the second so there was no established pattern by this time. The fact he then chose to operate earlier in the night (Stride, Eddowes & Kelly) just may have been due to him almost being seen/caught after this murder.

            Richardson testified he sat on the steps, Chandler did not contradict that testimony. In fact it was noted in writing at the inquest just how convinced Chandler was of the testimony from Richardson.
            Chandler was present, we were not.

            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              George.
              Surely, your "changing stories" must include Dr Phillips, who first made a statement, only to qualify that by being vague?

              (Re: time of death?)...."...I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

              While it certainly may be true (effects of temperature), it hardly makes for a convincing argument as to a defacto time of death.
              Truth is, Dr Phillips was not sure.
              In fact, we may even go a step further and suggest that you, yourself, are arguing that you are more sure than Dr Phillips was?
              Now, how does that make any sense?

              I do agree with you the apparent time of the murder is later than the others, but Chapman was only the second so there was no established pattern by this time. The fact he then chose to operate earlier in the night (Stride, Eddowes & Kelly) just may have been due to him almost being seen/caught after this murder.

              Richardson testified he sat on the steps, Chandler did not contradict that testimony. In fact it was noted in writing at the inquest just how convinced Chandler was of the testimony from Richardson.
              Chandler was present, we were not.
              In defence of Dr Phillips and his statement about the body cooling it should be noted that it was only September and the description he gave as a fairly cold morning should not be taken literally had it been mid-winter then it might have some relevance.

              He stated the body had started to show sings of rigor those signs would not be visible if she had been killed within the preceeding hour before his examniantion

              I quote Dr Biggs on this topic in his review of the inquest testimony and this specific topic

              "If the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death.”

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                George.
                Surely, your "changing stories" must include Dr Phillips, who first made a statement, only to qualify that by being vague?

                (Re: time of death?)...."...I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

                While it certainly may be true (effects of temperature), it hardly makes for a convincing argument as to a defacto time of death.
                Truth is, Dr Phillips was not sure.
                In fact, we may even go a step further and suggest that you, yourself, are arguing that you are more sure than Dr Phillips was?
                Now, how does that make any sense?

                I do agree with you the apparent time of the murder is later than the others, but Chapman was only the second so there was no established pattern by this time. The fact he then chose to operate earlier in the night (Stride, Eddowes & Kelly) just may have been due to him almost being seen/caught after this murder.

                Richardson testified he sat on the steps, Chandler did not contradict that testimony. In fact it was noted in writing at the inquest just how convinced Chandler was of the testimony from Richardson.
                Chandler was present, we were not.
                Hi Jon,

                I don't wish to appear obdurate, and you are aware of the regard in which I hold your opinions, but in this case I have to differ. I see Phillip's comment as a statement of fact which he included in his estimate, but Baxter saw it as a caveat to dismiss Phillip's time in favour of the witnesses. Scotland Yard and Swanson came to the same conclusion regarding Baxter. Brown got Eddowes time since death right, within minutes, at 40 minutes. Her body was warm with no rigor. How could Chapman be stone cold with rigor commencing in only 20 extra minutes? The second consideration in Phillip's estimate, the rigor mortis onset, is important as Trevor has suggested.

                Could you point out where Chandler was convinced by Richardson's testimony please. I have:

                Daily News 14 Sept:
                Did you see John Richardson? - Later on in the morning, a little before seven o'clock. It was in the passage of 29, Hanbury-street. He told me he had been in the house that morning, about a quarter to five.

                Did he say what for? - He said he went into the back yard and down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market.

                Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.

                Did he say he was sure the woman was not there? - Yes.

                By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down.


                I have looked through numerous press reports of interviews with Richardson prior to the inquest and have yet to find one that mentions boot repair.

                Best regards, George
                Last edited by GBinOz; 07-16-2022, 07:31 AM.
                It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

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

                  Theres no way of knowing what those marking on the wall are in my opinion , and given from 1888 to 1969 [approx photo time ] gap of 80 or so years, its quite possible somthing else was erected after 1888 that may have deteriorated befor that photo was taken , leaving what apprears to be some sort of marking/s , [ apprears only mind you ???? ]

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    Hi Jon,

                    I don't wish to appear obdurate, and you are aware of the regard in which I hold your opinions, but in this case I have to differ. I see Phillip's comment as a statement of fact which he included in his estimate, but Baxter saw it as a caveat to dismiss Phillip's time in favour of the witnesses. Scotland Yard and Swanson came to the same conclusion regarding Baxter. Brown got Eddowes time since death right, within minutes, at 40 minutes. Her body was warm with no rigor. How could Chapman be stone cold with rigor commencing in only 20 extra minutes? The second consideration in Phillip's estimate, the rigor mortis onset, is important as Trevor has suggested.

