John Richardson

[GBinOz]

There are problems with this for me George. I’m still of the belief that with that canopy being at around Richardson’s knee height he wouldn’t have been able to have seen the lock from the doorway but either way I think that we have to at least admit to doubt. For example, we can’t be certain which side the lock was on. But let’s say that, as per Doc, he could just about see the lock to check it by leaning outwards and that was the way that he usually checked it, we still have to consider that circumstances were different on that particular day because Richardson need to repair his boot which meant him sitting on that step.

Yes, by employing the ‘Doc method’ he wouldn’t have known if the body was there or not, so he wouldn’t have needed to have elaborated by inventing a story about sitting on the step. To be honest I don’t understand this point George?

But by sticking to a story about checking from a standing position on the step he would have been avoiding placing himself at the scene with a knife. By adding the story about sitting he’s introducing the idea of him being there with a knife. Why would he have done that?.

Hi Herlock,

You would have to admit that you are only guessing about the canopy. The fact is that both Richardson and his mother said that the lock could be seen from the steps, so that is not in doubt. I don't think anyone even suggested that was not the case (questioned, yes, contradicted, no). What is in doubt is the extraordinary coincidence that after months of checking the lock from the steps, the one morning that he varied that routine just happened to be the morning of Chapman's murder. As for the knife, are you aware that he also told the coroner that the police had taken possession of his leather apron and his knife found at the premises?

Richardson wanted a reason to show absolutely that the body wasn't there that did not involve going into the yard, which he had already denied. Why?, creation of an alibi. Hence the sitting on the steps, and he needed a reason for doing that, and picked boot repair over early breakfast or fatigue.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

There was a good article in Ripper Notes by Wolf Vander Linden some years ago (sorry I don't have the reference number) on the Chapman TOD and Richardson's evidence. Gavin Bromley also did an article on the Hanbury Street murder in the Ripperologist.

Hi Scott,

Is this a reprint of the Bromley dissertation to which you refer?

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-cadosch.html

Cheers, George

[harry]

I haven't accused anyone of lying,Jon/Herlock,I stated there was a possibility of Richardson having done so.Witnesses lie,witnesses get confused,witnesses are sometimes mistaken.It happens.Why should we exclude Richardson.There is no coroberating evidence to back his account.
The only alternative to a later time of death to that suggested by Phillips,is a possible sighting of Chapman by Long,and as Davies found Chapman dead at 5.45,it is unlikely,but not impossible, that we can discuss another witness.
So how does Long's testimony add up.Well Magnaghten states no one saw the Whitechapel murderer except maybe a policeman.Anderson and Swanson indicate it was a male person who identified the murderer.So high ranking policemen exclude Long.What are we to make of that?

[Wickerman]

Hi Mark,

Thank you for that link. There will probably be disagreement from some posters, but I see Wolf Vanderlinden's dissertation as completely debunking Long, Cadosh and Richardson, and vindicating the evidence of Phillips and Chandler. The police thought the same.

Cheers, George

Yes, it is a well written paper, but we have learned more, or perhaps we should say we have learned to look for more, than was covered by Wolf.
You may recall in the introduction written for Annie Chapman, Wolf mentions that she was dying of a tubercular disease, yet later in this paragraph:

"As I have said, however, several things can hasten or lengthen the time it takes rigor to appear. I have noticed that more than one author writing on the Chapman murder has misunderstood this fact. For some reason authors have confused the fact that subjecting the body to cold temperatures will not hasten rigor but instead will retard its onset, will in fact slow it down. It is correct to say, therefore, that the coldness of Chapman's body would cause a delay in the appearance of stiffening and thus point to a time greater than two hours for her time of death."

Wolf failed to mention rigor will appear earlier due to the chemical interaction brought on by the disease & physical exertion, which would make it appear the body had been murdered earlier than the facts dictate.
This, in my opinion, is why Phillips reached for the 2+ hours, he had been mislead by the many varied influences that affected the onset of Rigor, but he was aware of the possibility he was in error - he said so.

