John Richardson

[Joshua Rogan]

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 ?

Coroner Baxter's summing up, Daily News 27 Sept;

"There is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was dispatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important. She was found dead about six o'clock. She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m. "

[Herlock Sholmes]

Coroner Baxter's summing up, Daily News 27 Sept;

"There is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was dispatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important. She was found dead about six o'clock. She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m. "

Thanks for that Joshua.
So the coroner favoured Richardson too and accepted the inaccuracy of TOD estimations? It’s strange that 134 years later and with the great advances in medical knowledge leading all experts to confirm this inaccuracy, we still find posters who appear to think that their medical knowledge exceeds that of authorities on the subject. Or that just because an estimate ‘might’ be correct that they then use this as some weird kind of logic. ‘He might have been right so the witnesses were wrong.’ Sorry to repeat myself, but the idea of using Phillips to discredit witnesses really does need to be dropped.

[Aethelwulf]

5.30 ToD is a problem for anyone who understands how seriously ill Annie was and felt - no one knows how ill she actually felt so it is a pointless argument. we can acknowledge she was ill but if she was desperate she may well have found a way to keep going.

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*...
slight over reaction i think. Phillips' ToD estimate is of little use given our better understanding today. i'm with wick and herlock on this, i don't see a great issue with the witnesses

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.
well bully bull drops for Mr Stow. the idea of lech being at work, parked up with a van full of goods and no doubt a long delivery list, looking for victims is pure BS IMO

M.

above

[Abby Normal]

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?”

hi herlock
well im not sure if im a lechmere supporter, maybe more of a lech apologist, but i dont favor the earier time of death. i think she was killed around 5:30, re the witnesses.

ive never stuck to the idea that lech killed on his way work every time. i think he may have killed on his day off. or some other situation when he wasnt working his usual schedule.

im actually amazed how many people think she was killed earlier, and richardson was lying or missed her, lech supporter or not.

[Wickerman]

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,.....

Holy smoke George, you've taken me by surprise with that post.

Funny thing, while we were talking about this a few days ago, I thought I would throw together a rudimentary sketch to try capture many of the important details given by witnesses.
I decided not to post it because I doubt the door would rest against Richardson's knee, as I made it look.
A side view might show how high the bottom edge of the door was from the ground level of the yard, and I couldn't fit that in so I just left it.

I suspect the door would rest against Richardson's left arm (just a bit higher than his left knee), so as he keeps moving his arm, assuming to be cutting the leather off his boot, the door would be bouncing away from his arm, and back. I know how that feels, and it would be annoying to anyone in that position.

I also think drawing her ankles close together was a mistake, a woman who was standing, then slumped down backwards would have had her feet flat on the ground as she was laid down on her back.



Anyway, outside doors are usually 36-38 inch wide.
Those stone steps are hard to estimate, but I think you'll agree that if someone sat on that middle step the bottom edge of the door would sweep over the top of their left knee, it may just catch the knee, but only just. More likely to rest against the left arm.
Davies said the gap between the steps and the fence was about 3ft.
Chandler said the head was nearly 2ft from the house wall, but about 6-9 inch away, or ahead.
Dr Phillips said the head was about 6 inch ahead of the bottom step.

So, anyway, it wasn't finished but when I read your post today it took me by surprise that you had gone down the same path...

Finally, thankyou for accepting that Richardson had to have seen the body, if it was there.

[Abby Normal]

above

agree totally wulf

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
well im not sure if im a lechmere supporter, maybe more of a lech apologist, but i dont favor the earier time of death. i think she was killed around 5:30, re the witnesses.

ive never stuck to the idea that lech killed on his way work every time. i think he may have killed on his day off. or some other situation when he wasnt working his usual schedule.

im actually amazed how many people think she was killed earlier, and richardson was lying or missed her, lech supporter or not.

Hi Abby,

I know that you always keep an open mind and accept doubts on all sides.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Holy smoke George, you've taken me by surprise with that post.

Funny thing, while we were talking about this a few days ago, I thought I would throw together a rudimentary sketch to try capture many of the important details given by witnesses.
I decided not to post it because I doubt the door would rest against Richardson's knee, as I made it look.
A side view might show how high the bottom edge of the door was from the ground level of the yard, and I couldn't fit that in so I just left it.

I suspect the door would rest against Richardson's left arm (just a bit higher than his left knee), so as he keeps moving his arm, assuming to be cutting the leather off his boot, the door would be bouncing away from his arm, and back. I know how that feels, and it would be annoying to anyone in that position.

I also think drawing her ankles close together was a mistake, a woman who was standing, then slumped down backwards would have had her feet flat on the ground as she was laid down on her back.



Anyway, outside doors are usually 36-38 inch wide.
Those stone steps are hard to estimate, but I think you'll agree that if someone sat on that middle step the bottom edge of the door would sweep over the top of their left knee, it may just catch the knee, but only just. More likely to rest against the left arm.
Davies said the gap between the steps and the fence was about 3ft.
Chandler said the head was nearly 2ft from the house wall, but about 6-9 inch away, or ahead.
Dr Phillips said the head was about 6 inch ahead of the bottom step.

So, anyway, it wasn't finished but when I read your post today it took me by surprise that you had gone down the same path...

Finally, thankyou for accepting that Richardson had to have seen the body, if it was there.

For someone who does portraits I’m utterly useless at diagrams. That’s a pretty impressive one though Wick.

[Abby Normal]

For someone who does portraits I’m utterly useless at diagrams. That’s a pretty impressive one though Wick.

im utterly useless at both, but impressed by both your respective skills. i stick to the easy stuff, like landscapes and abstract lol

[harry]

Still evading my question Herlock.What law presumes a witness will tell the truth.Wickerman introduced the subject .You have supported him.Wickerman was referring to a law.Stop evading with nonsense that has no bearing on the question.I know what he is referring to.He used the wrong word,law,to describe it,and he and you now realise this but haven't the courage to admit you are wrong.
I have heard of those people Herlock,so give an example from any one of the group you mention,that relates to a recent death of about 2 hours,so that we can compare.
Phillips was not just a doctor,he was a divisional surgeon.Yes ,in answer to your question,I do believe Phillips had the knowledge and experience to state what he did,and I do believe that at that time,the knowledge existed.Recent death is the subject.
From my own experience,I have discovered two bodies,I know that being at the scene has it's benefits.Without any medical knowledge,I formed the opinion that both had died the day before my discovery.I was proved correct.It doesn't require the extensive knowledge you project.
I am not just suggesting Phillips had some kind of special ability,I will state he did.He was a surgeon.So why not take your own advice,and you let it go.

[GBinOz]

Holy smoke George, you've taken me by surprise with that post.

Funny thing, while we were talking about this a few days ago, I thought I would throw together a rudimentary sketch to try capture many of the important details given by witnesses.
I decided not to post it because I doubt the door would rest against Richardson's knee, as I made it look.
A side view might show how high the bottom edge of the door was from the ground level of the yard, and I couldn't fit that in so I just left it.

I suspect the door would rest against Richardson's left arm (just a bit higher than his left knee), so as he keeps moving his arm, assuming to be cutting the leather off his boot, the door would be bouncing away from his arm, and back. I know how that feels, and it would be annoying to anyone in that position.

I also think drawing her ankles close together was a mistake, a woman who was standing, then slumped down backwards would have had her feet flat on the ground as she was laid down on her back.



Anyway, outside doors are usually 36-38 inch wide.
Those stone steps are hard to estimate, but I think you'll agree that if someone sat on that middle step the bottom edge of the door would sweep over the top of their left knee, it may just catch the knee, but only just. More likely to rest against the left arm.
Davies said the gap between the steps and the fence was about 3ft.
Chandler said the head was nearly 2ft from the house wall, but about 6-9 inch away, or ahead.
Dr Phillips said the head was about 6 inch ahead of the bottom step.

So, anyway, it wasn't finished but when I read your post today it took me by surprise that you had gone down the same path...

Finally, thankyou for accepting that Richardson had to have seen the body, if it was there.

Hi Jon,

My final sentence was poorly expressed, sorry to disappoint but I actually meant the opposite. From a standing position with the door almost fully open, the curved object cannot be seen, so how could Annie's feet have been seen 6' closer?

Never the less, early days yet for a far more productive line of investigation on the view from a sitting position, which you have already started.

Firstly I should compliment you on your diagram, and then offer this suggestion. You have drawn the steps each measuring only 9" wide. Assuming Mason's shoes were similar in size to mine, his shoe would be overhanging the step, and it isn't. Usually for my size boot (12") there is a little over 1" space back and front of the boot, and it appears the same for Mason. I think your steps need to be 2' 6" rather than 1' 6". Using Chandler's description, that would place Annie's head roughly at the centre of the bottom step, and 6-9 inches towards the fence. Phillip's description then only work if it is considered that he was talking about the join where the bottom step butts into the middle step.

From the video it can be seen that Mason only just clears the top door jamb, so the door would be about 6' tall. When I am seated and leaning slightly forward, as if working on a boot, my eyes are about 2' above the seat surface, about 1/3 of my height. So in Jon's photo from Post #2, were I to sit on the middle step, my eyes would be roughly where the top point of the circle is drawn. We don't know Richardson's height, just that he was tall, so I am assuming my height.

If Richardson sat with his calves vertical, as you have drawn, his knees would be above his waist. I think he would have had his legs stretched out more onto the flagging. I agree that the door would have swept over his legs and come in contact with with his hands holding the boot. I therefore think it is reasonable to expect that he would have oriented himself towards his right so that the door was resting on his left shoulder to leave his hands unencumbered for his cobblery.
Going back to Jon's photo, the door is more than fully open. Were it half open it seems doubtful that anyone sitting on the middle step, turned to their right, could see anything lying near the fence. Watch the Mason video bearing in mind when the curved object, which would be 6' further away than Annie's feet, comes into view.

I shall try to improve the phrasing of my conclusion this time. I think the Mason video proves that if Richardson did what he told Chandler, he couldn't have seen the body.
I think if he sat down of the step, there is still some doubt as to whether he could see the body.

Now let's move on the the actual claims around the cobblery. He told the coroner he was on the premises two minutes at most. So he comes through the front door, swings the back door open, looking to his right and checks the lock. He then sits on the middle step with the door resting on his left shoulder and removes the legging from the foot wearing the offending boot. He unlaces the boot and takes it off. The boot is hurting his toe so the errant leather must be inside the boot at the toe end. Looking inside his boot in the dark he manages to locate the culprit piece of leather and, he says, cuts it off. He puts the piece of leather in his pocket, puts his boot back on, laces up his boot, puts the legging back on and discovers he has lost the spring clip, so maybe he takes it off to carry it. He gets up and turns clockwise, up the steps and away. All in no more than two minutes. Remarkable.

Hope we can continue this line of investigation. Enough has been said on who may have lied and who may be unreliable.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

There is quite a good CGI recreation, from the 6 minute mark, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps2BejJ4adg&ab_channel=Coop4Me

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I have been sitting enjoying a bowl of GL Pease's fine tobacco, Samarra, and quietly contemplating the logic and consistency of the C5 outdoor murders.

The main objection to Lechmere's candidacy for JtR is, when he heard Paul approaching, why didn't he just skedaddle? I noticed this comment by Baxter in the Chapman case:
The Coroner: There is a difference in this respect, at all events, that the medical expert is of opinion that, in the case of Nicholls, the mutilations were made first.
So, could Lechmere, on hearing Paul approach, covered Nicholls mutilations and started to skedaddle when he noticed that Polly was still alive and stirring? Could he risk running away to her cries of "Murder"? Was it then that he decided to take his knife back out and cut her throat, and by that time Paul was too close, so he stayed? Or if it was Lechmere that interrupted, then Jack decided to skedaddle with a witness still some distance away, as he wasn't seen or heard.

The popular theory with Stride is that Jack was interrupted by a potential witness and skedaddled. When Harvey peered into Mitre Square, had Jack seen or heard him coming and skedaddled?

Cadosch originally said he heard voices, of which he could distinguish only the word "No", a scuffle and a fall against the fence. If this was Jack commencing his attack, when he detected a potential witness only feet from him, and not knowing if that potential witness would further investigate, would consistency not dictate that he would have skedaddled? Even more so if there were two trips to the toilet, Cadosch's amended version, then Jack would perceive it as the witness returning, perhaps out of curiosity as suggested by the coroner.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Cannot find the link.Must be on another PC.
Sutton was not named by the reporter,however as Vestry Board Medical Officer,having taken the position when Mary Ann Kelly was quite young,it was almost certainly him.

Still seeking a suitable screenwriter.Health is poor.Bed bound for 3.5 years.

Fair bit of my "theory" is on this forum.

PS.Anyone woken up to Mary Kelly's face mutilations and why her body was sent to St.Leonards?

Hi Dave,

Sorry to hear of your ill health. Perhaps you could use it as an opportunity to author a book?

I'll bite on Mary's face mutilations and why her body was sent to St.Leonards.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

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

Well i dont think its as simple as all that Herlock.

You seem to like to put less importants on Chandlers words at the inquest . Sure ,when asked whether Richardson mentioned the boot incident he simply replied. ''No'' . Wick takes this to mean that it [the ''No'' ] should not be considered evidence just because he failed to mention it to Chandler . However he and others fail to mention this part of Chandlers testimony.

Joseph Chandler, ''He ''told me'' he did not go down the steps''.

And this part


Coroner , Did you see John Richardson .?

Chandler, ''I saw him about quarter to seven, ''he told me'' he had been to the house that morning about quarter to five .He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar to see if it was alright ,and then went away to his work''. By Chandler own testimony his leaving no doubt what he thinks Richardson did that morning ,which regardless how ever way you look at it, lets one accept what Chandler said ''under oath'' equally as what Richardson did!. That is just a fact.


As ive stated before and continue to do so , because of this testimony alone ,we cant judge Richardsons testimony that he sat on the step to cut his boot leather as being a better option, or more likely option , or even correct one , More than what Chandler has suggested. Its just not right to do so in my opinion.


Right here [see a bove] we have a Richardson contradiction that is plain to see, and how complicated it becomes when trying to support one theory over another .For him to sit on the step he must first go down them or at least them or one

NOW i know you like to used the confusion card that on the morning of the murder when Richardson and Chandler spoke. That somehow this wasnt an important part of Richardsons story, and that he waited till the inquest to tell about the step and boot . But seriously, ? He did have a chance to tell it to the reporter later on that day did he not ?. But he basically said the same thing to the reporter as he did to Chander hours befor. So im going to have to disagree with the ''confusion'' excuse there im afaide.

Now if we want to suggest the Lie theory all ill say on that is, I have know idea why people lie except to say Georges reply to Abbys post make it possible to get away with such a lie if thats was the intention . In my opinion .