John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

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. "

To be fair ,The Coroner would not know for certain wether Richardson was in fact in the yard! He only has his claim that he was. I dont think the Coroner would know if he was telling the truth, just he would if Dr Phillips t.o.d estimate was right or wrong.

Now in the defense of the coroner he was under the assumption that Richardsons testimony is true ,

But if we use my previous post #450 ,might the Coroner asked or indeed noticed that there could be another possibility ?

[harry]

Seems the Coroner was confused.Didn't Davies claim to have found the body about 5.45?
I believe that sometime between the interview with Chandler and appearing at the inquest,Richardson rechecked his evidence,found that by standing on the step he could have missed the body,so altered his evidence to sitting on the step,a more likely place from which the bodymight be seen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Wickerman said this Harry:

“The law assumes the witness is telling the truth because they are sworn to tell the truth.”

That is a direct quote btw and not just my approximation of what he said or the misinterpreted gist that you appear to using. As you can see, he was clearly talking about ‘The law’ in general. Witnesses are sworn to tell the truth and can face prosecution for perjury for lying. It can’t be made clearer to you than this, a direct quote and an uncomplicated explanation. Nothing can absolutely prevent a witness from lying in court of course and I fail to see how you could believe for a single second that any adult could believe that, let alone someone like Wick who has been researching the case for many years. Really Harry, I just can’t believe that you’ve just misunderstood this, it appears to be just another case of you ‘digging your heels in’ rather than simply admitting that you are mistaken on this issue. And you clearly are.

Im glad that you posted your second paragraph Harry because we now have your belief in black and white. Every single expert on TOD estimations is wrong and Professor Harry is correct. You’ve even done your own TOD assessment (or should I say….guess) We know that the methods used were unreliable and I’m not willing to waste my time trawling through that old thread to post quotes yet again just because you believe that you have some kind of expertise that the experts don’t possess. No one is saying that Phillips could have been correct but we know that he could have got it wrong. This is just a fact. I remember in posts on other threads you made a claim then refused to flesh it out (something about the West Indies I seem to recall, though I may be wrong in that, you to,d us that the evidence was out there and that we should look for it. So I’ll say the same to you Harry…… if you can provide evidence that Victorian TOD estimates were uniformly accurate then you are free to produce it for us.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Seems the Coroner was confused.Didn't Davies claim to have found the body about 5.45?
I believe that sometime between the interview with Chandler and appearing at the inquest,Richardson rechecked his evidence,found that by standing on the step he could have missed the body,so altered his evidence to sitting on the step,a more likely place from which the bodymight be seen.

If that was the case, and it wasn’t, then why didn’t he say that he’d pushed the door back to the fence and so couldn’t have missed it? Why didn’t he say that he’d used the outside loo and so couldn’t have missed it? Why didn’t he say that he’d stepped into the yard to check the lock and the door swung shut and he couldn’t have missed it? Why do you conveniently assume that Richardson was an idiot who decided to place himself alone at the scene with a knife? Why didn’t he say, I sat on the steps for a smoke?

It’s a well used tactic on here. If you don’t like a witnesses testimony accuse him of lying or being a complete dimwit!

[Doctored Whatsit]

As always, so many vague facts, possibilities, and grounds for disagreement!

As I see it, the time of death is at best a reasonable estimate, well intentioned, and based on experience and the existing medical beliefs of 1888. The best modern experts have made it very clear that it cannot be relied upon absolutely. It is an indication, a guide, but not a fact. Actual cases have shown a wide variation, and temperature, the gaping wound and the poor health of the deceased could affect the estimated time, for example. The experienced coroner, who had probably come across this issue on previous occasions, seems to have been quite content to raise doubts about the accuracy of the estimated time.

On the question of whether Richardson would have been able to see the body when he sat on the steps, the bottom of the door would have been at about the level of his hips, and he would have been looking down at his feet to remove his boot. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have been able to see the body quite easily because he would have a clear view under and beyond the door.

I see nothing surprising in the suggestion that Richardson didn't mention the boot incident on first meeting Chandler. The Inspector was busy and in charge of the crime scene, he called the doctor, made notes about the position of the body, checked her clothing and possessions etc. He says that he spoke to Richardson "a little before 7", and that he then went to the mortuary arriving "a few minutes after 7 o'clock". He seems not to have interviewed or interrogated Richardson, but seems only to have established that the latter was a useful witness.

Swanson wrote of Richardson that "suspicion could not rest upon him,although the police specially directed their attention to him". It seems to me that the first thing I would have checked if I were a policeman, would have been his story that he finished off the leather cutting at the market. If they "specially directed their attention to him", they must surely have done this with his work colleagues. OK, that's an assumption, but a very obvious thing to do.

[FISHY1118]

''I see nothing surprising in the suggestion that Richardson didn't mention the boot incident on first meeting Chandler. The Inspector was busy and in charge of the crime scene, he called the doctor, made notes about the position of the body, checked her clothing and possessions etc. He says that he spoke to Richardson "a little before 7", and that he then went to the mortuary arriving "a few minutes after 7 o'clock". He seems not to have interviewed or interrogated Richardson, but seems only to have established that the latter was a useful witness''





Hi Doc , Just if i may your thoughts ? . Its not what Richardson didnt say as much as what Chandler said he did say . For me i should think id find that suprising.


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



soorry i got the quote tab mixed up

[Doctored Whatsit]

''I see nothing surprising in the suggestion that Richardson didn't mention the boot incident on first meeting Chandler. The Inspector was busy and in charge of the crime scene, he called the doctor, made notes about the position of the body, checked her clothing and possessions etc. He says that he spoke to Richardson "a little before 7", and that he then went to the mortuary arriving "a few minutes after 7 o'clock". He seems not to have interviewed or interrogated Richardson, but seems only to have established that the latter was a useful witness''





Hi Doc , Just if i may your thoughts ? . Its not what Richardson didnt say as much as what Chandler said he did say . For me i should think id find that suprising.


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



soorry i got the quote tab mixed up

I don't see any problem here. Sitting on the steps is not the same as going down them, which might appear to mean actually going into the yard. Chandler's quote seems to be in keeping with a passing comment or two rather than an interview. Richardson said why he was there, but not necessarily everything that he did whilst he was there. He did say that the body was not there at the time.

I had meant to say previously, when writing about what Richardson could see whilst sitting on the step, is the simple question, is there anything said to suggest that the door wasn't closed while he sat down? Obviously it would have been uncomfortable sitting with the door against his left arm, and I see no reason why he shouldn't have left it closed. He must then have seen the body.

[FISHY1118]

I don't see any problem here. Sitting on the steps is not the same as going down them, which might appear to mean actually going into the yard. Chandler's quote seems to be in keeping with a passing comment or two rather than an interview. Richardson said why he was there, but not necessarily everything that he did whilst he was there. He did say that the body was not there at the time.

I had meant to say previously, when writing about what Richardson could see whilst sitting on the step, is the simple question, is there anything said to suggest that the door wasn't closed while he sat down? Obviously it would have been uncomfortable sitting with the door against his left arm, and I see no reason why he shouldn't have left it closed. He must then have seen the body.

Fair enough , But i still see something very wrong where the whole Richardson /Chandler interaction is concerned. Especially when trying to convince /prove to others who said what and who of the two was right .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well put Doc.

“He told me he did not go down the steps” is not an issue. Richardson was simply saying that he didn’t go into the yard. All through this case we can see ‘issues’ regarding wording where too much is made of such things. We would have to eliminate every witness if we relied on the variations of wording in different reports and statements. All that exists to be used as a case for suggesting that Richardson wasn’t being truthful is that Chandler said that he didn’t mention the boot repair. In itself this should not an issue of course but it gets magnified. And of course Chandler couldn’t have been mistaken could he?

