John Richardson

[GBinOz]

I thought it may be productive to try to see what could be seen from the steps into the yard at No 29. For this exercise I am using the first photo posted by Jon in Post #2, the James Mason video at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ko2HJoLxA&ab_channel=Aut0five

and the testimony of Chandler and Phillips. The original measurements are quoted in feet, so I will maintain that standard of measurement.
Body position:
Chandler: Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them. Deceased's legs were drawn up. The body was lying parallel with the fencing dividing the two yards.
Phillips: 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.
Mason video: James Mason was a tad taller than 5’ 11”, which is my height. My boot measures 1 foot. The steps are slightly bigger than Mason’s boot so I’m adopting 2’ 6” as the protrusion of the two steps into the yard from the house wall. I measured my back door as 3’ and am using that as a benchmark. That makes the gap from steps to fence about 1’ 4” and a panel of fencing about 8’.
My interpretation of the measurement of Chandler and Phillips is that the body was close to the fence and the head was in the gap between the stairs and the fence at about the level of the bottom step. Annie was about 5’ so, with her legs drawn up, say 4’6. Just slightly more than half a fence panel. So adding the 4' 6" to the 2' that her head was from the wall we arrive at 6' 6", about 1' 6" from the end of the first panel of fencing.
Observing the video as the door is opened we see the fence on the left and a curved object up against the fence. As Mason proceeds into the yard, at the 43 second mark, we see the curved object extends from a little less than halfway on the second panel to roughly the end of the second panel furthest from the house. So the edge of the curved object closest to the house would be about 6' from where Annie’s feet would have been.
Now watch the video. By pausing the video it can be freeze framed at any point, and at the 26 second mark with the door almost completely open there is no sign of the curved object. At the 27 second mark the door is past fully open and the near side of the curved object has just come into view, 6' from where Annie’s feet would have been.
To my mind this removes all doubt that Richardson could have seen Annie’s body, had it been there, standing or sitting.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

What opinion of you,Herlock,is it I have? You looking for sympathy.You cannot talk about a law in general,without there bing such a law,and what I am aking from you and Jon, is to show the law that presumes witnesses will tell the truth.Show it,and we can discuss it.You talk about Perjury.There is such a law that defines perjury.It is in written form.There is a law concerning the presumption of innocence.One can see and read it,and many other laws too.I know of no law that presumes witnesse tell the truth.How would one police such a law?

Just for once Harry it would be a refreshing change if we could get straightforward answers on here. And it would help if you understood clearly what had been said by other posters like Wickerman and myself. No one has said that witnesses can’t lie at an inquest or in court. Of course it’s possible to lie but that doesn’t mean that it’s legally permissible to do so; because it isn’t - and THAT is what we’re saying. It beats me how you can even suggest that we’ve made this barking mad claim. There’s a law against murder but people still do it but there is a presumption that by taking an oath that witnesses would be compelled (or at least more likely to be compelled) to tell the truth. They can be punished in law if it’s discovered that they’ve lied so this is obviously an incentive for telling the truth.

So to sum up, and in the increasingly vain hope that you will get it, no one has said that it’s physically impossible for a witness to lie in court. What we HAVE said though, is that the law doesn’t allow this. This is why witnesses swear on oath to tell the truth and face punishment if they don’t. I really can’t believe that I’ve had to explain this.

I'm sure all those persons you mentioned had some knowledge and experience of TOD.So what?

No Harry, that’s not an acceptable statement. They didn’t have ‘some’ knowledge. They are the acknowledged authorities in the field and neither you nor I have the knowledge to contradict them. And frankly I’m amazed that someone with an interest in true crime doesn’t appear to have heard of Francis Camps, Keith Simpson and Bernard Knight. Or perhaps you’d like to tell Dr. Biggs that he’s wrong?

It's not an exact science.

And yet you appear to believe that Dr. Phillips could tie a TOD estimate down with a level of knowledge that didn’t exist at the time.

Most of the advances have been in cases where the person has been dead months and years,not just a couple of hours.

Written in the book of Harry was it? I’ll say it in black and white so there’s no equivocation Harry. You’ve made that up.

Most doctors,Victorian or otherwise,should be able to judge,with little margin of error,when it is as recent as two hours.

Then tell the rest of the worlds experts that you’ve proved them wrong Harry. See what they say. Perhaps you could write a paper on the subject?

Your last point.Argueing the point.Am i not allowed to do what you are doing.I am not argueing for any other reason than because you and Jon keep directiong posts at me,quoting what I write.Perhaps you believe I should not reply.Are you that conceited?

