John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

All those same variables must then also be taken into account for reasons explained in post #252.

For cadoshe to have heard the ''No'' at 5.15 then Long is wrong in her testimony

What we can assume is that it didnt take 20 /30 mins after he arrived on the scene to make a call on t.o d. also #post 252

Personally i dont think its safe just to say someones watch was five mins out when it might not have been for the other side of the arguement

Again this is a big problem on casebook, someone says and has an opinion that they think disproves another persons point of view , just say ''yes it could have happen that way'' and be done with it. Not that hard .

[FISHY1118]

Dr Phillips

[FISHY1118]

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

Hi Jeff. Given the simarlarities in conditions between Eddowes and Chapman on their respective murdrer nights, and lets say Chapman was killed between the 5.30 and 5.45 [ according to Mrs Long ] and Dr Phillips inspected her body 6.35/ 6.40 at the latest, 50 mins , how did[if at all] Phillips get it so wrong where Brown was within minutes ? .

If Chapmans body gave him the impression to give an estimate of two hours probably more shouldnt have that been at least considered according to his medical opinion.? After all he was a doctor ,if it wasnt he should surely have been a lot closer with the 50 min gap when he first saw the body? .

[Herlock Sholmes]

All those same variables must then also be taken into account for reasons explained in post #252.

For cadoshe to have heard the ''No'' at 5.15 then Long is wrong in her testimony

What we can assume is that it didnt take 20 /30 mins after he arrived on the scene to make a call on t.o d. also #post 252

Personally i dont think its safe just to say someones watch was five mins out when it might not have been for the other side of the arguement

Again this is a big problem on casebook, someone says and has an opinion that they think disproves another persons point of view , just say ''yes it could have happen that way'' and be done with it. Not that hard .

There’s a big difference between stating that something definitely occurred in a certain way or at a certain time and stating that it’s a possibility. Yes it’s possible that Cadosch got up at precisely 5.15 but it’s not a certainty, especially when we read the Cadosch actually said “about 5.15.” This isn’t an exact time, it’s an approximation. So while I certainly have to accept that it could actually have been 5.20 when he got up others should accept that it might have been 5.10. It works both ways so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that when Cadosch said that he’d got up “about 5.15’” it could have been anywhere between 5.10 and 5.20. We have no way of knowing but we can’t assume an exact time when Cadosch himself didn’t give an exact time.

Again, on the watch time, I wasn’t saying that Phillips watch must have been wrong. It could have been spot on for all that we know (it could even have been wrong in the other direction) but we know that clocks and watches could be ‘out.’ This is simply a fact so we can’t say that there was no way that Phillips watch could have been wrong. It’s a possible factor to be considered.

Yes, of course we can accept that people have different opinions and interpretations but it goes both ways and it doesn’t mean that we can’t put forward a case for or against. So what we can say if we generalise is that Phillips estimation might have been correct and it might have been incorrect. Both are possible so we can get no further than that. So how do we use Phillips to advance? We are just left with John Richardson to assess. And to dismiss Richardson with have to accuse him of lying. Yes, some will point out that he could have been mistaken but this also would have bordered on dishonesty because he wouldn’t accept even the possibility of being wrong. He was adamant that he could see all over the yard, including the spot where the body lay - remember that he’d seen the body where it lay from next doors yard. So if he wouldn’t even admit to the possibility of missing the body then I’d say that he was either telling the truth or lying. And I see absolutely no reason for him to have lied when he had other much simpler and less risky options.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can disagree on anything but if there’s one thing that everyone should accept it’s that TOD estimations we’re unreliable and so Dr. Phillips could have been wrong. There appears to be a resistance to this demonstrable fact. Why?

I accept that he could have been right.
I accept the (minute imo) physical possibility that Richardson could have missed the body.
I accept the possibility that Richardson might have been able to have seen the lock without sitting down.
I accept that Richardson might not have mentioned repairing his boot to Chandler.

So why the resistance to a fact that that has been demonstrated by a procession of respected modern day medical experts?

[FISHY1118]

Yes of course he could have been wrong ,i agree with that . I just dont think there enough overwhelming evidence to say he wasnt right .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes of course he could have been wrong ,i agree with that . I just dont think there enough overwhelming evidence to say he wasnt right .

Ok, no problem.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could I ask anyone who has the back issues of Ripperologist to check out issue number 183 and an article called Sex Or No Sex: The Mind Of Jack The Ripper by Amanda Howard as there’s an interesting close up photograph of the steps of number 29. It looks to me like there was a pronounced recess with the top step sitting back which would seem to make it even less likely that the lock could have been seen from standing on the steps. Especially considering the canopy at the time.

Thoughts anyone?

[GBinOz]

Could I ask anyone who has the back issues of Ripperologist to check out issue number 183 and an article called Sex Or No Sex: The Mind Of Jack The Ripper by Amanda Howard as there’s an interesting close up photograph of the steps of number 29. It looks to me like there was a pronounced recess with the top step sitting back which would seem to make it even less likely that the lock could have been seen from standing on the steps. Especially considering the canopy at the time.

Thoughts anyone?

Both Richardson and his mother testified that the lock could be seen from the steps. Why would they lie?

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

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.

Hello George.

Yes, Begg's book is excellent.

When John Davies arrived at the yard, he told the inquest:

"Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the lefthand recess, between the stone steps and the fence."

When James Kent arrived, he said:

"...standing on the top of the back door steps, I saw a woman lying in the yard between the steps and the partition between the yard and the next."

No-one else seemed to have trouble seeing the body from the top step.

[FISHY1118]

Just having watched again for the umpteenth time the video 'The London Nobody Knows '' James Mason , still gives me chills every time i watch it . I saw somethings of interest this time around .

The landing where Mason stands befor his decent into the yard, let call it the actual ''inside of the dwelling'' shall we .
It is infact slightly recessed back, granted . However i dont think anyone is suggesting that Richardson stood with both feet on the landing and cantilevered his way forward to look at the lock. [making the argument that indeed it was near impossible to see said lock if thats what he did] More so like Masons first step down onto the big step, Richardson could have done the same thing holding the door open on the angle ive previously mentioned , all he need to have done was drop his head down to see the lock . I Certainly dont think thats out of the question .

2nd point . The W.C [toilet ] I noticed the the door position is the same as the door on the house , meaning it to opened from right to left. So we have two doors out of a possible 3 in the back yards opening the same way .

Finally i noticed the second opening past the cellar seems to have a wooden frame of some sort flush with the brickwork, maybe to support a window or small door . So perhaps the cellar door had just such a support at one stage allowing for the door to fit flush to the brickwork . There s a lot heavy beams of timber right next to the entrance of the cellar to support this idea .

All in all an amaizing piece of evidence forever now to keep and wonder what exactly happened at 29 handbury street in 1888 .

Take a look at James Masons shoes , the guy was cool alright .

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

Here is the report I was to which I was referring:

Star Sep 8:
THE LEATHER APRON AND KNIFE.
John Richardson, of 2, John-street, E.C., said to a Star reporter: - I am a porter in Spitalfields Market. I always go round to mother's (Mrs. Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street) on market mornings just to see that everything is right in the back-yard, where her underground packing-case workshops are. The place was burgled a short time back. This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure. I heard in the market at 6.20 a woman had been found murdered at mother's, and went round and saw the body. The police, by the doctor's order, took possession on my leather apron and knife that were on the premises, and also a box of nails, as well as three pills found near the body.

Unless the police returned his apron and knife, he must have presented a different knife to the coroner. Note the absence of any mention of boot repairs.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

Here is the report I was to which I was referring:

Star Sep 8:
THE LEATHER APRON AND KNIFE.
John Richardson, of 2, John-street, E.C., said to a Star reporter: - I am a porter in Spitalfields Market. I always go round to mother's (Mrs. Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street) on market mornings just to see that everything is right in the back-yard, where her underground packing-case workshops are. The place was burgled a short time back. This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure. I heard in the market at 6.20 a woman had been found murdered at mother's, and went round and saw the body. The police, by the doctor's order, took possession on my leather apron and knife that were on the premises, and also a box of nails, as well as three pills found near the body.

Unless the police returned his apron and knife, he must have presented a different knife to the coroner. Note the absence of any mention of boot repairs.

Cheers, George

Thats strange george , just under an hour after the murder he didnt mention the boot cutting to Chandler , and later that same day of the murder he also makes no mention of it to the press reporter . One would think he wouldnt have been so distracted the second time around when asked about the murder , just sayin .

[GBinOz]

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

Just a small objection. We don't know for certain when Annie was murdered, or where she was after last being seen shortly before 2AM, just as we don't know where Eddowes was for the half hour after being released from the drunk tank. If we are to consider that Phillip's was wrong with his ToD, then we have to consider he may have been wrong in the other direction (two hours, or more) and that she may have been murdered shortly after 2am, or acquired a client and then spent her earnings in a nice warm pub.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Both Richardson and his mother testified that the lock could be seen from the steps. Why would they lie?

Cheers, George

But they didn’t say ‘from a standing position’ though.