John Richardson

[The Macdonald Triad]

When it’s suggested that people can lie why is it only ever suggested that this applies to witnesses? Everyone can lie (unless we perhaps discount those suffering from conditions like autism of course) so why is a police officer exempt from this suggestion? I’m talking of Chandler of course.

I’m not saying that he did lie of course but it’s noticeable that no one appears prepared to even consider the possibility. Apart from the tired old ‘15 minutes of fame’ point neither Richardson, Cadosch or Long had any reason to lie and any lie by Richardson would have served no purpose and would have made the situation worse for himself. Chandler however might have had a reason for lying about what Richardson told him in the passage way. If Chandler hadn’t pushed Richardson for more detail then his superiors might have criticised his handling of events at the crime scene. Or if he’d misheard ‘sat’ on the step for ‘stood’ on the step as another example.

So isn’t it at least possible that Chandler might have been indulging in a bit of a**e covering by saying saying that Richardson said nothing about sitting on the step? Again, I’m not claiming that this is what happened but if it can be suggested that the witnesses lied for no reason why should the possibility be ignored that Chandler lied to cover his own backside in the face of criticism from his superiors?

My personal opinion is that Richardson probably didn’t mention sitting on the step to fix his boot but there’s nothing suspicious or deceitful about this. The interview was unlikely to have been very in depth due to the circumstances. So imo the following is entirely reasonable..

C - So tell me what you did Mr Richardson.
R - I went to the back door at about 4.45 to check my mothers cellar.
C - And what did you see?
R - Nothing. There was nothing in the yard.
C - Are you sure? It couldn’t have been very light after all.
R - It was just getting light so I could see everything.
C - Are you absolutely certain that you couldn’t have missed seeing the body? Couldn’t it have been hidden by the door?
R - Absolutely not. I could see all over the yard from where I was and couldn’t possibly have missed it. It wasn’t there.

Yes, I just made up that conversation before anyone accuses me of manipulation, but that conversation or something very like it would have been entirely plausible and possible. We also know that a day or so after the murder the story about him sitting on the step to repair his boot was already in the papers. So it’s not as if Richardson somehow invented it for the inquest and the press certainly couldn’t have invented so specific a story.

So Richardson ‘could’ have lied but he gained no benefit from doing so (the opposite in fact) Chandler ‘could’ have lied but might have had a reason for doing so. And Richardson not mentioning the boot repair is entirely inconsequential and can’t be viewed as sinister.

The only other point that’s weirdly used against him is the talk of the knife at the inquest. He didn’t mention the sharpness of the knife or the second knife because he wasn’t asked about these things. The Coroner wasn’t interested in a knife that he’d used at the market, he was interested in the knife that he used at the yard. When the coroner points out that the knife looks blunt Richardson tells him that he had to use a sharper one at the market. Yes, the way that it’s worded it sounds like Richardson was saying ‘I cut a piece of leather with my knife but I couldn’t cut a piece of leather with my knife because it wasn’t sharp enough.’ But clearly that would have been complete gibberish and it’s impossible that the coroner wouldn’t have pulled him up on it - “hold on Mr. Richardson that doesn’t make sense!” Or any of the jury either. But nothing is said. Clearly Richardson would have said anything as blatantly nonsensical as this but this is what is being claimed in an obviously desperate attempt to incriminate. This is all that they have on Richardson. Eliminate this transparent piece of gobbledegook and what’s left. Nothing. There’s not a single, solitary thing that even implies dishonesty on the part of Richardson. The only thing left is to imply that he was so colossally, mind-numbing oh dim that he didn’t know that you can’t see through a wooden door!

When you weigh up Richardson fairly and sanely we have nothing against him. He was a strong witness then and he’s a strong witness now. He alone points overwhelmingly to a later TOD.

Not everything is so black and white. Is there such a thing as a lie by omission? Richardson might not have mentioned it at first because he wasn't asked directly. Simples.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not everything is so black and white. Is there such a thing as a lie by omission? Richardson might not have mentioned it at first because he wasn't asked directly. Simples.

Agreed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have pointed out on numerous occasions that I do not in any shape or form accept that Phillips would have allowed for any shorter TOD than two hours. That is a misinterpretation on Baxters behalf (and we know now how much Swanson relies on Baxter). The caveat Phillips presented was along the lines "I believe that she had been dead for more than two hours, likely two or three, but it is fair to say that it was a cold night and so it could perhaps be that it was merely two hours."

That is the only caveat that makes any sort of sense. The proposition that Phillips would basically have said "It could have been no less than two hours, but it could have been an hour only" does not belong to a serious discussion. Moreover, when the Echo of the 19th tells us that Phillips and the police came to the conclusion that the body must have been in the yard when Richardson was there, it would arguaby have been for this exact reason - if she was killed at 5.30, the body would not have been in place when Richardson was there at 4.45. But since Chapman had been dead for at the very least two hours when Phillips examined her, it follows that she MUST have been in the back yard at 4.45, wherefore Richardson simply missed out on seeing her. And he may well have done so, owing to how the door could have hidden the body from sight, depending on the degree to which it was open and the posture of Richardson.

Oh, and again: It is not true that Swanson filled his report with "ifs". When it was crunch time, he left that word out. Lets not forget about that: Long MUST be doubted, as per Swanson. That is the clearly worded conclusion you falsely claim does not exist.

