John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m bored with constantly

[FISHY1118]

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.

Well you grow up too show a little kindness and restraint, if you dont agree just say so and leave it at that . this topic has been very interesting so far dont ruin it . ,Theres no need to use phases like ''to silly for words'' / ''should have been abandoned lond ago'' , it is insulting, you might not think so but all poster are doing is using by the same evidence we all share to form an opinion .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well you grow up too show a little kindness and restraint, if you dont agree just say so and leave it at that . this topic has been very interesting so far dont ruin it . ,Theres no need to use phases like ''to silly for words'' / ''should have been abandoned lond ago'' , it is insulting, you might not think so but all poster are doing is using by the same evidence we all share to form an opinion .

Whether we agree or disagree we should all stay within the bounds of reason and that just isn’t the case where Dr Phillips is concerned. Do you think that it’s reasonable for expert after expert after expert to be quoted so that is shown that every single expert on the subject tells us that a Victorian TOD estimation were not reliable only for posters to persist in claiming that they know better. This is why it feels like I’m banging my head against a brick wall. When faced with such overwhelming evidence the only reasonable response is to acknowledge it but that doesn’t happen. How can this be defensible in any supposedly reasoned argument?

[FISHY1118]

Whether we agree or disagree we should all stay within the bounds of reason and that just isn’t the case where Dr Phillips is concerned. Do you think that it’s reasonable for expert after expert after expert to be quoted so that is shown that every single expert on the subject tells us that a Victorian TOD estimation were not reliable only for posters to persist in claiming that they know better. This is why it feels like I’m banging my head against a brick wall. When faced with such overwhelming evidence the only reasonable response is to acknowledge it but that doesn’t happen. How can this be defensible in any supposedly reasoned argument?

Look, as ive said i dont have a problem in admitting that Phillips t.od. estimate could be be out, im not arguing that point. And sure if you think you should call someone out for thinking they know better than a qualified doctor go ahead . But clearly if youve been paying attention and read my post #450 youd see that the evidence put forward by both richardson and chandler is open to different interpretation [after all i think there within the bounds of reason for a healthy discussion] and shouldnt be ridiculed by people who disagree one way or the other . I dont think thats to much to ask , dont you ?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

There is a difference between a body being cold and the onset of rigor

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

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 .

There wasn't really very much Richardson/Chandler interaction. Chandler was managing a crime scene, he wasn't interviewing witnesses, and he seems to have spoken briefly to Richardson in the passage. He probably just collected enough information to establish that Richardson would be an important witness. If we read what Chandler said, we realise that his report and understanding of events is obviously incomplete. He said that Richardson told him that he called to check the cellar lock and then left for work. That is clear, but he also reported that Richardson said "he was sure that the woman wasn't there". Richardson said he was sure, and he could only be sure if he had done something more than just check the cellar lock. Chandler just didn't ask him how he could be sure, and therefore he wasn't told anything else.

[Wickerman]

This just came to mind.

Trevor complained about why Richardson took so long to do something about his boot.

Well, I don't see anywhere that Richardson says when his boot was repaired. But, he is reported as saying he had already trimmed his boot the previous day.

Coroner - When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?
Richardson -It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18880913.html

So that settles that issue, but I guess I'm not following what Richardson meant by him saying he had to get another knife from the market.

John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_chapman.html

Which means what?
Did he trim his boot a third time, at the market?

How can the knife he produced at court be the one he trimmed his boot with in the yard, if it is described as "not sharp enough"?
I don't think there's a mystery here, I just like to get all my duck in a row.
Did he manage to trim his boot in the yard, or just tried, with a knife that was not sharp enough, and failed. Making him then borrow another knife when he got to work, to do the job right?
Not that it matters.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

That's funny, that was my first question - "has he made a typo?"
Not so much a typo. It read OK to me when I typed it, but when I noticed your comment I re-read it and did a double take on the meaning.

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.
I used the video freeze framed and put a scale on the door, considered it 3' wide and then scaled a panel of fence and calculated very slightly under 8', so adopted 8'. The nearside of the curved object can be observed as halfway on the second panel so is therefore about 12' from the house by my reckoning. Annie was 5' but with legs drawn up I subtracted 6". Add 2'6" and her feet are about 7' from the house. So I make it 5' between Annie's feet and the near side of the curved object.

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').
Perhaps this is not a normal step - it doesn't look like it? But Mason's shoe would be about 12" and looking at the 39 sec mark, the step is wider than his shoe.

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.
I was thinking that Chapman's head would stay put and the steps broadened.

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.
In the first frame of Mason standing in the door way, there doesn't appear to be an 8" gap above his head? 8" is roughly the height of his head.

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 was meaning more to his right to be clockwise rather than a lateral shift, but either way it results in the door closing further. The critical measurement here would seem to be the distance from the underside of the door to the surface of the middle step. Looking at your photo I'm seeing three courses of bricks, so about 10"? If I measure my thigh while sitting on a hard surface it is about 7". So, if he sat with his thighs parallel to the ground rather than with his knees up above his waist, which I would select as the more comfortable position, there would be a 3" gap between the underside of the door and to top of his thigh, so it would close over his thighs.

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.
OK, I'll go with your comfortable position, but doesn't that put his hands and the boot forward of his knees where they will incur interference from the door. The solution to that is to rotate clockwise so the door is against the left arm/shoulder, and then we are back to looking away from the body.

Hi Jeff,

I have firmed on my view that if Richardson did what he told Chandler he would have missed the body. Chandler and the Jury suggested the same. Even if he opened the door halfway, the video shows there is absolutely nothing visible of the fence, or anything near it.
As for the visibility sitting down, I have an open mind and hope we can work through these processes and come to some conclusions.

Best regards
George

[Trevor Marriott]

This just came to mind.

Trevor complained about why Richardson took so long to do something about his boot.

Well, I don't see anywhere that Richardson says when his boot was repaired. But, he is reported as saying he had already trimmed his boot the previous day.

Coroner - When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?
Richardson -It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18880913.html

So that settles that issue, but I guess I'm not following what Richardson meant by him saying he had to get another knife from the market.

John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
https://www.casebook.org/official_do...t_chapman.html

Which means what?
Did he trim his boot a third time, at the market?

How can the knife he produced at court be the one he trimmed his boot with in the yard, if it is described as "not sharp enough"?
I don't think there's a mystery here, I just like to get all my duck in a row.
Did he manage to trim his boot in the yard, or just tried, with a knife that was not sharp enough, and failed. Making him then borrow another knife when he got to work, to do the job right?
Not that it matters.

But if he had trimmed his boot the day before and when he put it back on the following morning and it still hurt why did he not trim his boot at home why wait for him to walk from his home address to Hanbury Street. He would have still has access to a knife at home.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

This just came to mind.


Did he trim his boot a third time, at the market?
Yes. That's what he told the coroner
How can the knife he produced at court be the one he trimmed his boot with in the yard, if it is described as "not sharp enough"?
That's the 64K dollar question!
I don't think there's a mystery here, I just like to get all my duck in a row.
Did he manage to trim his boot in the yard, or just tried, with a knife that was not sharp enough, and failed. Making him then borrow another knife when he got to work, to do the job right?
Not that it matters.

Hi Jon,

He told the coroner twice that he had cut leather from his boot while sitting on the steps. But no-one noticed any shavings when the yard was searched.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is a difference between a body being cold and the onset of rigor

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t know why you pointed that out? Rigor mortis is unreliable. As is algor mortis which is what Phillips used. Inescapable conclusion…..Phillips TOD estimation was unreliable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Look, as ive said i dont have a problem in admitting that Phillips t.od. estimate could be be out, im not arguing that point. And sure if you think you should call someone out for thinking they know better than a qualified doctor go ahead . But clearly if youve been paying attention and read my post #450 youd see that the evidence put forward by both richardson and chandler is open to different interpretation [after all i think there within the bounds of reason for a healthy discussion] and shouldnt be ridiculed by people who disagree one way or the other . I dont think thats to much to ask , dont you ?

Im not ridiculing anyone. No, I don’t think that Richardson’s evidence is open to interpretation. It’s black and white. He said at the inquest (and in newspaper articles before the inquest) that he’d sat on the steps and couldn’t possibly have missed a body. We have no reason for doubting that. Anyone is free to claim that we have reason for doubt but I’m not going to agree with them just for the sake of it.

And no, I’m not going to simply ‘accept’ that it’s some kind of close run thing because it’s not. The evidence is massively in favour of a later TOD.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jon,

He told the coroner twice that he had cut leather from his boot while sitting on the steps. But no-one noticed any shavings when the yard was searched.

Best regards, George

cmon george this is now really getting ridiculous. and people wonder why herlock, wickerman and others get frustrated with this debate

[Abby Normal]

But if he had trimmed his boot the day before and when he put it back on the following morning and it still hurt why did he not trim his boot at home why wait for him to walk from his home address to Hanbury Street. He would have still has access to a knife at home.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

case in point. number two.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t know why you pointed that out? Rigor mortis is unreliable. As is algor mortis which is what Phillips used. Inescapable conclusion…..Phillips TOD estimation was unreliable.

I pointed it out because Phillips mentions it as an important factor in his estimated time of death "Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk