John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

Let me also chip in and answer this question, you are right and Dr Biggs confirms that but it is a question of parameters to point bank ruling out an estimated time of death is in my opinion foolhardy. Even in todays murder investigations forensic examiners are asked to give their opinions at a crime scene as to an estimated time of death which from an investigitive point of view is invaluable.

Phillips gave a professional opinion based on his experience and this should not be dismissed in favour of witnesses who hear bumps and voices in the morning, or who believed they saw the victim at a specific time. Once the whole evidence has been gathered then the police can decide which account they believe. Swanson in my opinion quite rightly favours Phillips simply because all the other witness testimony is all over the place and unreliable.

I think given the conflicting account given by Richardson he should have been spoken to by the police or corroborating questions put to him at the inquest

But this is one aspect where researchers will form their own opinions as to who they believe, and I see no point in researchers continually stamping their feet to convince others that they are right

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let me also chip in and answer this question, you are right and Dr Biggs confirms that but it is a question of parameters to point bank ruling out an estimated time of death is in my opinion foolhardy. Even in todays murder investigations forensic examiners are asked to give their opinions at a crime scene as to an estimated time of death which from an investigitive point of view is invaluable.

Phillips gave a professional opinion based on his experience and this should not be dismissed in favour of witnesses who hear bumps and voices in the morning, or who believed they saw the victim at a specific time. Once the whole evidence has been gathered then the police can decide which account they believe. Swanson in my opinion quite rightly favours Phillips simply because all the other witness testimony is all over the place and unreliable.

I think given the conflicting account given by Richardson he should have been spoken to by the police or corroborating questions put to him at the inquest

But this is one aspect where researchers will form their own opinions as to who they believe, and I see no point in researchers continually stamping their feet to convince others that they are right

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There’s no stamping of the feet involved Trevor. The only reason that I raised the issue again is because there has been a tendency for some to find it impossible to believe that TOD estimations in the Victoria were unreliable and could easily be quite significantly wrong. It’s good that you’ve posted that Dr. Biggs confirms this, so that’s another expert to add to the list. So, at the very least, no one should be doubting the truth of this now. Of course we can’t assume that he was wrong because doctors could get it right at times but we have absolutely no way of making an assessment. So, in effect, Phillips evidence is neutral and has to be put to one side in discussions on the TOD of Annie Chapman as “he might have been wrong or he might have been right,” is no help to anyone.

I see no reason for seriously doubting Richardson. He was adamant that he could see all of the yard and there wasn’t a body there. All that we have against that is what Chandler said but even that doesn’t cast much doubt at all. A simple communication error? A small detail that Richardson didn’t feel important at the time. I go with the witnesses every time on this issue.

[FISHY1118]

There’s no stamping of the feet involved Trevor. The only reason that I raised the issue again is because there has been a tendency for some to find it impossible to believe that TOD estimations in the Victoria were unreliable and could easily be quite significantly wrong. It’s good that you’ve posted that Dr. Biggs confirms this, so that’s another expert to add to the list. So, at the very least, no one should be doubting the truth of this now. Of course we can’t assume that he was wrong because doctors could get it right at times but we have absolutely no way of making an assessment. So, in effect, Phillips evidence is neutral and has to be put to one side in discussions on the TOD of Annie Chapman as “he might have been wrong or he might have been right,” is no help to anyone.

I see no reason for seriously doubting Richardson. He was adamant that he could see all of the yard and there wasn’t a body there. All that we have against that is what Chandler said but even that doesn’t cast much doubt at all. A simple communication error? A small detail that Richardson didn’t feel important at the time. I go with the witnesses every time on this issue.

Ill disagree with one point only , however ill let Trevor respond as it was to his reply , if he doesnt mention it i may reply .

[Losmandris]

Now that’s a new one as far as I’m aware Tristan and it’s not impossible. If they were standing near the door and saw it begin to open they might have quickly ducked behind it up against the wall. If they had been caught by Richardson what else could they have done? Two choices, stood there and then got chucked out or hid behind the door and hoped that the person at the door just crossed the yard to the loo when they could have made they’re escape. Richardson goes back inside though and Chapman is dead before 5.00.

It would kick Cadosch into touch though.

Nice idea though.

Yes. Just a thought? Good point about Cadosch. For what it is worth. I don't think the body was there when Richardson was in the yard. And Cadosch hears JtR as he is kneeing next to Annie, hence not seeing anything. I think JtR really went out on a limb with the murder of Chapman. Possibly a spur of the moment thing running into someone looking for business first thing in the morning. I really think the TOD is out here.

[Wickerman]

Phillips gave a professional opinion based on his experience and this should not be dismissed in favour of witnesses who hear bumps and voices in the morning, or who believed they saw the victim at a specific time. Once the whole evidence has been gathered then the police can decide which account they believe. Swanson in my opinion quite rightly favours Phillips simply because all the other witness testimony is all over the place and unreliable.
...

Trevor, how is Phillips's testimony any different?

"...I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

That observation has nothing to do with Rigor, it is his estimate from Algor Mortis, the time it takes a body to cool.

He says "two or more hours", then qualifies that by adding a phrase that means, "but it could have been shorter".

Dr Phillips is also "all over the place".

[Wickerman]

...
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...

Here again, Harry, you're another one "conflicting information"!

There's nothing conflicting about Richardson's evidence. He is quite certain the body was not there.
The conflict is introduced by Dr Phillips himself, why?, because he is the one who was not sure, Phillips, not Richardson.

As I just reminded Trevor, Phillips said MORE or LESS, two hours.
MORE or LESS, he cannot be sure either way.
I often wonder if some posters even understand what he said as he qualified his estimate. It's almost like the tail end of his sentence is ignored.

