John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ultimately, you are manipulating the witness statements.

The parts of the witness statements that don't fit your theory, you are saying they were mistaken.

The parts that do fit your theory, you are saying they are the last word on the matter.

'Not a good look.

So when you were proposing that Phillips minimum TOD was probably correct and as a result assuming that Richardson was wrong were you manipulating evidence? Most of the stuff we read on this case isn’t black and white so we assess. We use ‘what if’s’ all the time. Or do you suggest simply accepting everything as written (don’t tell Trevor) In the case of Long Im not suggesting that she was abducted by aliens. I’m just suggesting the very real possibility that a woman in the LVP might have been 15 minutes out on her time.

In your own words, you're casting doubt on the witnesses by saying they must be mistaken in certain parts of their testimony. In the event they were mistaken in some parts (according to your own words), then can we take the other parts for granted?

No. I’m not saying that anyone must have been mistaken I’m, just considering the possibility. Why is it ok to for people to suggest that Cadosch might have been wrong or that he might have lied? But it’s not ok to float the possibility that Long might have been mistaken?

And, what about Richardson?

He was asked to fetch his knife, the one that cut his boot. You would have to believe that it never occurred to Richardson to say: "'not a lot of point, that wasn't the knife I used, I borrowed one from the market" before going home to get his knife.

'Lucky for him he wasn't in a court of law.

But it was the knife that he used. It just wasn’t good enough to do a proper job with so he ended up using one from the market.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So when you were proposing that Phillips minimum TOD was probably correct and as a result assuming that Richardson was wrong were you manipulating evidence?

No, I'm looking at 'commencing of the limbs' and the 'little food' in the stomach and drawing a conclusion, which is entirely different to asserting Long must have been mistaken when she stated unequivocally half 5.

Do you see the difference?

1) I'm employing Dr Phillips' words and drawing a conclusion.

2) You are saying Long must have been mistaken, i.e. ignoring Long's words, despite the fact Long unequivocally states it was half 5 as per the Brewer's Clock.

I always despair when I hear arguments/theories that demand a part of the witness statement is taken for granted while the other part of the same witness statement is to be ignored. 'Can't have it both ways, Sherlock. Do we listen to Long or not?

No. I’m not saying that anyone must have been mistaken I’m, just considering the possibility.

Fine, so what exactly does this mean in relation to Annie's TOD?

Are you employing Long to bolster your theory or does Long not form any part of your theory?

Either way, rigor commencing of the limbs, little food in the stomach: we have to perform mental acrobatics in order to explain away a TOD of 5.30am.

The case for the witnesses is comparatively weak.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we know, Richardson said:

“[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”

The he was sent to fetch his knife and returned. We don’t know how long he was away but it can’t have been too long as he was recalled on the same day to say:

“produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.
The Coroner: I think we will detain this knife for the present.”

So if it’s being asked - why did he say that he’d used the knife to cut his boot and then say he’d had to use one at the market id say that it’s fairly obvious.

Firstly, do we really thing that between the his first testimony and his second he decided to change his story?

And secondly, we can’t help but notice that no one (coroner or juror) said - hold on, you said you cut your boot with the first knife, why did you need the one at the market?

Clearly he meant that when he cut with the original he managed to cut of a piece of leather but it wasn’t enough to do the job properly (to cut enough off or cut cut off a piece in an awkward location inside the boot). So he used a sharper one at the market to do a proper job. If there was anything suspicious at the time why didn’t they ask him to produce the sharper one. No one at the inquest saw anything suspicious in the knife story. I’d mention that he also have to remember that these transcripts weren’t necessarily verbatim reports. I missed word or a missed sentence can make a perfectly normal statement sound strange to those (us) that didn’t hear the full version. No one else thought it suspicious after hearing it word for word, so why should we?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, I'm looking at 'commencing of the limbs' and the 'little food' in the stomach and drawing a conclusion, which is entirely different to asserting Long must have been mistaken when she stated unequivocally half 5.