This is like pulling teeth. No one is saying, suggesting or even hinting that you shouldn’t post Harry. The only point that I take exception to is the fact that you seem to believe that know more about TOD estimations that the worlds leading experts. How can you even make these kind of assertions. They tell us that TOD estimations were unreliable and could be very significantly wrong. The response to that should be - ok. But you won’t accept. You keep suggesting that Dr. Gandalf Phillips had some kind of special ability that made his estimations more reliable. Just let it go Harry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

and when you assess Richardson how can you do that impartially when there are so many conflicting reports about his actions on that morning.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There aren’t. It’s a massive exaggeration. Chandler said he didn’t mention the boot. That’s it. So what?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if the witnesses were wrong then Phillips must have been right, even you must accepty that as fact, and clearly Mrs Long and Cadoche statements cannot be regarded as evidence to rely on for the reasons previoulsy stated. So if we are talking about the balance of probabilty that must fall in favour of Phillips. We cannot prove who was lying if anyone so we have to weigh up the evidence that is before us, and that evidence doesnt bode well in the support of Richardsons testimony or a later time of death

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nonsense. Phillips should be dismissed. His opinion is close to worthless on this matter. It’s not even close. Witnesses over Doctor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any discussion on when Chapman was killed that begins “well Dr. Phillips said….” should be ignored as pointless.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nonsense. Phillips should be dismissed. His opinion is close to worthless on this matter. It’s not even close. Witnesses over Doctor.

But the witnesses do not corrobrate each other, the timings are all out, and furthermore they dont corroborate Richardson. I am not suggesting they lied. Ok so Mrs Long could quiet easily have been mistaken as to who she saw,her ID at the mortuary is not worth the paper it is written on. Cadoche is all over the place hearing sounds when he went into the back yard but everyone seems to be forgetting he went into the back yard twice, and sounds will carry at that time of the morning. So the word No he said he heard could have come from anywhere nearby.

So these witnesses are in your opinion more reliable than a medical man who estimates a time of death, and I note he only estimates he doesnt state catergorically. You really do need a reality check

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dickere]

What, if anything, is this debate actually achieving ? Unless Richardson is a suspect to some people of course. What difference does TOD make here, does it rule anyone else in or out ?

[Trevor Marriott]

What, if anything, is this debate actually achieving ? Unless Richardson is a suspect to some people of course. What difference does TOD make here, does it rule anyone else in or out ?

No it doesnt, but some just like arguing for the sake of arguing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

What, if anything, is this debate actually achieving ? Unless Richardson is a suspect to some people of course. What difference does TOD make here, does it rule anyone else in or out ?

5.30 ToD is a problem for those that suspect lechmere, as we are told his only day off was for Stride/Eddowes, so what is he doing out hunting for victims an hour and half after he started work?

[Dickere]

5.30 ToD is a problem for those that suspect lechmere, as we are told his only day off was for Stride/Eddowes, so what is he doing out hunting for victims an hour and half after he started work?

Fair point, that's the sort of thing I was hoping for. Perhaps it was a quiet morning at work, perhaps he was off-sick. Who knows of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No it doesnt, but some just like arguing for the sake of arguing

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Honestly Trevor, you really do have zero self-awareness don’t you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the witnesses do not corrobrate each other, the timings are all out, and furthermore they dont corroborate Richardson. I am not suggesting they lied. Ok so Mrs Long could quiet easily have been mistaken as to who she saw,her ID at the mortuary is not worth the paper it is written on. Cadoche is all over the place hearing sounds when he went into the back yard but everyone seems to be forgetting he went into the back yard twice, and sounds will carry at that time of the morning. So the word No he said he heard could have come from anywhere nearby.

So these witnesses are in your opinion more reliable than a medical man who estimates a time of death, and I note he only estimates he doesnt state catergorically. You really do need a reality check

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That’s your opinion Trevor and you’re wrong of course. You can’t lump Richardson in with Phillips.

Phillips estimation was unsafe. We know this for an absolutely, inarguable fact. So Dr. Phillips is entirely neutral and adds nothing.

John Richardson isn’t neutral. He was absolutely 100% certain that there couldn’t have been a body there. He had zero reason to lie and he wasn’t blind. All that you desperately cling onto is that Chandler didn’t think that he’d mentioned the reason for sitting on the step. And in your usual way, when faced with a witness that goes against your opinion you take the tiniest detail as an excuse for your ‘unsafe to rely on’ mantra. We are not going to agree on this but there is nothing unsafe about Richardson.