[DJA]

I haven't accused anyone of lying,Jon/Herlock,I stated there was a possibility of Richardson having done so.Witnesses lie,witnesses get confused,witnesses are sometimes mistaken.It happens.Why should we exclude Richardson.There is no coroberating evidence to back his account.
The only alternative to a later time of death to that suggested by Phillips,is a possible sighting of Chapman by Long,and as Davies found Chapman dead at 5.45,it is unlikely,but not impossible, that we can discuss another witness.
So how does Long's testimony add up.Well Magnaghten states no one saw the Whitechapel murderer except maybe a policeman.Anderson and Swanson indicate it was a male person who identified the murderer.So high ranking policemen exclude Long.What are we to make of that?

Long's sighting of Chapman was with a slightly taller man (which tallies with the height of the GSG ) over 40 yeas of age.

The Black Swan,three doors down at 23 Hanbury Street, had employed a 29 year old potman from Sevenoaks in 1871.Wonder if John Sutton was related to Henry Gawen Sutton.

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

A while I go I had a look into the progression of rigor. I found the following paper:

"Data From : Kori, S. (2018). Time since Death from Rigor Mortis: Forensic Prospective, Journal of Forensic Sciences and Criminal Investigation, 9(5), 555771. DOI:
10.19080/JFSCI.2018.09.555771"

Which, presented data relating to how long it took to reach full rigor in cases where the time of death was known. The numbers can be found in the table, and I've plotted them two ways, the top plot showing the percentage that reached full rigor at a given time, and the lower one are the proportion of cases that reached full rigor by a certain time (so a running total).




Now, unfortunately, I've yet to find a paper reporting the time for rigor to commence, but it seems clear to me that if 14% of the cases have reached full rigor by 3 hours after death, for example, the time for it to have started must be less than that. Note, that 2 of the cases reached full rigor by 2 hours, so while that's not a lot, it is important to note because it means that we have to consider this - it does happen.

Generally it takes about 6-8 hours to reach full rigor on average, but the greatest number of cases reach full rigor at 4 hours, because the distribution of rigor progression is not normally distributed, it is skewed with most cases reaching full rigor quicker than average but some cases extend out quite long (it progresses slowly). That sort of skew to the distribution pulls the average higher than the median time (the time for 50% of cases to have reached full rigor, which is under 5 hours). Clearly, though, rigor doesn't start before death, but if a fair number of cases are reaching full rigor by 4 hours (around 40% are), then a fair number of cases are probably detectable a lot sooner than we are allowing for.

There are many factors that influence the progression of rigor, and in any of the articles I've looked at, this one included, lots of different ranges and times are cited (reflecting the findings from different studies). Rules of thumb are given, like "warm but no rigor, probably died within 3 hours", "warm but rigor commencing, probably died 3-9 hours ago", "rigor fully established, died 9+ hours ago". Now that set of "rules" would fit the earlier ToD, but they goes against the data (by 9 hours 90% of the cases have reached full rigor!, but our rule would place all of them as 9+ hours previously, which means 90% of the time that rule is wrong! Personally, I wouldn't go by those suggestions).

Anyway, if Chapman was killed around 5:25ish, and she was checked for Rigor at some point after the doctor arrived (he says he arrived at 6:30), then that's just over 1 hour (1 hour 5 minutes). We don't know how long he was at the scene before examining her body for signs of rigor. I suggest he didn't dash right in and test her immediately, as he appears to have spent some time examining the scene first. I don't know how much time might have passed, but I don't think 20-30 minutes is out of the question, and it could easily be more than that, or less. But for the sake of a rough estimate, let's use 6:55 as the time he examined her for signs of rigor (25 minutes after his arrival - gives him time to do his scene analysis, discuss things with the police, and so forth). That would mean the examination occurs at 1 hour 30 minutes after death. And given that full rigor occurred in about 12% of the cases by 3 hours, and 27% of the cases by 4 hours, after we allow for the fact that it takes a few hours from onset to full rigor, it really isn't out of the question that he detects rigor's onset in Annie at 1.5 hours after her death.