Do you see the difference?

Can you understand English? I’ve never said that Long must have been mistaken. I’ve suggested a possibility or are you assigning the same level of infallibility that you assigned to Phillips?

1) I'm employing Dr Phillips' words and drawing a conclusion.

No. You’re reading the words of a Victorian Doctor and claiming that he achieved a level of accuracy in 1888 that experts can’t rely on 134 years later. That isn’t just illogical it’s clearly an attempt to prop up what was little more than a guess in an attempt to dismiss witnesses.

2) You are saying Long must have been mistaken, i.e. ignoring Long's words, despite the fact Long unequivocally states it was half 5 as per the Brewer's Clock.

Nope. I never said must. Please try and get it right.

Ok, would you say that it was absolutely impossible for Long to have been mistaken?

I always despair when I hear arguments/theories that demand a part of the witness statement is taken for granted while the other part of the same witness statement is to be ignored. 'Can't have it both ways, Sherlock. Do we listen to Long or not?

And I despair when I hear your one-side assessments. We neither dismiss Long or accept that she must have been mistaken. We consider both possibilities or is everything conveniently black and white in your world? Or is it only when it suits you?

Fine, so what exactly does this mean in relation to Annie's TOD?

Are you employing Long to bolster your theory or does Long not form any part of your theory?

It doesn’t affect it at all. The evidence overwhelmingly points to Chapman dying after 4.45 and probably around 5.20. We know that Phillips TOD is of no use to us so I dismiss his estimation as 100% irrelevant.

Either way, rigor commencing of the limbs, little food in the stomach: we have to perform mental acrobatics in order to explain away a TOD of 5.30am.

Rigar can commence almost immediately. So that one’s dead in the water. The food one proves nothing as we’ve shown numerous times on here.

The case for the witnesses is comparatively weak.

Compared to Phillips guess it’s practically watertight.

I can’t be bothered responding to any further talk of Gandalf Phillips and his magic fingers. Jeff has proved the point unassailably. You won’t accept it for very obvious reasons. Well, that’s your problem. I prefer a more honest approach where I don’t claim to know more than the scientists.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As we know, Richardson said:

Clearly he meant that when he cut with the original he managed to cut of a piece of leather but it wasn’t enough to do the job properly (to cut enough off or cut cut off a piece in an awkward location inside the boot).

Yes, another case of you manipulating what the witness actually said.

When asked, Richardson said:

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

He went to fetch the knife he specifically stated 'cut a piece of leather off my boot'.

Upon retrieval of the knife and being challenged on the plausibility, he then changed his tune and said something like: "oh, not that knife", in direct contradiction to his earlier statement that he cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife.

'Gotta say, Richardson hasn't exactly covered himself in glory here.

[Harry D]

In order to believe Annie had another meal not long after 1.45am you have to believe that the Whitechapel Murderer, with murder on his mind, and Annie with her bed on her mind; were quite happy to engage in small talk over a meal in the early hours of the morning when neither needed food to achieve their ambitions. And, where did they get the food from?

During Catherine Eddowes' autopsy, they found partially digested food in her stomach. She had been locked up in Bishopsgate Police Station, had no money, and there's no evidence she ate anything that night. So, where did that food come from? I don't think it's farfetched to think the killer might have used morsels of food to tempt these desperate women who had no idea where their next meal was coming from.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I can’t be bothered responding to any further talk of Gandalf Phillips and his magic fingers. Jeff has proved the point unassailably. You won’t accept it for very obvious reasons. Well, that’s your problem. I prefer a more honest approach where I don’t claim to know more than the scientists.

You can stamp your feet, cry foul, whatever you desire.

It won't change the fact that you have to manipulate the witness statements to make them fit your theory, sometimes ignoring the parts you don't want to hear and accepting the parts you do want to hear: from the same witness statement.

It's a weak case, Sherlock. It would be laughed out of a court of law.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for all your hard work. I would beg your indulgence to make a few comments. The sample size for your model is, as you have said, very small and cannot be considered to be statistically significant. I haven't before seen a study with a component sample size of 2. When I did my Surveying Degree I wrote a computer program to compute astronomical observations. I was unable to declare it successful until it had been rigorously tested against known results. We have available a small sample of 5 (or7) PMI's with known results, where projected margins of error obtained from your model can be compared the achieved margins of error. There is 1 sample for Nicholls, 2 for Stride, 2 for Eddows. It would also be interesting to compute the error margin for the PMI for Kelly to see if Maxwell can be dismissed on the basis of Bond's estimate. I read somewhere that Phillips also did a PMI for Kelly but I haven't been able to find a reference.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Oh, absolutely the sample size is too small once I break it down into the <3 hours etc ranges, and I did mention that. Even the sample of 12 in the thesis is on the small size for my liking, but I tend to like larger than usual samples. But, for arguments sake, let's say that the equation is usually spot on, but of course with some error of estimate, that is normally distributed (so equally likely to be an over or under estimate). We have 12 cases, 11 of which are over estimates and 1 of which is an under estimate. If my above notion is true, then our outcome, or one more extreme, only has a 0.0024% chance of occurring. That's significant, meaning, I reject the hypothesis that the equation is equally likely to produce over and under estimates, and conclude the equation is prone to overestimations.

The thing is, the 4 cases that are the shortest interval (<3) show no indication of the error range narrowing, and if anything show a larger one. That's entirely understandable because the equation used is a linear function of time and cooling follows an exponential pattern over time, so the slope is constantly changing. Cooling is more rapid the greater the difference between the body and the surrounding temperature, so it starts off fast and slows as it approaches the environmental temperature. Using a linear function to model that is going to produce errors, and those errors will be exactly of the sort we observe with larger over estimations during the shortest times that decrease over time because the constant linear decrease of the model underestimates the initial fast rate of cooling but will eventually "catch up" with the cooling curve as the rate of cooling slows. That initial rate is even faster as the temperature drops, and as the thesis notes, the error gets larger the cooler the environment.

As I mentioned, I wouldn't put much stock in the average 5.6 hours overestimation value (or whatever it was) per se, and a larger sample would be required to get an idea of how big that overestimation tends to be. What we don't have, however, is any indication the error range gets smaller as the PMI gets into the 1-3 hour range. Also, given what we actually know about cooling, and what we know about any reading based model Dr. Phillips could have used, an increase in the overestimations at the shortest intervals makes perfect sense due to the fact a linear model is a crude approximation of cooling. It's not worthless, it provides a rough estimate, but it will be prone to errors. The thesis found using a faster rate of cooling improved the predictions, which makes sense as many of their cases have relatively short PMI, where the cooling rate is fast.

So if Dr. Phillips used the rate of cooling that Wickerman found (1 deg/hour), then he appears to have used a very low value for cooling, one that doubles the more accurate version (2 deg/hour) for short PMI. This allows us to recalculate his 2 hour PMI to an estimated PMI of 1 hour, and therefore his observations would be exactly what the witnesses imply as well.

I guess, given it can be shown that Dr. Phillips, if he even did take temperature readings and do a calculation, is likely to have overestimated the PMI (and may even have used a cooling rate that would double the PMI), and since we can extract what his temperature drop must have been (either 2 or 3 deg, pending upon which equation he may have used), which allows us to re-estimate the PMI using a more accurate value (2deg/hour), resulting in a PMI estimate that differs from the witnesses by 25 minutes or 5 minutes, respectively, which places the ToD after Richardson's visit. Does that make you reconsider Richardson's testimony? If not, I'm curious as to why not, particularly in light of the fact that we have actual data that shows the type of equation that Dr. Phillips would have available to him to use overestimates the PMI (that sample size of 12 is enough to demonstrate that claim, with statistical certainty).

- Jeff

[Varqm]

Yes the fall he was sure about ,however


''While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.''

The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.

Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

1 He didnt look to see what it was .

2 He didnt think anything was the matter

3 ''Otherwise i would have been curious enough to look over'' .


I dont see how one could be ''positive'' on this testimony that what cadosch heard was a body let alone Chapmans body hitting the fence.IMO

1 2 3 doesn't change anything,something happened.And where was the person who said No.Like in the Nichols case the police asked around.

[JeffHamm]

But you have gone out on a limb and stated that there is no conflict between the later time of death and the witness testimony when there cleary is, and of course I didnt mention in my previous post the conflict between Chandler and Richardson

As to Dr Phiips and his estimated time of death I think it is accepted that it was a guess, but his experience and his credibilty over the conflciting witness testimony just might indicate his guess was not far wide of the mark, and I accept that if this matter is discussed from now until eternity we will never know the real truth but other factors in this murder can point to the correct estimated time of death, which in my opinion points to an earlier time of death, but I am sure there are those like you who will still plump for a later time of death.

At the end of the day do we believe a professional witness in Phillips, or do we believe the conflciting witness testimony of Joe public who may well have had ultimate reasons for coming forward?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Again, I didn't say there was no conflict, I said the conflict that there is tends to be in the specific details that are prone to error in eyewitness testimonies; just like I've been arguing that Dr. Phillips' estimated PMI is prone to error, and as I look at the data more will go so far as to say that the tools he had available to him are prone to large overestimations of very short PMI.

I'm also very aware that sometimes the devil is in the detail, and conflict on those specific details are not something we would just want to go "Oh, that's fine, I'm sure it's just a mistake", but re-examine the witness, and look for more objective information to try and sort out the errors from the truths. Sadly, we can't do that anymore. What I'm saying here is I fully understand your concerns and can see how one could conclude there are some issues with the eye-witness statements as made that need resolution. In fact, I agree with that. But since we can't re-investigate or gather new information, all we can do is offer suggestions on how that resolution could be made. I tend to favor the notion that the conflict arises from nothing more than the variation one finds for memory, and how people recount events, etc (annoying stuff, rather than deliberate falsehoods). That may be wrong though, I can't say, it's just one possible solution that ties up everything we have. There are other ways to package things, though, and to each their own.

And as I say, I do believe Phillips gave his opinion. While there's no evidence that he took actual temperature readings, even if he did, the methods he would have available to him would overestimate the PMI, and possible even double it. If we assume he took readings, though, we can reconstruct his values and recalculate the PMI using a more reliable method for short intervals, and in so doing we see that the temperature drop he must have recorded to get his 2 hour PMI recalculates to be much closer (and under one set of possibilities, pretty much exactly) the time we get from the witnesses. So if you think he took temperature readings, don't you think it behooves us to apply his readings to a more reliable method so that we get a better idea of the PMI?

Of course, if he didn't actually take temperature readings, and just estimated the PMI by touch, then really his opinion should just be set aside as being, for all intents and purposes, useless to us as we know that method is associated with such a wide margin of error as to be considered unreliable.

I guess I just don't understand how you get to the notion of an earlier ToD given that if he took actual measurements that would, given the knowledge of the day, lead him to overestimate the PMI, and if he didn't, his estimate is based upon faulty methods. I really don't see how either of those can lead you to the conclusion that the PMI must be greater than what Dr. Phillips suggests?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, another case of you manipulating what the witness actually said.

When asked, Richardson said:

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

He went to fetch the knife he specifically stated 'cut a piece of leather off my boot'.

Upon retrieval of the knife and being challenged on the plausibility, he then changed his tune and said something like: "oh, not that knife", in direct contradiction to his earlier statement that he cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife.

'Gotta say, Richardson hasn't exactly covered himself in glory here.

I wish you would stop seeing things that aren’t there by missing bits out.

“produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market. “

Do you honestly think that, in two consecutive sentences, John Richardson would have said - well I cut some leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut some leather from my boot?

He very clearly meant that he cut a piece of with his own knife then did a better job with the knife at the market. This is obvious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can stamp your feet, cry foul, whatever you desire.

It won't change the fact that you have to manipulate the witness statements to make them fit your theory, sometimes ignoring the parts you don't want to hear and accepting the parts you do want to hear: from the same witness statement.

I’ve simply stated reality. If you want to very selectively view things in black and white then it’s up to you. I can’t debate fantasy.

It's a weak case, Sherlock. It would be laughed out of a court of law.

Like someone claiming that Gandalf Phillips guess was reliable. Phillips is surplus to requirements. Only someone hopelessly impervious to facts would desperately cling to him and expect to be taken seriously.

[Fleetwood Mac]

During Catherine Eddowes' autopsy, they found partially digested food in her stomach. She had been locked up in Bishopsgate Police Station, had no money, and there's no evidence she ate anything that night. So, where did that food come from? I don't think it's farfetched to think the killer might have used morsels of food to tempt these desperate women who had no idea where their next meal was coming from.

I'm of the understanding that Catherine had Bright's Disease, which would impact the kidneys and digestion.

Apparently, there was no fluid in Catherine's stomach and this surely would have been the easiest way to her heart.

Furthermore, it would depend on what was eaten.

I'm not convinced the conclusion was 'partially digested food' in the stomach, although I don't rule it out. What exactly is the 'cut end' of the stomach?

Edited to add: it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he fed his victims but what may be instructive is that he didn't need to, prostitution doesn't usually involve the provision of food.

[Fleetwood Mac]

He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market. “

At what point in the conversation did he add this? Directly after stating cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife?

[Herlock Sholmes]

At what point in the conversation did he add this? Directly after stating cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife?

That wasn’t a direct quote and I never claimed that it was a direct quote. But this is par for the course with you.

What your suggesting is threefold. 1. That Richardson changed his story between going for the knife and returning with it. 2. That he was somehow prone to gibberish. And 3. That the coroner and jurors were either deaf or unbelievably stupid.

First section of his testimony:

“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. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door. “

Second part of his testimony:

“produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.”

So…

1. The only difference being the part about the sharpness of his knife. He didn’t mention anything about it because he hadn’t been asked about it and the sharpness of his knife wasn’t relevant to him sitting on the step. He only mentioned it when the coroner pointed out that it didn’t look very sharp. So there was clearly no suspicious changing of the story except in your imagination.

2. You also seem to feel that it’s somehow suspicious that he said that he’d cut his boot and then mentioned that it wasn’t sharp enough to cut. So your interpretation is that Richardson was saying, in effect - I cut a piece from by boot but the knife wasn’t sharp enough to cut a piece from my boot - which would clearly have been gibberish.

3. Therefore if your interpretation is correct (and it isn’t) then the coroner and the jurors were complete idiots for not pulling him up on this obvious gibberish. But they didn’t.

…..

But Richardson didn’t say, in his second part, that the knife couldn’t cut a piece of leather. He just said that it wasn’t sharp enough. Which, taken with what’s written in plain English, can lead us to only one conclusion. Just that it wasn’t good enough to do sufficient a job.

Richardson was very clearly saying that he cut a piece of leather from his boot on the backyard steps of number 29 but due to the knife not being sharp enough he couldn’t do a good enough job. Either he couldn’t cut enough off or that the piece that needing removing fully was located in such an area of the inside of the boot that he needed a sharper (and possibly longer) knife. Which he got at the market.

We can’t fail to notice that the coroner didn’t ask to see this sharper knife because he never had it at the yard. They clearly saw absolutely nothing of the slightest suspicion in Richardson’s statement about the knife. So why are we seeing mysteries where none existed 134 years later when we didn’t hear the inquest testimony verbatim as the coroner and jury did?