John Richardson

[Wickerman]

No one has commented on this point yet as far as I can see?


It certainly looks to me like the door was recessed by around a foot Scott.....

In their defense, it could be that the door frame has been removed entirely, possibly kicked in so there is no door there, or door frame, at the time the photo was taken.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Perfectly logical I’d say Wick.

[Wickerman]

in this view, I don't see a cellar door at all, though it is a poor resolution.

[Wickerman]

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.

This should make the argument a little clearer.



The door lock is less than half way up the door, the window sill is even lower by at least three bricks, therefore a canopy (no longer present) is even lower than the window sill.

Any canopy will be mounted on the house wall below the window sill, approx. 24-30 inch above the top step.
So a canopy will obstruct the view for a person standing in the doorway.
To see under the canopy, he would have to sit down, or go down the house steps.

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

I am reposting this from earlier today whic seem to have fallen unsprisingly given the content on deaf ears

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

in this view, I don't see a cellar door at all, though it is a poor resolution.

Fair point but I do get the impression that it was recessed to some extent though. Even if the cellar door was flush to the wall it looks to me like the top step might have been 2 or 3 inches back from that level? Or am I seeing things? The canopy then would have been at around the height of the arched brickwork and the eyeline of a man of average height would have been around two-thirds of the way between the door handle and the top of the door.

So unless Richardson stayed on the top step but got down on all fours I’d say that it would have been impossible for him to have checked that lock without sitting, as he said that he did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am reposting this from earlier today whic seem to have fallen unsprisingly given the content on deaf ears

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

It hasn't fallen on deaf ears Trevor. Over on the other thread we posted evidence upon evidence and medical expert on medical expert who, to a man, said exactly the same thing. That these things are unreliable and can be wildly wrong. We even posted examples of modern day medical men who had made TOD estimations and been absolutely miles out. So what chance a Victorian medical man who would never have experienced a body so mutilated before and who would have been completely unaware of some of the factors which can affect results. Phillips TOD is unsafe to rely on Trevor.

I also can’t fail to notice that Dr. Biggs is careful to use the words “may indicate…” So even he isn’t certain.

Lots of grey areas in the medical evidence but far less with Richardson. The discussion here and the points that Wick and has made I believe show that Richardson certainly wouldn’t have been able to have checked the cellar lock by standing on the doorstep. And the possibility of him not seeing the body from sitting on the step is as close to none existent as could be. Therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that there was no body there and that Phillips was wrong. This is what the evidence points to unless we disregard it to say “well for all that we know Phillips might have estimated correctly” or “for all that we know Richardson might have lied.”

[Trevor Marriott]

It hasn't fallen on deaf ears Trevor. Over on the other thread we posted evidence upon evidence and medical expert on medical expert who, to a man, said exactly the same thing. That these things are unreliable and can be wildly wrong. We even posted examples of modern day medical men who had made TOD estimations and been absolutely miles out. So what chance a Victorian medical man who would never have experienced a body so mutilated before and who would have been completely unaware of some of the factors which can affect results. Phillips TOD is unsafe to rely on Trevor.

I also can’t fail to notice that Dr. Biggs is careful to use the words “may indicate…” So even he isn’t certain.

Lots of grey areas in the medical evidence but far less with Richardson. The discussion here and the points that Wick and has made I believe show that Richardson certainly wouldn’t have been able to have checked the cellar lock by standing on the doorstep. And the possibility of him not seeing the body from sitting on the step is as close to none existent as could be. Therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that there was no body there and that Phillips was wrong. This is what the evidence points to unless we disregard it to say “well for all that we know Phillips might have estimated correctly” or “for all that we know Richardson might have lied.”

So if Chapman was killed by JTR and i belive she was, how can you explain the murder taking place at around 5am in the morning in a confined location, at a time when it was getting light. with windows overlooking the yard and people up and about going to work and an outhouse in the yard with the victim supposedly touting for business also at that time of the morning.

