John Richardson

[Varqm]

There is no desire to discredit them but what i have been trying to do is highlight the flaws in their testimony which go to show they could have been mistaken. Mrs Long is a classic case she replied to this question "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that time of the day? - "Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them"

So straightaway her Id of Chapman is questionable as she says she didnt take much notice of them

Then she goes to the mortuary and it would seem identifies the body of Chapman as the female she saw with the man. How can she make a positive ID of a person who she says she didnt take much notice of. I say again her evidence is unsafe to totally rely on as being accurate

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Generally she does not take much notice of couples but on that day she did. " I saw the woman's face" and identified her in the mortuary and was sure she was the one in Hanbury St.. Clocks sometimes went off by several minutes if not rewinded so her time could have been off.

[Trevor Marriott]

Generally she does not take much notice of couples but on that day she did. " I saw the woman's face" and identified her in the mortuary and was sure she was the one in Hanbury St.. Clocks sometimes went off by several minutes if not rewinded so her time could have been off.

Oh, she just happened to on that day, and what was so different about that day to all the others to make her take notice of the womans face?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And I agree. That’s why I’d never totally rely on her. All that I’d say when looking at Long is that it’s not anywhere near impossible that she might have been correct. In actual fact of the 3 witnesses I view Long similarly to how I view Phillips. Could have been correct, could have been mistaken, so we struggle to tip her evidence beyond 50-50 either way (the difference being that it’s not impossible that she just made it up [I don’t really suspect her of it but it’s not impossible] but no one could suggest that Phillips lied.

But if you are going to rely on modern sciences to prove that Phillps was wrong, you also have to rely on other forms of modern methods with regard to identification to prove the witnesses wrong, and in this case specifically Mrs Long. In todays world of policing identification is a big issue so much so that there is pneumonic now used to test identfication that pneumonic is ADVOKATE and stands for

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable, clothing etc

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

Using those in relation to Mrs Long you can see why I say her testimony and identification of the body is unsafe so that being said eliminates another witness to a later time of death

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that she didn’t take much notice of them doesn’t mean that she couldn’t have seen her face for a three or four seconds as she approached and passed though. Yes we can’t be certain about her identification but the phrase “….I did not take much notice of them,” was in response to a specific question. She was saying that she didn’t pay them any more attention than she normally would have because there was nothing unusual about seeing a man and a woman talking in the street at that time. She certainly seemed confident that she saw her for long enough to be able to identify her. So I’d definitely say that we can’t assume her to have been correct but I certainly don’t think that we can assume her to have been mistaken either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if you are going to rely on modern sciences to prove that Phillps was wrong, you also have to rely on other forms of modern methods with regard to identification to prove the witnesses wrong, and in this case specifically Mrs Long. In todays world of policing identification is a big issue so much so that there is pneumonic now used to test identfication that pneumonic is ADVOKATE and stands for

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Can’t be sure. Possibly 4 or 5 seconds as she approached the pair then passed them.

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Width of a pavement at most, more likely less. So close.

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Ideal.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

None.

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

No.

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable, clothing etc

No.

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

We don’t know when she was first interviewed do we?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

Not when we allow a reasonable margin for error with witnesses as shown by the research provided by Jeff.

Using those in relation to Mrs Long you can see why I say her testimony and identification of the body is unsafe so that being said eliminates another witness to a later time of death

Not a chance Trevor. If the system dismisses a witness that easily then you really need a new system.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I see no insurmountable issues. Doubts? Definitely. Causes to eliminate? Not even close Trevor. Come on, you can’t be serious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And on the subject of Phillips caveat which has been claimed by some not to have meant that he was accepting the possibility of an earlier time of death, I post this that I just spotted when reading the inquest testimony of Elizabeth Long:

“The Foreman remarked that the time stated by the witness (Long) was not consistent with that stated by the doctor. The CORONER observed that Dr. Phillips had since qualified his statement.”

So that’s game over on the caveat score. Phillips very obviously, and very clearly, accepted the possibility (however less likely in his opinion) that a later TOD could have occurred - confirmed by the coroner.

[Trevor Marriott]

I see no insurmountable issues. Doubts? Definitely. Causes to eliminate? Not even close Trevor. Come on, you can’t be serious?

and you wonder why people confront you time and time again on here, you need to take the blinkers off as far as this murder is concerned because you clearly cant see what I and others see with regards to all of this witness testimony, when i look at what posters post on here what do i see your name constantly replying back in the same old same way. Its getting boring and repetitive to keep going over the same old same with you stamping your feet disregarding everything that is posted in favour of what you belive, there is nothing wrong with that but it is getting boring It would be a lot calmer if this thread was taken down as there is nothing more anyone can say or add to this topic that hasnt already been said a hundred times before.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I see no insurmountable issues. Doubts? Definitely. Causes to eliminate? Not even close Trevor. Come on, you can’t be serious?

You have made the replies up

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Indian Harry]

Greetings. I have been a long time lurker and infrequent poster. I've read through this very long message thread and feel compelled to say a few words on the topic. Twenty years ago when I first started reading up on Jack the Ripper I remember being really suspicious of John Richardson. His constantly evolving story is the primary reason for this. It is my belief that he kept adding new information to counter the suspensions raised by Baxter. In my life I've came across a few shameless and persistent liars and Richardson's 'performance' reminds me a lot of the interactions I've had with these people.

Anyway wouldn't it be something if Richardson was Jack the Ripper and it was only the benefit of the doubt given to the witnesses Cadoche and Long that kept him away from the gallows.

Reading through this thread has inspired a theory within me. I believe it's possible that Richardson only came out with the leather cutting story to account for the metal legging piece he left in the yard. And from there his story kept evolving and adapting.

I want to weigh in on a couple of other points raised in this thread.

First of all, it has been suggested that for all we know two of the sketches may have been copied from a single sketch. While I acknowledge that this is possible I don't believe this is the case. One of the more challenging things to account for when drawing something before you is to convey depth. That is why the awnings over the two doors are represented quite differently in the sketches. If you were copying from a picture though I think the angles used to draw those features would be a lot more similar. So if each sketch was drawn at 29 Hanbury then I am inclined to think that the palings may have been separated with sizable gaps. Admittedly more work needs to be done assessing the sketches to tip the scales one way or the other.

The other point is a minor one but intriguing none the less. Unless I am mistaken John Richardson had mentioned that the back door automatically closes. However the witnesses that discovered Chapman indicated that the back door was open. This seems peculiar. My apologies if I am mistaken here.

Anyway I am wondering if anyone has traced out any details on John Richardson's life after the autumn of 1888.

[GBinOz]

Oh, she just happened to on that day, and what was so different about that day to all the others to make her take notice of the womans face?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

She found out later that a murder had occurred nearby?

[GBinOz]

Greetings. I have been a long time lurker and infrequent poster. I've read through this very long message thread and feel compelled to say a few words on the topic. Twenty years ago when I first started reading up on Jack the Ripper I remember being really suspicious of John Richardson. His constantly evolving story is the primary reason for this. It is my belief that he kept adding new information to counter the suspensions raised by Baxter. In my life I've came across a few shameless and persistent liars and Richardson's 'performance' reminds me a lot of the interactions I've had with these people.

Anyway wouldn't it be something if Richardson was Jack the Ripper and it was only the benefit of the doubt given to the witnesses Cadoche and Long that kept him away from the gallows.

Reading through this thread has inspired a theory within me. I believe it's possible that Richardson only came out with the leather cutting story to account for the metal legging piece he left in the yard. And from there his story kept evolving and adapting.

I want to weigh in on a couple of other points raised in this thread.

First of all, it has been suggested that for all we know two of the sketches may have been copied from a single sketch. While I acknowledge that this is possible I don't believe this is the case. One of the more challenging things to account for when drawing something before you is to convey depth. That is why the awnings over the two doors are represented quite differently in the sketches. If you were copying from a picture though I think the angles used to draw those features would be a lot more similar. So if each sketch was drawn at 29 Hanbury then I am inclined to think that the palings may have been separated with sizable gaps. Admittedly more work needs to be done assessing the sketches to tip the scales one way or the other.

The other point is a minor one but intriguing none the less. Unless I am mistaken John Richardson had mentioned that the back door automatically closes. However the witnesses that discovered Chapman indicated that the back door was open. This seems peculiar. My apologies if I am mistaken here.

Anyway I am wondering if anyone has traced out any details on John Richardson's life after the autumn of 1888.

Hi Indian Harry,

Long time lurker and infrequent poster is not a bad position to adopt, but welcome to active posting.

I agree that Richardson should have incurred far more scrutiny, but he was investigated, and no proof means no charge can be laid, but no charge does not prove innocence. As you say, perceptions of people and their stories has a lot to do with life experiences. I see Richardson as making it up as he went along, but that is just my opinion, and others have theirs, and if we are not here to politely discuss these differences, why are we here?

Just to correct your reading of the door situations, Richardson said that the back door closed itself but he closed the front door when he left the building. Richardson and his mother said that people were coming and going all the time, but the suggestion is that it was Jack that left it open after Richardson left. That is a possibility, but another possibility is that James Hardiman may have left it open had he picked up supplies for his cat meat vendor job from his mother's shop, which given the fact that it was market day, is probably more likely.

Cheers, George

[Indian Harry]

Thanks George. Regarding the door. I guess when I initially read that Richardson said the door closed itself I envisioned a spring type mechanism which made it hard to believe that the door could be left open. However maybe the door didn’t have such a mechanism but instead had a tendency to close due to not being entirely level... something like my own bathroom door. Sometimes it stays open and sometimes it closes on its own.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I have taken on board your comments and reservations. You have couched your objections to my opinions in the most civil of language and have kindly stopped short of suggesting outright, to use the Australian vernacular, that I have a few roos loose in the top paddock. I'm sure other posters will take up that option.

It seems that I may be more cynical of human nature and its need for attention than are you. I see Cadosch testifying that there was so little that was out of the ordinary in his experience that morning that he didn't even bother to venture a brief glance over the fence, much to the frustration of the coroner and the jury. The coroner asked Long if it was unusual for couples to be on the street at that time of morning and the reply was, I expect to the coroner's amazement, no, there are lots of them, that's why I paid no attention to them. If witnesses are seeing or hearing nothing unusual or different to their every day experience, why do their quite ordinary observations suddenly become important on a single occasion because of the occurrence of a murder on that day?

Richardson is the crucial witness IMO. The spring would take on more relevance had the yard not been his regular workplace - he could have lost it anytime. The front door could have been left open by anyone - for instance, James Hardiman, cat meat street vendor and son of Amelia Hardiman could have left it open in the process of picking up his supplies for market day from his mother's shop at the front of the building. In Australia we have what is called the "Pub test", by which a group ordinary people assess the believability of the story given by someone else. To me, Richardson doesn't quite pass the Pub test.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Well, I don't think you've any roos loose in your top paddock, so I'm glad it didn't come across as suggesting that were the case. I just have a different approach to how I evaluate the different possibilities I guess. I've tried to outline that evaluation approach to explain why I end up suggesting that the hypothesis that 5:25 is the most supported hypothesis with regards to her ToD. As I say, I'm not suggesting, or implying, it's a proven thing, and your objections are not impossible, and therefore could be true. I just see things like "He happened to make up a story about fixing his boot and closing the door upon leaving, and it turned out that, at some other time, he just happened to lose a legging spring right in the vicinity where the murder occurred and someone else just happened to leave the door open around the time Cadoch also makes up his story about people in the backyard", to be a very "lucky for him" set of coincidences, all of which seem like low probability events to me (making their conjunction even lower in probability; I think making up a story that puts a knife in his hand very improbable, and the location of the legging spring in the entirety of the backyard being next to the location he makes up for the repair to then be extremely lucky as it appears to support his fabricated story, and he's also very lucky that Cadoch makes up a story about noises in the backyard after his visit, where he claims to have closed the door but then someone else happens to have left it open, luckily fitting in with both of their fabrications.) Yes, I know, such things could happen, but given it all becomes explained if the ToD was around 5:25 and their testimony is a fair retelling of their actual experiences, setting that aside in favour of "lucky set of coincidences" just becomes too hard for me to swallow. I know you don't view them as such low probability events, and that is probably where the difference in our evaluations lay.

If we were to find some new evidence, I'm more than happy to revisit the various explanations, but for me it would take something new to be found rather than simply new ideas about how to explain individual bits of what we have. As I say, I don't think we have sufficient information to prove the ToD was definitely 5:25, but given that time does not, in my view, conflict with any of the information we do have once we view all the evidence and their margins of error, I just don't see any compelling reason to go on to assert that X's statement is wrong (and that includes Dr. P as well as all the witnesses).

That being said, I am most sceptical of Long's sighting, and while it could fit with the other testimony, I fully agree that not too much should be put upon her, particularly when it comes to her description of the man she describes.

It's no big deal if we don't agree, and I think we understand why the other comes to a different conclusion, but with JtR, put 2 people in the same room to discuss and 3 opinions usually emerge. ha ha

- Jeff

[Varqm]

Oh, she just happened to on that day, and what was so different about that day to all the others to make her take notice of the womans face?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In short,people are different and do things differently,depending on her own personal reasons, she did what she did.

[Trevor Marriott]

In short,people are different and do things differently,depending on her own personal reasons, she did what she did.

If Mrs Long is to be believed how come we have no description of clothing worn by this woman she saw, that would have been conclusive proof the she saw Chapman

Another failure by the police !!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk