John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

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? .

Hi Fishy,

I find it interesting that in all the cases where the Dr.'s appear to get a ToD estimation that we can verify as reasonable ones relate to cases where the ToD was pretty well known by the police at the scene (i.e. Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes, all found during a police beat, limiting the times possible) but once the police can no longer limit the possible range (Kelly and Chapman), suddenly the medical ToD gets more wiffy - with Chapman he hedges due to the cold, with Kelly we see issues about a possible killed in the morning, etc.

Basically, it looks like the Dr's are aware of the limits, and what they are doing is confirming that what they observed is consistent with that information. Without that information, their estimates become more erratic, because the technique is erratic and unreliable.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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

Indeed, given we don't know where she was or what she was doing, anything is possible. My thoughts are that if she found a client she would have gone back for her bed, but I accept if she found a pub that was open despite the 12:00 closing time, she could have gone there instead. And yes, I should have clarified that I was considering the 5:25ish ToD, as if she was killed earlier we know she was lying exposed in the yard, etc.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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 .

Hi Fishy,

Yes, but in what way is Long wrong? All it would take is for her to be wrong about the time, meaning it was the 5:15 chime she heard and not the 5:30 one, which would then bring her sighting in line with Cadoche's estimates of his activities.

And while we can't assert as definite that Dr. Phillip's spent 20-30 minutes before reaching the point in his scene examination where he estimates her ToD, we can't assert that wasn't the case either. What we have to consider are the implications of shorter intervals (you suggested around 5 minutes) and longer intervals (such as 20-30) because any of those could have been the case. And the longer that interval actually was, the more consistent his observation of rigor commencing aligns with the witness based ToD of around 5:25 ish. Even the shortest interval doesn't preclude the witnesses because of how variable rigor is. While Dr. Phillip's opinion was for a much earlier ToD, he does qualify his assessment, possibly because he realized that the witness statements are not inconsistent with the variability of rigor and temperature based decision. Basically, his original guess would be based upon a sort of average, but upon hearing the witnesses place the death much later, he may have acknowledged that this instance is within the possible ranges. It's common for people to focus upon group averages and to assign that to a specific instance, and to overlook the variability of the group itself. An instance, to be fully understood in relation to the group, however, requires consideration of both - what's the central tendency of importance (the mean, median, or mode? mean = average = 5.7 hourse, median = the 50% point = 5 hours, and mode the most common value = 4). Because the rigor data is skewed, the median is probably the better value than the average. The range that we would be considering as probable is the 95% confidence interval (the range that contains 95% of our scores), and for the rigor data, that is from 3 hours to 11.78 hours - that is a pretty large error range. And the rigor data is for reaching "full rigor", not for when rigor commences, which clearly means that range of times has a minimum less than 3 hours that we should be considering. And rigor takes hours to reach full rigor, though it is likely that in cases where it is reached in 3 hours probably progress much faster than cases where it is reached in 11.78 hours, it is also probable it starts sooner too, although of course it is possible it could start early but progress very slowly. A lot of things can happen, and we cannot pick and choose from that candy shop of possibilities and say which was the case. Rather, we have to look at the theories and see if the conditions that explanation requires are within that candy shop, if they are, then the theory is viable. Given the information we have, we cannot say as a certainty Dr. Phillip's opinion was wrong without more information. What we can do, though, is note that Dr. Phillip's, if right, means we have to assert the witnesses were wrong in their observations (lying, mistaken, etc) and weigh that against the alternative, that the witnesses' observations were for the most part correct, that Dr. Phillip's observation of rigor commencing is not inconsistent with those testimonies, but his interpretation of his observation appears to have ignored the variability, although he may be acknowledging that when he tempers his opinion by pointing out he may have underestimated how quickly the body cooled. Moreover, that admission also tells us that his estimate for the ToD appears to have been heavily weighted on his feeling her body temperature and not as influenced by noting the onset of rior, and if that were the case, we know that method of estimation is simply inaccurate. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt of including his observation of rigor commencing but he never actually says that was involved in how he came to his opinion.

And of course, consideration of the unreliability of the times given by witnesses requires +- ranges around their stated times. But again, it's not enough to show that some of that range "doesn't work", one has to be able to show that "all of that range" doesn't work before one can conclude an explanation is wrong. Only one "time" is correct, and if the time for a given explanation is in the range of possible times then it is viable. Things get complicated even more when two different time pieces are involved, because not only do we have to consider +- for the times given by the individual witnesses, we also have to then factor in a +- with regards to the clocks involved! Let's say you and I are accused of committing a crime together, which requires us to be at the same place at the same time. And that crime occurred at 4:35. If I say it was 4:40 by my watch when I did something (which can be verified), and you say it was 4:30 by your watch when you did something that can be verified, and our activities place us in different locations (and let's ignore digital watches and pretend we're only dealing with analog here), we might think "well, people read their watches to the nearest 5 minute point, so Jeff's time range is 4:37:30 to 4:42:30 and Fishy's time is 4:27:30 to 4:32:30). We might conclude given there's no way Jeff and Fishy were doing their things at the same time, so it's possible they met up between 4:32:30 and 4:37:30 and committed some crime at 4:35. However, if the 3 clocks are not reading the same time, that conclusion could be wrong. If my watch and your watch are out by 10 minutes, meaning when my watch reads 4:40 yours reads 4:30, then now we can be shown to be doing our activities at the same time (my 4:40 = your 4:30), but that doesn't clear us of the crime at 4:35! But if our watches are out by 5 minutes relative to the clock that recorded the crime, then my 4:40 = crime 4:35 = your 4:30, and you and I are shown to be wrong accused! But notice, the times that witnesses give (the crime, you, and me), once we start to include the variability, now range from 4:27:30 - 4:42:30 as all pointing to the time of the crime (4:35), because in reality, the crime, your activity, and my activity were happening at the same time! We've just worked out how to adjust all the times to a common clock, in this case the one that time stamped the crime. We could, of course, adjust all times to match the reading on your watch or my watch, and we would talk about the crime happing at either 4:40 or 4:30 when standardized to Jeff time or Fishy time, respectively.

What we struggle with in the JtR case is the fact that the ranges of what is possible are so large that there are many explanations that remain viable. We don't have a lot of necessary information, like what clock people are basing their statements of time on. We also don't have the police reporting any comparison of those clocks to assess how different their readings are (something that is really important to do when witnesses state times; compare the reading of that clock with a standard one, so that all times can be "synchronized" to give a better understanding of the sequence of events).

The best we can do, in my opinion, is look for explanations that require the least dismissal of evidence. By dismissal I mean things like "X was just lying", because that approach throws away an entire witness. Suggesting "X appears to have been mistaken on this detail, but on the whole their statement fits" is more likely to be the case because, well, eye witness are notoriously inaccurate on the details while the underlying gist is more stable (but of course, even that can be completely wrong at times).

And it is that last paragraph that explains my preference for the 5:25ish explanation. It doesn't require anyone to be dismissed entirely, Dr. Phillip's observation of rigor fits in, his caveat about the body possibly cooling faster than the allowed for makes even that to fit in, the witnesses all tend to corroborate a common story (with Long's time out of sync with Cadoche's, but that could be either clock sync issues or her misremembering the chime she heard). Basically, that explanation remains viable without having to entirely dismiss anyone's statements. As such, in my opinion, that makes it the most viable explanation, with the alternatives, while not impossible, they are rated lower in terms of what should be preferred as the best explanation.

We have a range of explanations, none of which can be proven, but they can be evaluated in comparison to each other in terms of how much of the evidence they account for. When we do that, the 5:25ish ToD accounts for the most evidence, with the least amount of "corrections" applied to the statements. That's how I see it.

Hmmm, that was much longer than I expected, but it often turns out that way. Sorry.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

I haven't accused anyone of lying,Jon/Herlock,I stated there was a possibility of Richardson having done so.....

How is that any different, you prefer to accept that either he may have lied, or was mistaken?
How can you be mistaken over the presence, or not, of a body?, - it's a kind of black and white issue, it's either there or it isn't.

Previously you suggested:

Just another 'What if'
What if Richardson did see the body and mistook it for someone 'sleeping rough'.Realising his mistake by the time he is spoken to by Chandler,he takes the line of least resistence,and says there was no body there,and reinforces this by stating he sat on the middle step,and from that posistion a body could be seen.

Then he would have said he saw something, not that he saw nothing, that makes no sense.
Also, if there was someone lying there that 'someone' would now be a Person of Interest for the police. Richardson is obliged to describe what he saw, whether he thinks it was a pile of rags, a tarpaulin, or a sleeping tramp.
Your argument turns a mistake into a lie.
Why complicate things?, just accept the evidence as it was given.