Richardson said, under oath, at the inquest that he sat on the step and that’s exactly what he did. If he lied it was a pointless lie that he had no reason to make. If he lied it was a pointless lie that placed himself alone at the scene of a murder with a knife in his hand. How could anyone believe this to have been the case. It can’t be taken seriously.

I have to confess to being slightly baffled as to why so much heavy lifting is being done simply to try and bolster a provably unreliable TOD estimate. And to suggest that Richardson could have missed a severely mutilated corpse with intestines strew over the right shoulder a few inches from his left foot and below a door with at least a 3 foot gap under it leaves bizarre in the starting blocks.

This nonsense should have been abandoned long ago. Richardson didn’t lie and he couldn’t possibly have missed seeing the body because it wasn’t there. It’s about time we put to bed this Dr. Phillips Fan Club. Too silly for words.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I will give you quote Harry, just to show that I’m not making things up as you appear to be suggesting. As we can see, Dr. Phillips was basing his TOD estimate on the temperature of the body (and not rigor, on which I can also provide quotes attesting to the reliability of) which he took, not by thermometer as he should have done, but by touch with those magic fingers. So the suggestion is, which you and others must concur with if you wish to say that Phillips was more likely to have been correct, is that a body could not have become cold in an hour or even 70 or 80 minutes. I’m assuming that this is clear?

So I give you Ingemar Thiblin, modern day Professor of Forensic Medicine (quoted in the past by Fisherman) Highly respected etc..

”I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September.”

Can it get much clearer. A modern day expert saying that Phillips could have been wrong.

Cue the wriggling.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

My final sentence was poorly expressed, sorry to disappoint but I actually meant the opposite.

Hi George.

That's funny, that was my first question - "has he made a typo?", it happened to me a while back talking to Herlock, I wrote something about him being the only person I wouldn't trust.....etc." What a goof, I've reached the point I need to proof read everything I post. Of course, I meant "would trust", but it was embarrassing to say the least.

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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ko...annel=Aut0five
I know what you mean, in the clip we see the fence, clearly not the original, but I suspect the fence posts are 6 foot apart (but possibly 6-8ft?), the first one we see (which must be the 2nd post, the first being attached to the house) being six foot from the house. Given the scale of James Mason's figure I think 6 ft between posts is reasonable.
Mason comes down the steps, then at 43/4 seconds Mason is directly between the the two (2nd - 3rd) posts. I would guess that point is about nine feet from the house. The estimates in my sketch would place Chapman's feet about 7 - 8 foot from the house. She was 5 ft tall, and her head roughly 2ft 6 to 2ft 9 from the house wall (Chandler).
So with respect to that curved object, I would place her feet at the nearside edge of the curve, what you briefly get a glimpse of as the door swings open.

Firstly I should compliment you on your diagram, and then offer this suggestion. You have drawn the steps each measuring only 9" wide.

Yes, only because I renovated a number of old houses in my time and steps are usually (not always), 9-10 inch on the flat (thats called the 'run').

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.

Actually, it would place Chapman's head further forward (re: Chandler's description), but you may be right, measurements are hard to estimate from the photo's.

From the video it can be seen that Mason only just clears the top door jamb, so the door would be about 6' tall.

Doors have always been about 80 inch tall, some being more. Its a typical row-house so building standards would have been employed. While the door itself could have been made from reclaimed wood, the door frame still remains standard.

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 cobbler

And, if he sat more to his right, his angle of view changes beyond the door to see more of the area where the body would have been.
However, as you can see in the photo (post 2), that middle step appears to be a cement block sitting on top of house bricks, whereas the bottom step is barely a step at all, it is very thin.
Which leaves us with problems when trying to estimate the height of the steps.

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.