This bit...
"...but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

That appending line means LESS THAN TWO HOURS, sorry for the emphasis, but some here need to be lead by the hand.

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.

I never did ask you 'why', I gave you a reason.

[Wickerman]

.....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 .

I would say longer than a minute, could be as much as five minutes.
Let me just draw your attention to these lines by Dr Phillips.

- "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 finger nails were turgid."
- "The head being opened showed that the membranes of the brain were opaque and the veins loaded with blood of a dark character. There was a large quantity of fluid between the membranes and the substance of the brain."
- The Coroner: "The thickening of the tongue would be one of the signs of suffocation?
- "Yes. My impression is that she was partially strangled."

There were several indications Chapman was strangled or suffocated, which takes time, usually a few minutes.

[FISHY1118]

I would say longer than a minute, could be as much as five minutes.
Let me just draw your attention to these lines by Dr Phillips.

- "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 finger nails were turgid."
- "The head being opened showed that the membranes of the brain were opaque and the veins loaded with blood of a dark character. There was a large quantity of fluid between the membranes and the substance of the brain."
- The Coroner: "The thickening of the tongue would be one of the signs of suffocation?
- "Yes. My impression is that she was partially strangled."

There were several indications Chapman was strangled or suffocated, which takes time, usually a few minutes.

Lets be realistic , id say 90 sec tops befor chapman was at the very least at this stage unconscious, rembering there was no sign of a struggle . Would/ Could/Why , Jack hold her upright for another 3 and half minutes ? Not in my opinion .

[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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also, we can’t say for certain that the ‘no’ was the beginning of the attack. It might have simply been an answer to a question. And the sound against the fence shouldn’t be assumed to have been Chapman’s body falling against it. It could have been the killers shoulder brushing against it.

[GBinOz]

As I just reminded Trevor, Phillips said MORE or LESS, two hours.
MORE or LESS, he cannot be sure either way.

Hi Jon,

AFAIK Phillips said two hours or more. Can you point to where he mentioned "less" please.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

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 .

Right yes, I understand.

I was more alluding to what I see regularly here, which is some members think that solving a case is more like a competition, who can dream up whatever could have happened, as opposed to sticking to the evidence.
Ideally, we should always let the evidence speak for itself.

Richardson said, he sat on the middle step, and could see all around the yard.
THAT, is the evidence, we need to move on from there.

Whereas, there are others here who prefer to dwell on speculation, and be guided by whatever they can dream up to contest the evidence.
- Maybe, he didn't look to his left?
- Maybe, it was too dark?
- Maybe, he couldn't see the body for the door?
- Maybe, he didn't sit on the step?
- etc. etc. etc.

This isn't evidence, no-one else said the body was there, so there is no conflict.
Even Phillips didn't suggest the body was there, the medical evidence he gave concerned when death occurred, not where.
This is why the question arose whether there was evidence the body had been dumped.
There was no supporting evidence for that, which doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it was considered.
The court did not decide "she must have been killed elsewhere, and dumped in the yard", in order to rationalize the evidence of Dr Phillips. They stuck to the evidence, and that is what I have been suggesting should be done here.

Speculation is never a substitute for evidence.
It's perfectly fine to make a suggestion, but you are required to then prove it, not just leave it open. This is because other than you making it up, there is no indication for what you propose.

[FISHY1118]

Givin that Chapmans body was prodominatley forward of the last step into the yard giving the killer having full unrestricted access to her abdomen, where by if im right in sayin [i think i read it somewhere] that all of Chapmans injuries were inflicted by someone positioned on the ''right'' hand side of her body. Including the cutting of her throat , there would be little reason for the killer to be on her ''left'' side between the body and the fence . He may well have been, but highly unlikely if this was the case.

[GBinOz]

Also, we can’t say for certain that the ‘no’ was the beginning of the attack. It might have simply been an answer to a question. And the sound against the fence shouldn’t be assumed to have been Chapman’s body falling against it. It could have been the killers shoulder brushing against it.

Hi Herlock,

Cadosch's original statements to the press involved a single trip to the toilet with a conversation containing the word "no", the sound of a scuffle and the sound of something hitting the fence. All one event. First evolved story was still one trip to the toilet with the conversation and scuffle on the to trip and the "bump" on the return trip. Come the inquest and he has two trips to the toilet, 3-4 minutes apart, no conversation, just a "no' on one trip and the "bump" on the next trip. He testified that he didn't know where the 'no' came from, and it was so "not unusual" to hear bumps in the yard that he ignored it.

Cadosch's story is a case of taking usual occurrences that he had experienced previously and adapting them to create a murder scene. Baxter was taken in, but the police were not, and neither am I.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

AFAIK Phillips said two hours or more. Can you point to where he mentioned "less" please.

Cheers, George

Hi George.
That is precisely my point.
His entire passage was:

"I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

That last sentence in bold, says precisely that - it could have been less.

Medical expertise in the late 19th century used body temperature (Algor Mortis) as a guide to a time of death.
An assumption is always made, as it is today, that assuming there is no outside influences like a nearby furnace, or a hot summer day, a body will be about 98.4 deg at death.

It isn't the resulting temperature that is of concern, but the rate of loss since death.
This is why Phillips came up with the number he did, it was from text-book calculations. Whatever the body temperature was (he didn't say), it took about two or more hours the drop that low.
However, he qualified that estimate by also saying:

"....but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

Which means, that due to the extent of the abdominal mutilations, the body could have lost more heat than normal, meaning she could have been murdered in less than two hours.