Yes, there are questions about Cadosch but they are far from fatal. Of course you won’t accept the very obviously possibility that newspaper reporting might account for much of this though. Newspapers are only untrustworthy when you can use it to support your point.

Elizabeth Long, like Phillips, is neutral really.

The witnesses outweigh a Doctors unreliable estimation (an estimation that would only require him to be out by 40-50 minutes.

I feel that those that favour the witnesses and those that favour the Doctor are never going to agree so it’s fairly pointless to continue this debate. Unless someone has something new?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I thought it may be productive to try to see what could be seen from the steps into the yard at No 29. For this exercise I am using the first photo posted by Jon in Post #2, the James Mason video at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ko2HJoLxA&ab_channel=Aut0five

and the testimony of Chandler and Phillips. The original measurements are quoted in feet, so I will maintain that standard of measurement.
Body position:
Chandler: Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them. Deceased's legs were drawn up. The body was lying parallel with the fencing dividing the two yards.
Phillips: 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.
Mason video: James Mason was a tad taller than 5’ 11”, which is my height. My boot measures 1 foot. The steps are slightly bigger than Mason’s boot so I’m adopting 2’ 6” as the protrusion of the two steps into the yard from the house wall. I measured my back door as 3’ and am using that as a benchmark. That makes the gap from steps to fence about 1’ 4” and a panel of fencing about 8’.
My interpretation of the measurement of Chandler and Phillips is that the body was close to the fence and the head was in the gap between the stairs and the fence at about the level of the bottom step. Annie was about 5’ so, with her legs drawn up, say 4’6. Just slightly more than half a fence panel. So adding the 4' 6" to the 2' that her head was from the wall we arrive at 6' 6", about 1' 6" from the end of the first panel of fencing.
Observing the video as the door is opened we see the fence on the left and a curved object up against the fence. As Mason proceeds into the yard, at the 43 second mark, we see the curved object extends from a little less than halfway on the second panel to roughly the end of the second panel furthest from the house. So the edge of the curved object closest to the house would be about 6' from where Annie’s feet would have been.
Now watch the video. By pausing the video it can be freeze framed at any point, and at the 26 second mark with the door almost completely open there is no sign of the curved object. At the 27 second mark the door is past fully open and the near side of the curved object has just come into view, 6' from where Annie’s feet would have been.
To my mind this removes all doubt that Richardson could have seen Annie’s body, had it been there, standing or sitting.

Cheers, George

Thanks for that George. Commendably honest (although I hasten to add of course that I’ve never thought that you weren’t honest)

[Mark J D]

5.30 ToD is a problem for those that suspect lechmere, as we are told his only day off was for Stride/Eddowes, so what is he doing out hunting for victims an hour and half after he started work?

5.30 ToD is a problem for anyone who understands how seriously ill Annie was and felt: the idea that the poor girl was still on her feet, bravely soliciting, *three and a half hours* after John Evans saw her walk off and turn towards Spitalfields Market is *absurd*. And that's putting it nicely; i.e. we'll overlook the misogyny.

Seems to me that we have that and the potato in the stomach contents, and that none of the other junk is worth an adult's time. Richardson's mum was a nutter who he eventually disowned; the idea that he really did pop by every morning to stare pointlessly at a padlock is nonsensical; Cadosch folded like wet newspaper when under oath; Mrs Long paid not much attention to some people standing around at a time and place where people were always standing around... It's *garbage*...

Incidentally, Mr Stow is, as I understand it, relaxed about a 5.30 ToD: as far as I know, he has no problem with Lech being in Hanbury Street for, or on his way to, a delivery at that time; and, indeed, we know that there were carts jamming the street. The existence of a cat's meat dealership on the premises at No. 29 will also be noted.

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Strange how all Lechmere supporters favour a earlier TOD though isn’t it? And how can we know that she wouldn’t have been soliciting? She wasn’t out having fun - she was a woman living in poverty who was desperate for cash, she didn’t have the option of going home to put her feet up. Also, I can’t recall anyone seeing a Pickford’s cart parked nearby or any suggestion that the street was somehow rammed with carts. But I’ll tell you what is ‘absurd,’ the idea that Lechmere would have left a cart full of meat unattended on the streets of Whitechapel. It would have been emptied in 5 minutes. Not a chance would he have risked any of his load going missing. “Where were you when you left your cart unattended, Lechmere?”