And not forgetting that none of the other victims were killed at this early time of the day, I personally in all my years have never come across a prostitute looking for business at that time of the morning, and adding to all of that Dr Biggs input

Given all of that how can we believe Richardson? and no one is saying he lied more of a case tha he was economical with the truth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So if Chapman was killed by JTR and i belive she was, how can you explain the murder taking place at around 5am in the morning in a confined location, at a time when it was getting light. with windows overlooking the yard and people up and about going to work and an outhouse in the yard with the victim supposedly touting for business also at that time of the morning.

And not forgetting that none of the other victims were killed at this early time of the day, I personally in all my years have never come across a prostitute looking for business at that time of the morning, and adding to all of that Dr Biggs input

Given all of that how can we believe Richardson? and no one is saying he lied more of a case tha he was economical with the truth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t seek to explain it other than that’s what the evidence points to as having occurred. We can’t know what was going on in the killers mind at that time or what circumstances might have occurred prior to the murder that led him to kill at that time? Maybe he wasn’t planning to kill but Chapman propositioned him as he was walking along Hanbury Street.


There’s an element of risk to any murder, especially those committed in public places and Chapman, in her desperation for cash, probably assured him that they would be undisturbed there and he probably assumed that she had experience of that location.

On entering the yard I’m guessing that the adrenaline would have been flowing so how much attention might he have paid to the houses in the distance behind the back fence? And as Richardson said, it was ‘getting light’ so anyone viewing from a distance would have been looking at something in less than perfect light and in the shade of a building. This was a time before phones and mobile phone photos of course and he’d have known that he’d only have been there a short time so what were the chances of someone looking out of their window at that exact time. And even if someone had seen them they’d only have seen a distant pair of figures so what kind of vague description could they have given?

If they’d have been disturbed how do we know that the killer hadn’t already decided to kill any potential intruder.

All the ‘why’s’ in the world don’t change the fact that TOD estimations were unsafe to rely on and John Richardson tells us that there was no body there at 4.45 (supported by Cadosch.)

[FISHY1118]

As these drawings show if indeed Richardson stood on the step and he only opened the door 35degrees, on that angle he only needed to look hard to his right to check the cellar door. And look into the yard without glancing to his left to spot Chapmans body

From the height of the steps he would have had to look straight down and slighly to his left to see her body , remembering he only went to check the cellar down, which he might have done many times befor. He knew just a slight opening of the door then put his head around would allow him to see the cellar door lock easily.

So i believe its just possible he did miss chapmans body .

That is of course we believe Insp Chandler when he said Richardson made no mention of sitting on the step to cut the leather from his boot .

Just a foot note , notice the gap in the paleings of the fence and the height ? Albert Cadosch

A further consultation of the detectives engaged in the case was held this morning, and an officer again visited the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, and made a careful inspection of the palings leading from that house to No. 27, where resides the young man Cadosh, who stated at the inquest that he heard sounds proceed from the spot where the body lay at a quarter-past five on the morning of the murder. An examination of the fence shows that immediately over the place in the yard there is an aperture in the palings by which the dead body could have been plainly visible, while anyone moving in the yard might easily have been seen.14 Echo Sept 20th 1888.

Lets take another look . As ive sugested, that if indeed Richardson did in fact only stand on the top step and looked to his right with the door open at 35/40 degrees, its near on impossible that he could have seen Chapmans body in the position that it was in . So ill just clarify so no ones misinterprets what ive said ''IF'' HE ONLY STOOD ON THE STEP''.

Now in regards to the Canopy , the Cellar door ,and the Lock position. The way i see it from Richardsons position on the step he could have looked down to check the lock, which by the way would be a fair guess was probably on the same side as the back door of the house, and did if fact probably opened the same way out towards Richardson . As both sketches[ Sketchers i might add done by'' two'' different hands which are almost identical in there description of the crime scene. So to claim they are not accurate and should not be used to make a point would be risky . ] suggest, the door of the cellar seems to be flush with the wall which would give an easy view of the door itself ''and the lock'' on the furthest away side from Richardson . One would /could be right in assuming such a Latch /Lock whatever it might have been, would not have been something small that couldnt be seen from either standing on the first step or sitting on the second step .

Whether it was in the middle of the door or lower down, both positions would make it very easy to spot from Richardsons stand point looking down the line of sight below the canopies position .