Then again, you suggest Richardson lies

But Herlock,he is not placing himself at the scene of a murder,if the murder had not yet taken place,and this is what his evidence suggests.However he could have lied.Me not knowing the reason for lying,does not invalidate that statement.

Well yes it does, you have no cause for him to lie.
Placing himself at what the officials (Scotland Yard, Phillips) believe to be a crime scene, and admitting he was carrying a knife, is hardly going to clear himself of suspicion - so why lie?
It's your suggestion, so you are obliged to justify it.

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.

Most witnesses have no corroborating evidence, thats normal.
You need a reason, like a counter argument from another witness, to raise the subject of lying. Otherwise, it looks like you are only suggesting it for self-serving reasons. To help support your own theory in some way.

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?

Mrs Long admitted she did not see the man's face, whereas Lawende could give a detailed description of the man he saw. Mrs Long could identify the victim, she saw her face-on, but Lawende could not identify Eddowes, he only saw her from the rear.
Therefore, Lawende's evidence with regard to the suspect is stronger than that of Mr's Long.

[JeffHamm]

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

The Star Report (in the paper on Sept 8th) precedes his testimony (which he gave on Sept 12, and gets reported on the 13th) at the inquest, which is important to note. I wanted to make sure I had the order correct, because if the above had come out after he gave his testimony then the "taken possession of his knife" could just refer to how the coroner wanted it retained at the inquest.

We know the police were interested in leather aprons because of the "Leather Apron" theory for JtR. The finding of one at the crime scene makes it a potential clue, which of course eventually turned out not to be the case, but that required investigation so retaining of that item makes sense and it would be unlikely for it to be returned simply because Richardson said it was his (he could be JtR for all the police know at that time after all).

It is a shame we have no other mention of his knife and the police taking possession of it at the scene. That makes it hard for us to know exactly where this knife came from (i.e. was it one found inside the house? or is it the one he had in his pocket that he used for feeding a rabbit?).

We know, from his later inquest testimony, that he had a knife on his person. One that he used to make repairs to his boots, but was not sharp enough to do a good job (he had to finish it at work with a sharper one - note, he never says it didn't to some of the repair, we only that it wasn't good enough to do the repair well enough so he did some more work with a better suited knife).

So if the knife in the above Star report is that one, given it was clearly incapable of being the murder weapon, it seems possible they did give it back to him. He would have had to explain it to the police at the time, and for all we know, he even told them of repairing his boot then and there. We don't have the police notebooks where that sort of thing would be expected to have been recorded, and we may be lucky that it came up at the inquest, which we do have preserved.

If something like that did happen, this may be why nobody bats an eye when he mentions having a knife at the inquest. The police already know that, and they've already dismissed it as being the murder weapon. When he shows it to the coroner, and it is also clear it couldn't have been involved in the crime, there's no indication the police thought he might be showing the "wrong knife", and that would be the case if they already knew what the knife he had on him looked like. Baxter, however, was quite critical of the police procedures at the time, and so his insistence that the police retain the knife anyway would be consistent with Baxter's view that the police are not doing all that they should.

I admit, I'm speculating like a punter at the races here, partly because it's such a cryptic bit of evidence and there's so much we don't know that gets left to our imagination. I certainly don't put the above forward as anything beyond that.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Indeed, given we don't know where she was or what she was doing, anything is possible. My thoughts are that if she found a client she would have gone back for her bed, but I accept if she found a pub that was open despite the 12:00 closing time, she could have gone there instead. And yes, I should have clarified that I was considering the 5:25ish ToD, as if she was killed earlier we know she was lying exposed in the yard, etc.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

There is that 12:00 closing time, but I seem to recall reading a report of her being seen in a pub after 2am and leaving with a man in a skullcap.

Cheers, George

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Jeff,

There is that 12:00 closing time, but I seem to recall reading a report of her being seen in a pub after 2am and leaving with a man in a skullcap.

Cheers, George

Star 8 Sept;
"AT THE TEN BELLS.

The proprietor of the Ten Bells is Mr. E. Waldron. The house stands on the corner of Spitalfields Market, and opens early for the convenience of those who bring their goods from the country. One of the assistants gave some information to our reporter with reference to the rumor that the murdered woman was seen there this morning. He said: A woman did call in here about five o'clock. She was poorly dressed, having no bodice to her skirt. She was middle-aged. She just had something to drink, when a man called for her. He just popped his head in the door and retired immediately afterwards. He had on a little skull cap, and was, as far as I could see, without a coat. But he gave me no opportunity of seeing him. I think, however, I should know his face again, and I think I would also know the woman. The description of the woman corresponds to a certain extent, especially with regard to age, hair, and clothing, with that of the victim of to-day."

And also;

"Our representative went to the Bell, in Brick-lane, where, as gossip goes, "Dark Annie" was seen with the man supposed to be her murderer. The barmaid said she opened the place at five o'clock, as is customary on a Saturday morning, as Spitalfields Market is in the near vicinity. She was too busy almost to notice whom she served. She might have served the woman; indeed she had been told by those who knew her that she had, but she had no recollection of it, and certainly could not say whether the unfortunate creature was accompanied by a man."

[harry]

Jon,
You waffle on and says nothing,
i'll repeat,i have not once said that Richardson lied.I have said it is possible he could have.Witnesses lie for many reasons,one being that they do not wish to become involved to any great extent.The I do not know anything,and I saw nothing excuses,are common.
In this case there is conflicting information.Phillip's testimony indicates the body could have been there in the yard since about 4.30am.I have confidance in Phillip's estimation.It is not,as yo say,a black and white situation,but a conflict of testimony's.Phillip's had no reason to lie.
The Long sighting as I explained is another conflict of belief.She believed she may have seen Chapman outside 29,and as I explained senior officers of the police force do not appear to agree.Do not ask me why,I cannot read minds.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

There is that 12:00 closing time, but I seem to recall reading a report of her being seen in a pub after 2am and leaving with a man in a skullcap.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

As per Joshua's post, the report you recall appears to be from the 10 Bells (I've had a pint there myself), and if that is a sighting of Annie, it occurred after 5 am, which is consistent with the witness testimony. Sadly, we can't be sure if it is a genuine sighting, particularly as the reports are very cautious presentations. Just another one of those tantalizing statements that could be important, or could not be. Sigh.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Star 8 Sept;
"AT THE TEN BELLS.

The proprietor of the Ten Bells is Mr. E. Waldron. The house stands on the corner of Spitalfields Market, and opens early for the convenience of those who bring their goods from the country. One of the assistants gave some information to our reporter with reference to the rumor that the murdered woman was seen there this morning. He said: A woman did call in here about five o'clock. She was poorly dressed, having no bodice to her skirt. She was middle-aged. She just had something to drink, when a man called for her. He just popped his head in the door and retired immediately afterwards. He had on a little skull cap, and was, as far as I could see, without a coat. But he gave me no opportunity of seeing him. I think, however, I should know his face again, and I think I would also know the woman. The description of the woman corresponds to a certain extent, especially with regard to age, hair, and clothing, with that of the victim of to-day."

And also;

"Our representative went to the Bell, in Brick-lane, where, as gossip goes, "Dark Annie" was seen with the man supposed to be her murderer. The barmaid said she opened the place at five o'clock, as is customary on a Saturday morning, as Spitalfields Market is in the near vicinity. She was too busy almost to notice whom she served. She might have served the woman; indeed she had been told by those who knew her that she had, but she had no recollection of it, and certainly could not say whether the unfortunate creature was accompanied by a man."

Thanks for that Joshua. Such a sighting would rule out a ToD prior to 5 am, which of course fits with the eyewitnesses. But as I mentioned to George above, the sighting is questionable enough as to its certainty that we're left, as always, not really knowing.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Star 8 Sept;
"AT THE TEN BELLS.

The proprietor of the Ten Bells is Mr. E. Waldron. The house stands on the corner of Spitalfields Market, and opens early for the convenience of those who bring their goods from the country. One of the assistants gave some information to our reporter with reference to the rumor that the murdered woman was seen there this morning. He said: A woman did call in here about five o'clock. She was poorly dressed, having no bodice to her skirt. She was middle-aged. She just had something to drink, when a man called for her. He just popped his head in the door and retired immediately afterwards. He had on a little skull cap, and was, as far as I could see, without a coat. But he gave me no opportunity of seeing him. I think, however, I should know his face again, and I think I would also know the woman. The description of the woman corresponds to a certain extent, especially with regard to age, hair, and clothing, with that of the victim of to-day."