OK, but if Richardson did sit on that middle step to trim his boot, I'm sure both his elbows would be resting on his knees, he would be hunched forward, increasing his angle of view. Thats just a natural sitting position, to lean forward when your working with your hands.
So, his head would likely be a good foot further forward than in my sketch.
I'll respond to the rest in another post.

[FISHY1118]

Well put Doc.

“He told me he did not go down the steps” is not an issue. Richardson was simply saying that he didn’t go into the yard. All through this case we can see ‘issues’ regarding wording where too much is made of such things. We would have to eliminate every witness if we relied on the variations of wording in different reports and statements. All that exists to be used as a case for suggesting that Richardson wasn’t being truthful is that Chandler said that he didn’t mention the boot repair. In itself this should not an issue of course but it gets magnified. And of course Chandler couldn’t have been mistaken could he?

Richardson said, under oath, at the inquest that he sat on the step and that’s exactly what he did. If he lied it was a pointless lie that he had no reason to make. If he lied it was a pointless lie that placed himself alone at the scene of a murder with a knife in his hand. How could anyone believe this to have been the case. It can’t be taken seriously.

I have to confess to being slightly baffled as to why so much heavy lifting is being done simply to try and bolster a provably unreliable TOD estimate. And to suggest that Richardson could have missed a severely mutilated corpse with intestines strew over the right shoulder a few inches from his left foot and below a door with at least a 3 foot gap under it leaves bizarre in the starting blocks.

This nonsense should have been abandoned long ago. Richardson didn’t lie and he couldn’t possibly have missed seeing the body because it wasn’t there. It’s about time we put to bed this Dr. Phillips Fan Club. Too silly for words.

What you call nonsense some of us actually call ''evidence''. What is painfully obvious for all to see, is that your sir just tend to ignore it and hope that its goes away . I tried to play be nice but really im just sick to death of you pompous attiude towards other posters intelligent and their right to an objective opinion and your snidey little insults are tiresome, so please for christ sake give it a rest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s add another point on the ‘could Richardson have missed the body from sitting on the steps’ argument.

When sitting on that step the knees are always going to have been the highest point - higher than the thighs I mean of course. I assume that everyone would accept this?

The gap between the flags and the bottom of the door was at least 3 feet.

Im 6’2” tall, I’m guessing considerably taller than Richardson. My knees are 22 inches from the floor/flags.

And so if I had been sitting on those steps (and remember, I’m taller than Richardson was) there would have been a gap of more than 14 inches between my knees and the bottom of the door!

So could Richardson have missed seeing a mutilated corpse with its intestines thrown over the right shoulder a very few inches from his left feet (as per the evidence) and with a gap of over 14 inches between his knees and the bottom of the door?

Not a chance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What you call nonsense some of us actually call ''evidence''. What is painfully obvious for all to see, is that your sir just tend to ignore it and hope that its goes away . I tried to play be nice but really im just sick to death of you pompous attiude towards other posters intelligent and their right to an objective opinion and your snidey little insults are tiresome, so please for christ sake give it a rest.

Here we go again…..I was wondering how long it would be before you started whining about imaginary insults. There’s not a single insult in that post Fishy. Grow up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So is there evidence that Phillips TOD estimate was unreliable. Absolute mountains of it that has been posted and denied by certain posters who think that they know better than the experts. So Phillips should be ignored.

Is there evidence that Richardson lied. No. The suggestion makes no sense and requires Richardson to have been an idiot that made up a lie that drops himself in it. All that we have is the possibility (and no more that a possibility) that he might not have initially bothered mentioning the boot. Is that enough to call him a liar? Nowhere near.

Did Richardson have poor eyesight and was he an idiot? We have no evidence for either. And he said that there was absolutely no way that he could have missed a body had it been there.

Nothing puts a dent in Richardson. That some should dismiss him in favour of Phillips guesswork is bizarre. Not to mention Cadosch of course. Reason favours witnesses over the Doctor, as annoying as that might be for some.