                    Could you point out where Chandler was convinced by Richardson's testimony please. I have:

                    Daily News 14 Sept:
                    Did you see John Richardson? - Later on in the morning, a little before seven o'clock. It was in the passage of 29, Hanbury-street. He told me he had been in the house that morning, about a quarter to five.

                    Did he say what for? - He said he went into the back yard and down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market.

                    Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.

                    Did he say he was sure the woman was not there? - Yes.

                    By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down.


                    I have looked through numerous press reports of interviews with Richardson prior to the inquest and have yet to find one that mentions boot repair.

                    Best regards, George
                    I think Phillips certainly gets a raw deal compared to other DR,s in this case . I tend to agree with you George.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Thats the way it looks to me, yet none of the sketches show a canopy so low, and none of them agree anyway, which indicates to me how inaccurate they are.
                      Yet the two sketchers from two different hands are almost identical in every detail . Which tells me if they were by two different hands they saw and sketched the same thing.

                      Does that not go some way as to how accurate than non accurate they are ?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                        It looks from the edge of the photo like the cellar door was recessed in about a foot from the edge of the brick wall.
                        No one has commented on this point yet as far as I can see?

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	30F6057C-E7B5-41E9-81D9-1C473FFE5171.jpeg
Views:	353
Size:	60.7 KB
ID:	789757
                        It certainly looks to me like the door was recessed by around a foot Scott. Are we certain that there was a canopy there at the time of the murders? Even if there wasn’t, a man standing on the top step would have had to have leaned out considerably to even have had a chance of seeing a fraction of the door. Why would he have done that when all that he’d have had to have done was to have taken a couple of steps into the yard? If the lock had been on the right hand side of the door he’d have had no chance of seeing it from a standing position in the doorway. If there was a canopy then there would have been no chance either unless he was sitting down.

                        Surely we have to accept that the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of Richardson sitting on the step as he said that he’d done.

                        And if that was the case then the chances of him missing a mutilated corpse shrinks to as close to vanishing point as could be?
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          Hi Jon,

                          I don't wish to appear obdurate, and you are aware of the regard in which I hold your opinions, but in this case I have to differ.
                          The respect is entirely mutual George, but that doesn't mean we cannot disagree. I find disagreements to be extremely helpful, it challenges one's own theory and helps to see the other's point of view.

                          Brown got Eddowes time since death right, within minutes, at 40 minutes. Her body was warm with no rigor. How could Chapman be stone cold with rigor commencing in only 20 extra minutes? The second consideration in Phillip's estimate, the rigor mortis onset, is important as Trevor has suggested.
                          Yes, but doctors admit each body reacts differently, the health of the victim, & the extent of physical exertion by the victim just prior to death. Lactic acid has a lot to do with rigor, just the same as a living body gets cramp due to the buildup of lactic acid, so a high level of the same will affect the onset of rigor.

                          Could you point out where Chandler was convinced by Richardson's testimony please. I have:..
                          Certainly, it looks like you missed it, it is at the top of that paper you quoted from (Daily News).

                          "...The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable."
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Yes, Herlock. And if Richardson went into the yard to look at the cellar door from the ground, the backdoor would have swung shut as it was spring-loaded, revealing the body if it was there.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              Theres no way of knowing what those marking on the wall are in my opinion , and given from 1888 to 1969 [approx photo time ] gap of 80 or so years, its quite possible somthing else was erected after 1888 that may have deteriorated befor that photo was taken , leaving what apprears to be some sort of marking/s , [ apprears only mind you ???? ]
                              Right, I can't fault what you say, for all we know there could have been an Anderson shelter installed over those cellar steps.

                              Look at this from a different point of view.

                              You know the standard height for an outside door is between 78-80 inch?
                              The lock, or handle is certainly lower than half way, so the door handle is not 40 inch from the bottom, it's less than that.
                              The standard height to mount an outside door handle is roughly between 34-48 inch, depending on the type of handle, however the most popular mounting height is 36 inch from the bottom.
                              36 inch suits the height of that door handle in the photograph.

                              Look at the height of the window sill compared with the door handle, the sill is lower than the door handle, so the sill is less than 36 inch from the top of the top step.

                              Measure how far 36" comes up your own leg.
                              We can see the top of the canopy is a little lower than the sill, so lower than 36 inch, so a person standing on the top step cannot see under the canopy without bending down, or sitting down.
                              Thats all we need to know.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                                Yes, Herlock. And if Richardson went into the yard to look at the cellar door from the ground, the backdoor would have swung shut as it was spring-loaded, revealing the body if it was there.
                                Good point Scott. Even if he’d done something like take a couple of steps nearer the cellar whilst holding the door open with one hand the body would still have been revealed. I’d say that we can dismiss his going into the yard with certainty. I’d also suggest the same for his standing on the step when we consider the apparent location of the cellar door combined with the presence of the canopy. He surely had to have been seated on that step as he’d said. And if that was the case then I really can’t see how he could have overlooked a severely mutilated corpse?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X