And also;

"Our representative went to the Bell, in Brick-lane, where, as gossip goes, "Dark Annie" was seen with the man supposed to be her murderer. The barmaid said she opened the place at five o'clock, as is customary on a Saturday morning, as Spitalfields Market is in the near vicinity. She was too busy almost to notice whom she served. She might have served the woman; indeed she had been told by those who knew her that she had, but she had no recollection of it, and certainly could not say whether the unfortunate creature was accompanied by a man."

Thanks Joshua. Early opener rather than all nighter.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Nah, I don't think so Fishy you're not 'just sayin', you're insinuating he made it up.
How on Earth voluntarily placing himself nearer the body (than being on the top step), and admitting he carried a knife, is supposed to be to his benefit, god only knows!!

I'm sure you'll think of something

Of course i will, why not . We all have a theory and opinion on what may or may not have happen, or what some witness said or didnt say. Why should this perticular topic be any different? .

I have , as other have also shown where Richardson is concerned, simply given a possibility for an alternative seqence of events based on the information we all share thats available to us .

One version of the event in question doesnt disprove the other could not have taken place !! and vice versa . We all have just as much right to interprut the written evidence the way we see it .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jon,
You waffle on and says nothing,
i'll repeat,i have not once said that Richardson lied.I have said it is possible he could have.Witnesses lie for many reasons,one being that they do not wish to become involved to any great extent.The I do not know anything,and I saw nothing excuses,are common.
In this case there is conflicting information.Phillip's testimony indicates the body could have been there in the yard since about 4.30am.I have confidance in Phillip's estimation.It is not,as yo say,a black and white situation,but a conflict of testimony's.Phillip's had no reason to lie.
The Long sighting as I explained is another conflict of belief.She believed she may have seen Chapman outside 29,and as I explained senior officers of the police force do not appear to agree.Do not ask me why,I cannot read minds.

Can I ask you a question Harry? You might not have seen all of the quotes and evidence posted on the other thread but I did post a few of them on here but all of them, from modern day medical experts, stated that TOD estimation in the Victorian era (with the methods that they used and the knowledge that they had) was unsafe to rely on. They also showed that with the conditions that existed at the time Annie could have died an hour or so before Phillips examined her. So my question to you is - why do you have greater confidence in Phillips that modern day medical experts do? Do you believe that Dr. Phillips had skills and knowledge that other Victorian doctors didn’t possess?

[FISHY1118]

In that case George, who was it that Cadoche, about 5:30 am?, heard utter, "no", then minutes later something fall against the fence, if the body was already there?

To be fair Cadosch says ''i should thinks it came from No 29 ''[at about 5.20] ''i however cannot say which side it came from'' .Could he mean that to be either 25 or 29 ? .

Given there must of been some time between the ''No'' and the noise ''as if something touched the fence suddenly''. i make it 3/4 mins according to Cadosch, one could argue[ could mind you ] it might not have been Chapmans lifeless body being laid to the ground touching the fence on her way down.

While i dont like to get in the minds of victims ,witnesses , or Jack the Ripper himself as to how they all '' think'' in any given situation , i feel in this case i will make an exception . One might suggest after /if Annie Chapman did utter the ''No'' that she/JtR would bother to engage in more small talk for another 3/4 minutes , given what they both were there for at that hour of the morning.

One might expect Annie to come out with words to this effect ''well are you going to f### me or not, or are we going to stand here behind ths door all night'' . Sorry if it was to blunt, but hey thats what i would imagine a hooker then and haha problably even know would say .

Anyway if the''No'' was the start of the attack , Chapmans body would/could have hit the fence making that noise long befor Cadosch came back out to the yard 3/4 minutes later . The whole attack and Chapman dead body put on the ground could have lasted less than a minute .

Question , Then what noise did Cadosch heard at approx 5.27 am touch the fence suddenly if it wasnt Annie Chapman ?

[harry]

Why ask my permission Herlock,then go on and put your question anyway?
What I have read Herlock,indicates to me there is confusion as to how much difference there is,and how much Phillip's estimate differs.
Be that as it may,he was the only person present, and able to state an estimate.He alone was able to assess factors that were present that morning .He was a police surgeon with training and experience of making estimates.His testimony would be that of an expert witness.He gave evidence under oath.So yes,I can feel confident his estimation was near the mark.
What is evident,is that no one today can change it.