In my opinion this version of events could just as easily taken place as what Richardsons evidence claimed happen at the inquest.

The same evidence at the inquest from other witnesses allows i believe for the above senario to have occurred , ''One does by no means prove the other didnt happend ''.!!!

[Dickere]

I personally in all my years have never come across a prostitute looking for business at that time of the morning

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Most unfortunate, sir.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If we want to be as accurate as we possibly can then using the sketches is pointless as we can see they are dimensionally inaccurate. Even if we take one piece of information from 2 of the sketches it tells us what we already knew - that the top of the canopy would been below the level of the windowsill and so probably in line with the arch of brickwork. This would equate to a level around half way between the door handle and the bottom of the door. In terms of a man standing on the top step the canopy would have been around knee height.

At the very least the cellar door would have been flush to the wall (although there is a very reasonable possibility that it was recessed) We can’t argue with physics. It would have been physically impossible for a man to have stood in that doorway and seen the door. Even if the canopy hadn’t been there it he would have needed to have leaned right out just to see a part of the door (and we have no way of knowing which side the lock was on) But there was a canopy of course and Richardson, as far as we know, didn’t have x-ray vision.

So we know that to have checked the lock Richardson would have needed to either, a) stepped into the yard, or b) sat on the step.

If he’d stepped into the yard he would definitely have seen a body had it been there - incidentally, if, as I believe some suggest, he lied about sitting on the step just to emphasise that there couldn’t have been a body there, why didn’t he simply tell a better lie and say that he went to the cellar steps and left the door to swing back to the fence revealing no body?

But Richardson told us that he’d sat on the steps and he had no reason to lie. The issue with Chandler is a minor one and stands very reasonable explanations. Richardson might simply have mentioned sitting on the step but not the reason for doing so if he felt it irrelevant. Chandler might simply have misheard him or misremembered (understandable on the circumstances) Richardson might simply have said that he’d gone to the back door and couldn’t have missed a corpse had it been there - without bothering to mention his position seating or standing? Chandler knew that he wasn’t blind or an idiot and so didn’t pursue it.

So any nitpicking on the wording is just that imo. Everything points to Richardson sitting on that step and to the body not being there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Imagine a canopy in place that came just below the windowsill. There’s no way that woman would have been able to have seen the door to check the lock.

Even the man, standing on the step down and further across, would only have seen a fraction of it.

[GBinOz]

Looking at this photo, there can be seen a trapezoidal recess in the bricks into which could have fitted the timber bearer (in green) for the canopies shown in the sketches in Fishy's Post # 145. In those same sketches the cellar door and jamb is shown as flush with the brickwork, so the bolt and padlock, which were large in those days would be protruding and clearly visible to someone standing on the top step. In Scott's photo, the fence has been replaced, the canopy removed and it appears that the flagging may have been taken up. As Jon commented, there's nothing to say that the cellar door and jamb wouldn't also have been removed.

The story Richardson told Chandler and the press was not important, but when he testified at the inquest he became a crucial witness. He must have known that his step sitting story would achieve that result, and was that him aim? But what explanation could he offer? Early breakfast sitting in the dark on a cold damp stone....no....resting from his brisk 3 minute walk from home....no....boot repairs...yes....big mistake. Now questions are being asked as to how it was that he was at the murder scene around the time of the medical ToD, with a knife and his freshly washed leather apron found in the yard. Could anyone corroborate his time of arrival or departure, or his arrival at his market stall? Solution...produce a knife not capable of the murder or the mutilations.....or cutting leather.

While Jon and others have offered viable opinions and options, for me, at this time, the preponderance of evidence points to a ToD between 2AM and 4:30AM, which is consistent with the police view at the time. JMO.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

So any nitpicking on the wording is just that imo. Everything points to Richardson sitting on that step and to the body not being there.

But is not just nitpicking on the wording you have to take into account the unsafe witness testimony which is being used to prop up a later time of death.

and again I refer to Dr Phiilps who says rigor was starting to set in, i know this has been done to death but reserchers like you who are fixated by this later time of death seem to want to ignore the medical facts as to how long it takes for that to occur and as stated although it was a cold morning it was not cold enough in late september for the body to cool in that short space of time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk