John Richardson

[GBinOz]

It's not about newspaper reports.It was about the inquest,where witnesses were under oath with the threat of fines.

Hi Varqm,

Richardson at the inquest, under oath, may very well have believed that he could not have missed the body. The police stated, for a fact, that his view was obscured by the door. That does not extend to it being a fact that the body was there, even though the police were of that opinion. The report also shows that Phillips was confident about his minimum, even taking the qualification into account.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Was there a reconstruction to support this compromise ? Or was it just accepted ?

Hi Dickere,

Why would the police not do a re-enactment? It was very easy at the time and conclusive, no ifs or buts. Can you think of a reason why they just wouldn't bother, and just leave it as theoretical conjecture?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George , Thanks for replying on by behalf , i just might add a thing or two which ive covered already pretty extensively in previous post .

That Richardsons himself said checked the cellar lock from the doorstep then turn and went on to work , ive merely suggested the possiblity that when he did this he may have had the door open just enough to see the lock, thus not seeing the body . This is all he told inspector Chandler he did on the morning of the murder . [1st sentence only just for someones clarification]

I just find it strange that if two hours earlier he sat on the middle step to cut the leather off his boot he failed to disclose this information to Chandler, that has me baffled.

One would surely be more forthcoming with that sort of information seeings how if he sat next to a mutilated corps might/should his words be something more like . '' For f### sake Chandler i sat on that very spot two hours ago she was no way right next to me then ''.

Yes he does say this afterwards but on the morning that the murder took place ,just two hours previously.....''nothing''. This is a problem with Richardson as i see it .

Together with previous witness testmony and Drs expert medical opinion which cant be ruled out all together. ''Alllllllllllllllll'' the evidence as a whole, for me leads to an earlier t.o.d as an equally sound possibility . My opinion only , others can please themself ,


All this has been cover in this thread many many times over ,its not my intention to debate it should any posters feel the need to , i suggest they read the thread from the start which is what my reply will be . [my caveat ] . , Good luck

Hi Fishy,

There was scepticism at the time by the Coroner and the jury about both versions of Richardson's story. The police determined, as a fact, that the version that was most likely to have allowed Richardson to have seen the body was in fact limited by the door obscuring his view when he sat on the step. No one alive today can physically reconstruct Richardson's statements, but the police of the time had that opportunity and it is inconceivable that they would not have availed themselves of that opportunity when they suspected Richardson. It is not proof that the body was or wasn't there, only that his view was obstructed. The opinions of the police and Phillips that the body was there are just that, only opinions.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

There was scepticism at the time by the Coroner and the jury about both versions of Richardson's story. The police determined, as a fact, that the version that was most likely to have allowed Richardson to have seen the body was in fact limited by the door obscuring his view when he sat on the step. No one alive today can physically reconstruct Richardson's statements, but the police of the time had that opportunity and it is inconceivable that they would not have availed themselves of that opportunity when they suspected Richardson. It is not proof that the body was or wasn't there, only that his view was obstructed. The opinions of the police and Phillips that the body was there are just that, only opinions.

Cheers, George

Hi George , yes ive gone on record as saying ''if'' Richardson did indeed sit on the middle step at 4.45 am as he claimed , then yes he couldnt possibly not seen at least some part of chapmans body if she was there.

My example is offered up as a posssible likely scenario based on what Richardson told Chandler on the morning of the murder, which doesnt include the cutting of the boot incident .

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi etenguy,

What we know of the yard layout, and where John claimed to be sitting, and the door is speculative. The facts lie in this extract from the Echo 19 Sep:

Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

The police subjected Richardson to an intensive investigation. You'll notice the police determined that he missed noticing the body and explained the reason as a fact. No "possibly", or "might have", or "could have". The only way this could have been determined was with a re-enactment where Richardson would have been required to show how he sat on the step, which way he was facing and where was the door in relation to his body. Using this method the police were able to determine that the door would have obstructed his view, as a fact. They also agreed with Phillips that the body was there, but that part can not be accepted as a fact, only that the police supported Phillip's medical opinion over that of Richardson. It also indicates that Phillips had confidence in his 2 hour minimum, and probably more, PMI (despite the result of polls to the contrary).

The rebuttal is usually the unreliability of newspaper "tattle". Since most records have been lost and we rely primarily on newspaper reports for both interviews and inquest reports, if reports that don't suit a particular argument are to be dismissed there will be very little left to examine.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

No, a newspaper article is not something that deserves the phrase "the facts lie in this extract". It is pure speculation by a journalist. If we want to know what the police believed on the 19th of September, we can refer to what Swanson wrote that very day in his official report. His report is not lost. There is not one word in it that mentions that the police had agreed with Phillips' ToD and rejected Richardson's version of the body not being there at the time. He says things like, "if the evidence of Dr Philliops is correct", when talking about Richardson, and goes on to say, "if the evidence of Mrs Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5. 30 am, then the evidence of Dr Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect." These are the real words expressing police opinion and they demonstrate an open mind on the subject of ToD.

So the rebuttal is definitely that the newspaper printed unreliable "tattle" because the official police report demonstrates this clearly.

[Dickere]

Hi Dickere,

Why would the police not do a re-enactment? It was very easy at the time and conclusive, no ifs or buts. Can you think of a reason why they just wouldn't bother, and just leave it as theoretical conjecture?

Cheers, George

I don't know why they wouldn't have, George, no. But we don't know that they did, or do we ?

If they did, and it proved Richardson to be wrong, it proved him to be a liar and an idiot.

If they did, and it proved him right, it makes the doctor look an idiot.

If they didn't, my guess is they just trusted the doctor to be right. But it also implies Richardson to be a liar and an idiot. Yet he doesn't seem to have been followed-up on.

All very strange, you can go around in circles with it forever.

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm,

Richardson at the inquest, under oath, may very well have believed that he could not have missed the body. The police stated, for a fact, that his view was obscured by the door. That does not extend to it being a fact that the body was there, even though the police were of that opinion. The report also shows that Phillips was confident about his minimum, even taking the qualification into account.

Cheers, George

Richardson has been to that house many times,under oath he said the body was not there.The threat of fine .in my opinion,would have force him to recollect harder.Again for the 100th time the doctor's or any doctor's estimated TOD is a range,anything in that range is possible and won't help us,irrespective of the police's belief.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

No, a newspaper article is not something that deserves the phrase "the facts lie in this extract". It is pure speculation by a journalist. If we want to know what the police believed on the 19th of September, we can refer to what Swanson wrote that very day in his official report. His report is not lost. There is not one word in it that mentions that the police had agreed with Phillips' ToD and rejected Richardson's version of the body not being there at the time. He says things like, "if the evidence of Dr Philliops is correct", when talking about Richardson, and goes on to say, "if the evidence of Mrs Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5. 30 am, then the evidence of Dr Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect." These are the real words expressing police opinion and they demonstrate an open mind on the subject of ToD.

So the rebuttal is definitely that the newspaper printed unreliable "tattle" because the official police report demonstrates this clearly.

Hi Doc,

The journalist is not engaging in speculation, he is reporting an event. Your emphasis in the Swanson statement is different to mine. I am not talking about ToD. I am talking about Richardson's view being obstructed by the door.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I don't know why they wouldn't have, George, no. But we don't know that they did, or do we ?

If they did, and it proved Richardson to be wrong, it proved him to be a liar and an idiot.

If they did, and it proved him right, it makes the doctor look an idiot.

If they didn't, my guess is they just trusted the doctor to be right. But it also implies Richardson to be a liar and an idiot. Yet he doesn't seem to have been followed-up on.

All very strange, you can go around in circles with it forever.

No, it proved him to be mistaken.

[GBinOz]

Richardson has been to that house many times,under oath he said the body was not there.The threat of fine .in my opinion,would have force him to recollect harder.Again for the 100th time the doctor's or any doctor's estimated TOD is a range,anything in that range is possible and won't help us,irrespective of the police's belief.

Not talking about ToD. Statement refers to Richardson's obstructed view.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi etenguy,

What we know of the yard layout, and where John claimed to be sitting, and the door is speculative. The facts lie in this extract from the Echo 19 Sep:

Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

The police subjected Richardson to an intensive investigation. You'll notice the police determined that he missed noticing the body and explained the reason as a fact. No "possibly", or "might have", or "could have". The only way this could have been determined was with a re-enactment where Richardson would have been required to show how he sat on the step, which way he was facing and where was the door in relation to his body. Using this method the police were able to determine that the door would have obstructed his view, as a fact. They also agreed with Phillips that the body was there, but that part can not be accepted as a fact, only that the police supported Phillip's medical opinion over that of Richardson. It also indicates that Phillips had confidence in his 2 hour minimum, and probably more, PMI (despite the result of polls to the contrary).

The rebuttal is usually the unreliability of newspaper "tattle". Since most records have been lost and we rely primarily on newspaper reports for both interviews and inquest reports, if reports that don't suit a particular argument are to be dismissed there will be very little left to examine.

Cheers, George

What is surprising to say the least George is that this report was on the 19th so this ‘re-enactment’ must have occurred on the 18th or even earlier. And yet the Coroner summed at the inquest up at least 8 days later on the 26th and completely ignores this revelation saying:

“She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m.”

and…

“It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces.”

I have to ask if this important information (the re-enactment) was mentioned in any other newspaper? It appears not. The public and The Press were hungry for any snippet of information on the case especially from the Police so why no other mention of it? This wasn’t sensitive information so the Police had no reason to be secretive on this. We also have to ask how a re-enactment at number 29 Hanbury Street could have occurred without any resident, neighbour or member of the public seeing it and mentioning it to anyone (apart from The Echo?) We have no other police officer at any time during or after the murders mentioning any reenactment either.

George, we’re relying on a seemingly isolated Press story here. And did the police really not check if a door could have obstructed a man’s view on their first investigation? The body was found behind the door after all. Are we really to believe that it wasn’t until 10 days after the murder some officer thought “let’s check to see the that door could have blocked his view?” It just doesn’t sound likely to me George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George , yes ive gone on record as saying ''if'' Richardson did indeed sit on the middle step at 4.45 am as he claimed , then yes he couldnt possibly not seen at least some part of chapmans body if she was there.

My example is offered up as a posssible likely scenario based on what Richardson told Chandler on the morning of the murder, which doesnt include the cutting of the boot incident .

According to Chandler of course. But aside from that, how can Richardson not mentioning the cutting of the boot mean that he didn’t actually do it? Then of course we have to consider the likelihood of Richardson telling a lie that was not only pointless but also placed him at the scene with a knife when he had absolutely no reason to have done so. There’s no evidence that Richardson lied. If Phillips hadn’t given that TOD estimate no one would have questioned Richardson or accused him of lying. It’s a case that Phillis TOD requires a lie from Richardson. Or a piece of unbelievable stupidity in not realising that a door isn’t transparent. Neither of which are believable.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

The journalist is not engaging in speculation, he is reporting an event. Your emphasis in the Swanson statement is different to mine. I am not talking about ToD. I am talking about Richardson's view being obstructed by the door.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

No George, Swanson's report is a fact - it is the official statement of the police view of the situation. The newspaper's version does not agree with the police version therefore you cannot claim in all honesty that the journalist is "reporting an event". I wasn't just referring to the ToD. Swanson's official report does not indicate any similarity with the newspaper report. So if I wish to know the official police viewpoint, I go to Swanson, rather than the Echo. Swanson clearly has an open mind on the facts and no decision was made as to witness reliablity - Phillips, Richardson, Cadosch or Long.

[FISHY1118]

According to Chandler of course. But aside from that, how can Richardson not mentioning the cutting of the boot mean that he didn’t actually do it? Then of course we have to consider the likelihood of Richardson telling a lie that was not only pointless but also placed him at the scene with a knife when he had absolutely no reason to have done so. There’s no evidence that Richardson lied. If Phillips hadn’t given that TOD estimate no one would have questioned Richardson or accused him of lying. It’s a case that Phillis TOD requires a lie from Richardson. Or a piece of unbelievable stupidity in not realising that a door isn’t transparent. Neither of which are believable.

Yes according to Chandler of course.

[Dickere]

No, it proved him to be mistaken.

That's what a defence might claim. But to the average person, stating on oath that you didn't see a body right next to you (because it wasn't there) is rather more than a mistake. Add in that you had a knife at the time and it strongly suggests a liar and/or an idiot.

I know you're not supporting that view but I suggest you'd be in a small minority.