John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

So Chandler differs slightly from Richardson and you assume that Richardson was lying and completely ignore the other very plausible explanations (like Chandler being mistaken, for one?)

I am not suggesting Richardson is lying i have been higlighting the flaws in his and the other witnesses who have been used to prop up the later time of death and if you want to look at the balance of probabilities taking it all into account Phillips was correct about the TOD.

I cant prove a later time of death beyond that nor can you conclusively prove and earlier time of death.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Neither of us are serial killers though Trevor (hopefully?) We can’t assume to know what he would have been thinking. If he’d already killed Chapman, then he’d heard Cadosch in the yard next door, he might have just assumed that he was using the outside loo and would have gone back inside in a minute or two. When you think about it anyone could have gone into the yard of number 29 at any time to use the outside loo, whether it was light or dark, but she was still killed there.

But there would be a less chance of that taking place at 3am-4am than at the time everyone was moving about

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not suggesting Richardson is lying i have been higlighting the flaws in his and the other witnesses who have been used to prop up the later time of death and if you want to look at the balance of probabilities taking it all into account Phillips was correct about the TOD.

I cant prove a later time of death beyond that nor can you conclusively prove and earlier time of death.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But by using the phrase ‘prop up’ you are insinuating that it’s somehow dishonest to favour the witnesses over the Doctor? It’s not. It would be dishonest to say that an earlier TOD is proven though but I don’t think that anyone is saying that.

You’re right though that we can’t conclusively prove an earlier TOD but I’d say that the balance of probabilities heavily favour the witnesses. One thing that we know for a fact is that TOD estimation at that time was was very unreliable and could be wrong by a significant amount. So we know for a fact that we can’t say that Phillips must have been correct. So all that’s being suggested is that Dr. Phillips could have been out by 50 or 60 minutes. As far as Richardson is concerned we have a witness with no apparent reason for lying who was in a position where most people believe it close to impossible that he could have missed seeing the body. Then we have another imperfect witness who heard noises from the yard not long after Richardson had left. So two witness with no apparent reason for lying both point to a later TOD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there would be a less chance of that taking place at 3am-4am than at the time everyone was moving about

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t know. We don’t know the circumstances. It might have been a spur-of-the-moment thing. He might simply have been propositioned by Chapman and off he went. I’m wary of trying to apply too much calm logic to a maniac, especially when we don’t know the circumstances.

[Herlock Sholmes]

3. Chapman had been murdered hours earlier and Cadosh was hearing a domestic conversation between some residents, and a door closing.

Cheers, George

But he was confident that the noise against the fence came from the yard of number 29 and he was only feet away though.

And if Chapman had been murdered earlier then Richardson would have seen her George.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t know. We don’t know the circumstances. It might have been a spur-of-the-moment thing. He might simply have been propositioned by Chapman and off he went. I’m wary of trying to apply too much calm logic to a maniac, especially when we don’t know the circumstances.

He wasn that much of a maniac most get caught becasue of their mania !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

He wasn that much of a maniac most get caught becasue of their mania !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He wasn’t exactly normal though was he? So how can we expect him to always think or act normally?

[Trevor Marriott]

He wasn’t exactly normal though was he? So how can we expect him to always think or act normally?

he managed to avoid detection, capture, and avoided being seen, that was one of the factors of his murders, commiting them at a time when nearly all of Whitechapel was asleep and he could hide in the darkness of the shadows.

Playing devils advocate yet again if he did kill at the time you suggest, did he get lucky by finding the first woman he propositioned who just happened to be a prostitute? when there were other women about yet no one came forward to say they had been propositioned. Now that would be remarkable

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

he managed to avoid detection, capture, and avoided being seen, that was one of the factors of his murders, commiting them at a time when nearly all of Whitechapel was asleep and he could hide in the darkness of the shadows.

Playing devils advocate yet again if he did kill at the time you suggest, did he get lucky by finding the first woman he propositioned who just happened to be a prostitute? when there were other women about yet no one came forward to say they had been propositioned. Now that would be remarkable

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Maybe he didn’t set out to kill that morning? Maybe he was just going somewhere when he ran into Chapman who propositioned him? It’s not impossible that he’d seen Chapman around and knew that she was a prostitute and saw her across the road and got the urge. Maybe he was staying somewhere very nearby? He might only have walked 200 yards before coming across Chapman so he didn’t see any other woman?

[Trevor Marriott]

Maybe he didn’t set out to kill that morning? Maybe he was just going somewhere when he ran into Chapman who propositioned him? It’s not impossible that he’d seen Chapman around and knew that she was a prostitute and saw her across the road and got the urge. Maybe he was staying somewhere very nearby? He might only have walked 200 yards before coming across Chapman so he didn’t see any other woman?

and where had he been all night? dont tell me let me guess your answer-walking around looking for a victim, well if I had been the killer and hadnt found a victim by 5 am i would have given it up and gone home to bed cos i would have needed to get up early to go to work

One thing I wil say about you is that you always have an answer which is usually the wrong one

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hello, everyone.I have not posted here for quite some time, so may have missed a few pertinant things.
If I'm treading over old ground please accept my apologies.

As was noted in post No. 115 on this thread, sunrise was at around 05:25 on that morning.
In furtherance to that information, dawn would have taken place at 04:50-51. From sun/moon calculators available online, it seems that the moon would have been at between 6-8% presentation, thus would have cast very little light on the scene.
So, baring some illumination from street lamps or houses to either side of it, it would have been dark in the backyard - the sun not rising for another 45 minutes or so.

"At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson . . . . sat down on the steps . . . The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. The man is quite clear that he saw nothing to attract his attention . . . . "(edited)

What, if any, information do we have in regard to the amount of light that was coming from inside No. 29? What lights might be burning? A hallway light? A light coming from a an upstairs window or the window above the cellar and illuminating part of the yard? A lantern that he may have carried? Without light and in pre-dawn, how should he check the lock without either seeing it by illuminating it or physically touching it?
I have found no direct reference to any of this but should be interested in thoughts on this matter.

Any person walking out of a lighted area into the relative dark of pre-dawn would very likely experience some momentary night blindness. It takes a while for the human eye to adjust. Should Richardson have sat or stood on the steps, with some light cascading over his shoulders into the yard, the area to his left, behind the partially opened door, would be in or, because of the light would appear to be in, a deeper shadow than if there was no light from inside the house.
That is to say the light and dark areas would be more contratsed, in terms of occular percepcion.
Should he carry a lantern of some sort, the glow from that would more likely inhibit other items or objects from being seen, particularly if he was focused and intent on checking the lock.

Try it yourself on a dark night/early dawn outside with a candle or other undirected light but with no other lighting.

This is all to bring into the discussion, in hopefully a more defined manner, the way in which the available light would potentially affect the appearance of the scene at that time of day and that the use of limeted light could actually obscure objects that would become visible later.
I'm not in either camp as to whether the body was there or not when Richardson was in the yard.
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this matter as I consider it quite important when discussing the Richardson episode.
Thanks,
Caligo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

and where had he been all night? dont tell me let me guess your answer-walking around looking for a victim, well if I had been the killer and hadnt found a victim by 5 am i would have given it up and gone home to bed cos i would have needed to get up early to go to work

One thing I wil say about you is that you always have an answer which is usually the wrong one

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

One thing I’ll say about you Trevor is that you always make statements based on things that you have no way of knowing. Why do you make these points? How can you know that what I’ve suggested is wrong? If no one knows the answer, and they don’t, why are my suggestions wrong? They might be, they might not be. Why are you always claiming to know what cannot be known? I’d love to know the reasons for your confidence.

Where had he been all night? - Who can possibly know, but does anything change just because we don’t have a copy of his itinerary? It’s a non-question. What if he’d been tucked up in bed all night, got up at 4.00, went out heading for destination unknown (maybe work?) and ran into Chapman? After all, Fisherman and Ed Stow (to at least some extent supported by others) believe that Lechmere killed Nichols on the way to work.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello, everyone.I have not posted here for quite some time, so may have missed a few pertinant things.
If I'm treading over old ground please accept my apologies.

As was noted in post No. 115 on this thread, sunrise was at around 05:25 on that morning.
In furtherance to that information, dawn would have taken place at 04:50-51. From sun/moon calculators available online, it seems that the moon would have been at between 6-8% presentation, thus would have cast very little light on the scene.
So, baring some illumination from street lamps or houses to either side of it, it would have been dark in the backyard - the sun not rising for another 45 minutes or so.

"At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson . . . . sat down on the steps . . . The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. The man is quite clear that he saw nothing to attract his attention . . . . "(edited)

What, if any, information do we have in regard to the amount of light that was coming from inside No. 29? What lights might be burning? A hallway light? A light coming from a an upstairs window or the window above the cellar and illuminating part of the yard? A lantern that he may have carried? Without light and in pre-dawn, how should he check the lock without either seeing it by illuminating it or physically touching it?
I have found no direct reference to any of this but should be interested in thoughts on this matter.

Any person walking out of a lighted area into the relative dark of pre-dawn would very likely experience some momentary night blindness. It takes a while for the human eye to adjust. Should Richardson have sat or stood on the steps, with some light cascading over his shoulders into the yard, the area to his left, behind the partially opened door, would be in or, because of the light would appear to be in, a deeper shadow than if there was no light from inside the house.
That is to say the light and dark areas would be more contratsed, in terms of occular percepcion.
Should he carry a lantern of some sort, the glow from that would more likely inhibit other items or objects from being seen, particularly if he was focused and intent on checking the lock.

Try it yourself on a dark night/early dawn outside with a candle or other undirected light but with no other lighting.

This is all to bring into the discussion, in hopefully a more defined manner, the way in which the available light would potentially affect the appearance of the scene at that time of day and that the use of limeted light could actually obscure objects that would become visible later.
I'm not in either camp as to whether the body was there or not when Richardson was in the yard.
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this matter as I consider it quite important when discussing the Richardson episode.
Thanks,
Caligo.

Hello Caligo,

As far as I can recall I’ve heard of no light emanating from the house or any other light source but we do have this from the inquest”

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

[Aethelwulf]

and where had he been all night? dont tell me let me guess your answer-walking around looking for a victim, well if I had been the killer and hadnt found a victim by 5 am i would have given it up and gone home to bed cos i would have needed to get up early to go to work

One thing I wil say about you is that you always have an answer which is usually the wrong one

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor's thinking

1. Apron piece was a makeshift sanitary towel. Trevor = yes ok, perfectly logical
2. No organs were taken, it was a rogue mortician. Trevor = yes ok, perfectly logical
3. JtR was up and about at 5.30 am. Trevor = YOU'RE 'AVIN A LARF YOU GREAT BUFFON THAT IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I EVER HEARD!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor's thinking

1. Apron piece was a makeshift sanitary towel. Trevor = yes ok, perfectly logical
2. No organs were taken, it was a rogue mortician. Trevor = yes ok, perfectly logical
3. JtR was up and about at 5.30 am. Trevor = YOU'RE 'AVIN A LARF YOU GREAT BUFFON THAT IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I EVER HEARD!