That is well within the ranges associated with normal progression of rigor.

What I'm saying is, his detection of rigor onset is not actually inconsistent with the witnesses, even if he himself was of the opinion it was. His opinion might differ, but his stated fact (rigor was starting) is not.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Yes, it is a well written paper, but we have learned more, or perhaps we should say we have learned to look for more, than was covered by Wolf.
You may recall in the introduction written for Annie Chapman, Wolf mentions that she was dying of a tubercular disease, yet later in this paragraph:

"As I have said, however, several things can hasten or lengthen the time it takes rigor to appear. I have noticed that more than one author writing on the Chapman murder has misunderstood this fact. For some reason authors have confused the fact that subjecting the body to cold temperatures will not hasten rigor but instead will retard its onset, will in fact slow it down. It is correct to say, therefore, that the coldness of Chapman's body would cause a delay in the appearance of stiffening and thus point to a time greater than two hours for her time of death."

Wolf failed to mention rigor will appear earlier due to the chemical interaction brought on by the disease & physical exertion, which would make it appear the body had been murdered earlier than the facts dictate.
This, in my opinion, is why Phillips reached for the 2+ hours, he had been mislead by the many varied influences that affected the onset of Rigor, but he was aware of the possibility he was in error - he said so.

Hi Jon,

I agree that there are factors to be taken into account for the errors possible in a medical ToD, but three aspects were considered in the final outcome - residual body temperature, onset of rigor and digestion of stomach contents. When Phillips commented on the body temperature I think he was saying that this made his estimate more difficult, but I don't think he was saying that his estimate could be out by an hour or more. The over-riding factor for me is that the same conditions (except for the tuberculosis) were in place for Eddowes, and that estimate was accurate. However, the charts and comments presented by Jeff show that there is a considerable range in the rigor factor, but it seems that for a 5:25am murder, while it could happen, it would seem to be outside the 66 percentile region of a bell curve(?).

On the other side of the coin, Wolf showed very little faith in the testimony of any of the witnesses.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jon,

I agree that there are factors to be taken into account for the errors possible in a medical ToD, but three aspects were considered in the final outcome - residual body temperature, onset of rigor and digestion of stomach contents. When Phillips commented on the body temperature I think he was saying that this made his estimate more difficult, but I don't think he was saying that his estimate could be out by an hour or more. The over-riding factor for me is that the same conditions (except for the tuberculosis) were in place for Eddowes, and that estimate was accurate. However, the charts and comments presented by Jeff show that there is a considerable range in the rigor factor, but it seems that for a 5:25am murder, while it could happen, it would seem to be outside the 66 percentile region of a bell curve(?).

On the other side of the coin, Wolf showed very little faith in the testimony of any of the witnesses.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Just to be pedantic here. Rigor isn't normally distributed, which means it doesn't follow a bell curve. It's skewed, and in research, one uses a 95% confidence interval, not a 66 percentile range. To get the 95% CI, cut off the lower 2.5% and the upper 2.5%, so full rigor would be expected, 95% of the time, to occur between (roughly) 2.5 hours and 12.5 hours post death. The 95% CI for Rigor onset, therefore, would be expected to commence some amount of time before 2.5 hours, and given we know rigor generally takes in the range of hours, what we have as a factual point (the Dr. reports rigor has started), and it looks like at least an hour has passed since the witness time of 5:25, his noting rigor onset falls within the expected range of detection times for that ToD. Yes, it is near the quick side, but it is still within the wide range of expectations all the same, which means his detection of rigor cannot be said to conflict with the witness estimations. Sure, he gave a different opinion, but that opinion is just that - an opinion, and it is not one that conforms to how data is interpreted objectively.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

There are many factors that influence the progression of rigor, and in any of the articles I've looked at, this one included, lots of different ranges and times are cited (reflecting the findings from different studies). Rules of thumb are given, like "warm but no rigor, probably died within 3 hours", "warm but rigor commencing, probably died 3-9 hours ago", "rigor fully established, died 9+ hours ago". Now that set of "rules" would fit the earlier ToD, but they goes against the data (by 9 hours 90% of the cases have reached full rigor!, but our rule would place all of them as 9+ hours previously, which means 90% of the time that rule is wrong! Personally, I wouldn't go by those suggestions).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I'm confused. Doesn't rigor fully established mean full rigor? Wouldn't that mean that only 10% of the time that rule is wrong?

If the rule of thumb is "warm but rigor commencing, probably died 3-9 hours ago", is it likely that "stone cold and rigor commencing" could translate to "died within an hour to an hour and a half"?

Best regards, George

P.S. Synchronous post - haven't yet read you post #248.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I'm confused. Doesn't rigor fully established mean full rigor? Wouldn't that mean that only 10% of the time that rule is wrong?

If the rule of thumb is "warm but rigor commencing, probably died 3-9 hours ago", is it likely that "stone cold and rigor commencing" could translate to "died within an hour to an hour and a half"?

Best regards, George

P.S. Synchronous post - haven't yet read you post #248.

Hi George,

Look at the bottom plot. On the horizontal axis are the #hours since death, and on the vertical are the percentage of cases that have reached full rigor up to and including that point in time. At 9 hours we see that 90% of the cases have reached full rigor, but the "rule of thumb" is that if it has reached full rigor then death was more than 9 hours ago!

Hmm, to make it a bit more clear, look at 8 hours. None of those are deaths more than 9 hours ago. But by 8 hours, roughly 87.5% (eye balling the graph) of all cases have reached full rigor. If you apply the rule of thumb, then all of those are wrong conclusion, and the death is being presumed to be earlier than it really was (by at least 1 hour).

Also, the "warm but ..." is based upon intact bodies, fully dressed, and indoors. Moreover, it would be based upon taking a rectal body temperature, not necessarily "warm by touch". In Annie's case, with the abdominal cavity opened, partially emptied, etc, and her clothes spread exposing her skin to the outside air, her surface (and internal) temperature is going to follow a very different pattern. The doctor does note there was some residual heat under her intestines though, and that observation is something that has to be considered. So while her surface temperature is likely to have cooled (making her cold to the touch), and the opening of her abdomen will likewise cool her internal temperature more quickly than is usually the case (all that is just physics), there does appear to be pockets of heat left in areas less exposed (under her intestines, for example). I doubt they could even have taken a rectal temperature all that well, given the damage done to her body. Perhaps an internal temperature of the liver, but again, as that organ has been exposed, I'm not sure how reliable body temperature, even if done to today's standards, would be. We also have to remember that as far as we know, Annie was out walking the streets for many hours, and so her surface is more likely to have cooled as a result (but that would, of course, depend upon how protective her clothing was). In comparison, Eddowes was in a gaol cell up until an hour before her death, and so she was indoors for much of the time, away from the elements (though I doubt it was toasty warm in the drunk tank). That makes comparisons between Chapman's case and Eddowes' case all that more complicated, because their prior activities are so different.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

I have just received a book, "Jack the Ripper, CSI: Whitechapel" published in 2012 by Paul Begg and John Bennett. The first comment I would like to make is, this is the best Ripper book in my collection. The photos, CGI illustrations, maps and narratives are absolutely stunning - I would highly recommend this book to everyone, regardless of the current size of your library.

As a second comment I would like to relate some of Paul Begg's opinions regarding Richardson:

Begg said that Richardson stood on the top step looking into the yard, looking to his right to check that the cellar was securely locked. Begg noted that even near objects in the yard could possibly be difficult to see in the pre-dawn gloom unless specifically looked for. He noted that Richardson sat on the second step and cut a bit of leather from his shoe, but as the door opened to the left and would have closed on Richardson it could have partially obscured the recess where the body was found, and as Richardson's attention was away from the recess and towards the cellar, the body could have been there and Richardson may not have seen it.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi all,

A while I go I had a look into the progression of rigor. I found the following paper:

"Data From : Kori, S. (2018). Time since Death from Rigor Mortis: Forensic Prospective, Journal of Forensic Sciences and Criminal Investigation, 9(5), 555771. DOI:
10.19080/JFSCI.2018.09.555771"

Which, presented data relating to how long it took to reach full rigor in cases where the time of death was known. The numbers can be found in the table, and I've plotted them two ways, the top plot showing the percentage that reached full rigor at a given time, and the lower one are the proportion of cases that reached full rigor by a certain time (so a running total).




Now, unfortunately, I've yet to find a paper reporting the time for rigor to commence, but it seems clear to me that if 14% of the cases have reached full rigor by 3 hours after death, for example, the time for it to have started must be less than that. Note, that 2 of the cases reached full rigor by 2 hours, so while that's not a lot, it is important to note because it means that we have to consider this - it does happen.

Generally it takes about 6-8 hours to reach full rigor on average, but the greatest number of cases reach full rigor at 4 hours, because the distribution of rigor progression is not normally distributed, it is skewed with most cases reaching full rigor quicker than average but some cases extend out quite long (it progresses slowly). That sort of skew to the distribution pulls the average higher than the median time (the time for 50% of cases to have reached full rigor, which is under 5 hours). Clearly, though, rigor doesn't start before death, but if a fair number of cases are reaching full rigor by 4 hours (around 40% are), then a fair number of cases are probably detectable a lot sooner than we are allowing for.

There are many factors that influence the progression of rigor, and in any of the articles I've looked at, this one included, lots of different ranges and times are cited (reflecting the findings from different studies). Rules of thumb are given, like "warm but no rigor, probably died within 3 hours", "warm but rigor commencing, probably died 3-9 hours ago", "rigor fully established, died 9+ hours ago". Now that set of "rules" would fit the earlier ToD, but they goes against the data (by 9 hours 90% of the cases have reached full rigor!, but our rule would place all of them as 9+ hours previously, which means 90% of the time that rule is wrong! Personally, I wouldn't go by those suggestions).

Anyway, if Chapman was killed around 5:25ish, and she was checked for Rigor at some point after the doctor arrived (he says he arrived at 6:30), then that's just over 1 hour (1 hour 5 minutes). We don't know how long he was at the scene before examining her body for signs of rigor. I suggest he didn't dash right in and test her immediately, as he appears to have spent some time examining the scene first. I don't know how much time might have passed, but I don't think 20-30 minutes is out of the question, and it could easily be more than that, or less. But for the sake of a rough estimate, let's use 6:55 as the time he examined her for signs of rigor (25 minutes after his arrival - gives him time to do his scene analysis, discuss things with the police, and so forth). That would mean the examination occurs at 1 hour 30 minutes after death. And given that full rigor occurred in about 12% of the cases by 3 hours, and 27% of the cases by 4 hours, after we allow for the fact that it takes a few hours from onset to full rigor, it really isn't out of the question that he detects rigor's onset in Annie at 1.5 hours after her death.

That is well within the ranges associated with normal progression of rigor.

What I'm saying is, his detection of rigor onset is not actually inconsistent with the witnesses, even if he himself was of the opinion it was. His opinion might differ, but his stated fact (rigor was starting) is not.

- Jeff

Just if i may Jeff, I think its a bit of a stretch to suggest 20 / 30 mins before Dr Phillips examined Chapmans body . Even your rough estimate of 6.55am is for me about too long . As you can see below he examines the body at 6.30am by examine i mean he notices the exact position of the body and the injuries to it , he then searches the yard . I dont see this taking 20/30 mins befor he came back to the body to claim it was cold befor making his estimate t.o.d . The question one would have to ask is why?. .. He would only be putting extra pressure on his own accuracy if he indeed let that 20 mins past while searching the yard . Just an obsevation on my behalf . I think 5/7 mins it was all over and done with .


Mr. George Baxter Phillips, divisional-surgeon of police, said: On Saturday last I was called by the police at 6.20 a.m. to 29, Hanbury-street, and arrived at half-past six. I found the body of the deceased lying in the yard on her back, on the left hand of the steps that lead from the passage. The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard. The left arm was across the left breast, and the legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen. The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder. I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there. I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police. The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi all,

A while I go I had a look into the progression of rigor. I found the following paper:

"Data From : Kori, S. (2018). Time since Death from Rigor Mortis: Forensic Prospective, Journal of Forensic Sciences and Criminal Investigation, 9(5), 555771. DOI:
10.19080/JFSCI.2018.09.555771"

Which, presented data relating to how long it took to reach full rigor in cases where the time of death was known. The numbers can be found in the table, and I've plotted them two ways, the top plot showing the percentage that reached full rigor at a given time, and the lower one are the proportion of cases that reached full rigor by a certain time (so a running total).




Now, unfortunately, I've yet to find a paper reporting the time for rigor to commence, but it seems clear to me that if 14% of the cases have reached full rigor by 3 hours after death, for example, the time for it to have started must be less than that. Note, that 2 of the cases reached full rigor by 2 hours, so while that's not a lot, it is important to note because it means that we have to consider this - it does happen.

Generally it takes about 6-8 hours to reach full rigor on average, but the greatest number of cases reach full rigor at 4 hours, because the distribution of rigor progression is not normally distributed, it is skewed with most cases reaching full rigor quicker than average but some cases extend out quite long (it progresses slowly). That sort of skew to the distribution pulls the average higher than the median time (the time for 50% of cases to have reached full rigor, which is under 5 hours). Clearly, though, rigor doesn't start before death, but if a fair number of cases are reaching full rigor by 4 hours (around 40% are), then a fair number of cases are probably detectable a lot sooner than we are allowing for.

There are many factors that influence the progression of rigor, and in any of the articles I've looked at, this one included, lots of different ranges and times are cited (reflecting the findings from different studies). Rules of thumb are given, like "warm but no rigor, probably died within 3 hours", "warm but rigor commencing, probably died 3-9 hours ago", "rigor fully established, died 9+ hours ago". Now that set of "rules" would fit the earlier ToD, but they goes against the data (by 9 hours 90% of the cases have reached full rigor!, but our rule would place all of them as 9+ hours previously, which means 90% of the time that rule is wrong! Personally, I wouldn't go by those suggestions).

Anyway, if Chapman was killed around 5:25ish, and she was checked for Rigor at some point after the doctor arrived (he says he arrived at 6:30), then that's just over 1 hour (1 hour 5 minutes). We don't know how long he was at the scene before examining her body for signs of rigor. I suggest he didn't dash right in and test her immediately, as he appears to have spent some time examining the scene first. I don't know how much time might have passed, but I don't think 20-30 minutes is out of the question, and it could easily be more than that, or less. But for the sake of a rough estimate, let's use 6:55 as the time he examined her for signs of rigor (25 minutes after his arrival - gives him time to do his scene analysis, discuss things with the police, and so forth). That would mean the examination occurs at 1 hour 30 minutes after death. And given that full rigor occurred in about 12% of the cases by 3 hours, and 27% of the cases by 4 hours, after we allow for the fact that it takes a few hours from onset to full rigor, it really isn't out of the question that he detects rigor's onset in Annie at 1.5 hours after her death.

That is well within the ranges associated with normal progression of rigor.

What I'm saying is, his detection of rigor onset is not actually inconsistent with the witnesses, even if he himself was of the opinion it was. His opinion might differ, but his stated fact (rigor was starting) is not.

- Jeff

good post jeff. as you say, if some cases are reaching full rigor in 2-3 hours, Phillips' observations are well in line with that. Does the time of death change much though (earlier or later)? The later, and more likely ToD IMO, puts further doubt on Lechmere as a suspect, unless people want to argue for a day off work. I have a problem with him parking up his van and going looking for a suspect, especially in daylight as he would need to return to an easily identifiable vehicle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

You would have to admit that you are only guessing about the canopy. The fact is that both Richardson and his mother said that the lock could be seen from the steps, so that is not in doubt. I don't think anyone even suggested that was not the case (questioned, yes, contradicted, no). What is in doubt is the extraordinary coincidence that after months of checking the lock from the steps, the one morning that he varied that routine just happened to be the morning of Chapman's murder. As for the knife, are you aware that he also told the coroner that the police had taken possession of his leather apron and his knife found at the premises?

Richardson wanted a reason to show absolutely that the body wasn't there that did not involve going into the yard, which he had already denied. Why?, creation of an alibi. Hence the sitting on the steps, and he needed a reason for doing that, and picked boot repair over early breakfast or fatigue.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

Its certainly true that in the absence of a proper photograph taken close to the time of the murder then we can’t be 100% certain of anything regarding the lock but I can only give my own opinion using imagination combined with real life. I stood on my back door step and imagined a cellar door either flush to the wall or slightly recessed. I then imagined a canopy at around knee height. To see my imaginary cellar door I can only see myself having any possible chance of doing it by leaning outward and lowering my head to close to the level of my knees. That might have been a possibility but, a) Richardson mentions no such contortions, and b) why would he do this kind of thing rather than simply step into the yard a matter of 2 or 3 steps. It just doesn’t seem likely to me when viewed as a whole George.

But even if he could see the lock from the doorway it doesn’t change anything. I don’t think that it’s any kind of coincidence at all because he might have opened the door, checked the lock in the manner that you and Doc suggest, and then sat down to repair his boot.

To be honest George I really can’t understand your point as to why Richardson might have lied about sitting on the step. It gave him absolutely no advantage and put him in possession of a knife. Why would he want a way of proving that the body wasn’t there that didn’t involve going into the yard? We surely can’t believe that the Police would have thought “well he only sat on the steps rather than stepping into the yard so he couldn’t have killed her?” It would have been much simpler and safer for him to have said either, a) he’d stepped into the yard and there was no body there, or b) he’d stood on the step and pushed the door back to the fence and there was no body there. Sitting on the steps was no alibi at all because he was still present and, for all that the Police knew at the time, might have killed her.

George, I’ve just looked at the inquest testimony here on casebook ( I can’t access the Sourcebook version at the moment as my Kindle keeps crashing and I don’t have my books with me) and I can’t see any mention of Richardson saying that the Police had retained his knife? The Coroner said that he would retain the knife that Richardson produced at the inquest though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On Jeff’s suggested time gap between death and examination we again have to remember the issues with expecting pinpoint accurate times in this case…. Cadosch said that that he got up around 5.15 and went to the outside loo. So this might have been 5.10 or even a bit earlier. So it can’t be anything like impossible that he actually heard the word ‘no’ at around 5.15 or even slightly before when he returned from the loo.

Phillips said that he arrived at Hanbury Street at 6.30. Now of course we can’t assume that he ran into the yard and checked her temperature straight away. It’s surely possible that he talked to Chandler first. It then appears that he had a general look over the body and then the area surrounding the body (handing certain items over to the police.) Then he undertook the physical examination including checking the temperature with his hand and not with a thermometer. None of what I’ve just suggested can be claimed by myself or anyone with any degree of certainty because we just don’t have enough information but equally they cannot be discounted. Also we cannot assume that Phillips watch wasn’t 5 minutes out. There are so many variables and all are unknowns but they can’t be dismissed as long as they don’t veer into the world of fantasy.

And so, if Chapman was killed at around 5.15 and Phillips checked for temperature at 6.40 this gives us a 1 hour 25 minute gap. It might have been longer, it might have been less of course, we just don’t know. But we do know that in every aspect of this case we have to factor in an allowance for timing errors/inaccuracies. And as we’ve seen from research these errors in timing can be very surprisingly extensive - so much so as to seem unlikely to ourselves in 2022. Again I’ll stress that we cannot rely on errors of timing or assume that they occurred but we would be remiss if we ignored the very real possibility. We should also be wary of assuming that we know how someone would have acted 134 years ago when we just don’t know.