I note that Harry D has also posted (somewhat childishly) on this matter, but I will not respond to that post or any other posts out here. I only covered this matter on account of how I was irritated by how you got the dates wrong and claimed falsely that there was nothing pointing to Swanson having made his mind up either way.

If you want to prolong the debate, then do so, and I may well answer you, depending on what you bring to the table - but that is as far as it goes.

The idea that an experienced coroner like Wynne Baxter misunderstood the evidence presented to him by the medical witness at his own inquest is as preposterous as it is absurd. It assumes not only that Baxter didn't understand plain English but that Dr Phillips allowed himself to be misrepresented by the coroner in his widely reported summing up of the facts, not to mention his reported explanation to the jury that Phillips had qualified his opinion, and stood by silently without public protest, defies belief.

To say that the above quoted explanation is the only one "that makes any sort sense" can only have been written by someone who doesn't properly understand the English language. It's the interpretation that doesn't make any sense! It is plain that Dr Phillips stated his opinion that Chapman had been dead at least two hours and possibly more. He never changed that opinion. That was his estimate of the time of death.

But he QUALIFIED that opinion. To qualify something doesn't mean to change it. That's what Fisherman is failing to understand. After offering his opinion, he pointed out that it was a cool morning and "the body would be more apt to cool rapidly" from it being a cold morning and from the loss of blood. So he stuck with at least two hours but he accepted that he might be wrong and might have been misled by the conditions, which he very reasonably informs the coroner about.

For him to have been qualifying the "probably more" is, frankly, a ludicrous interpretation and means that the doctor was speaking in such an opaque way as for it to be impossible for him to be understood by anyone. He wasn't qualifying part of his opinion, he was qualifying it all. That's why the coroner understood him to be doing that. The reason is obvious. That's exactly what he was doing.

[Aethelwulf]

Fisherman's "comeback" post (before disappearing again) is as remarkable for what it doesn't say as for what it does say.

In particular, there is no mention of the need for there to be an "obvious" or "significant" difference between the outer and core, something which was always badly expressed twaddle.

It's now clear that all Thiblin told him was the remarkably mundane fact that if there is a lack of warmth in the body's core, it points to a significant number of hours having passed since death.

This has always been known.

That's why forensic pathologists are supposed to take the rectal temperature of a murdered corpse at a crime scene. As Thiblin said, there is "a rule of thumb" (known to be wrong) that the core temperature "decreases by a degree per hour" so that, on his view, one hour after death, the core temperature might be 36 degrees, two hours after death it might be 35 degrees and four hours after death it might be 33 degrees – all temperatures which can reasonably be described as "warm".

The problem with applying this to Chapman's case is fourfold:

Firstly, it is entirely unclear if Dr Phillips can be said to have felt the temperature at the core simply by feeling warmth under the presumably exposed intestines.

Secondly, it is surely impossible for the human hand to distinguish between 36 degrees and 33 degrees.

Thirdly, and obviously, there are no studies about what one would expect the temperature of the core of a mutilated (and, thus, with internal organs exposed to the elements) body to be.

Fourthly, and most importantly, even if what Dr Phillips felt was Chapman's core temperature, all he can be understood to have said to the coroner is that he found warmth at the core. He did not (as some people seem to think) say that there was only a little warmth in the core. He didn't say whether it was very warm or only a bit warm. In fact, on the basis of feeling a cold body alone, many Victorian doctors would have estimated a PMI of about four hours so the fact that Dr Phillips brought it down to a minimum of two hours (of which even that was qualified) might suggest that he found sufficient warmth under the intestines to suggest to him that the core was so warm as to reduce the PMI, not increase it.

But we just don't know.

Fisherman, in his post, then abandons any reliance on Thiblin and, without any sources at all, or expert opinion to support him, goes back to offering his own tired personal amateur opinion that if you factor in a bit of rigor and add in a bit of stomach contents (which Dr Phillips didn't even mention as affecting his own estimate), then, hey presto, as if by magic we can fix a time of Chapman's murder as being 2.30 or 3.30 which, by pure coincidence, just so happens to match the time when Lechmere would have left work.

Let the frame-up begin.

Ignoring all expert advice from every single expert on forensic pathology for at least the last forty years, which categorically tells us that it's not possible to accurately and reliably estimate time of death from any of the type of known facts that we have in the Chapman case, Fisherman wants to tell us what is normal and what time he thinks Chapman is "likely" to have died. He doesn't seem to have learnt anything from this thread, which is that you just can't do it! If the medical profession did this they would end up sending innocent men to prison and letting the guilty go free. There is no "normal" estimation of time of death. Each case is different. An average means that the results can be below or above the average. The desperation is seen in the fact that Fisherman wants to extrapolate from the case of Eddowes to Chapman. You just can't do this type of thing. That's the whole point of scientific studies. It avoids that sort of anecdotal "evidence" which is bound to mislead. The timescale is completely different in any event. Eddowes might well have been murdered at about 1.40am. Dr Brown was on the scene at about 2am when he felt that the body was warm with no stiffening. That's 20 minutes! And Fisherman wants to compare an examination after 20 minutes with one possibly about 60 minutes after death. As Dr Brown himself said in evidence on this very point: "The body had only been there a few minutes" (Times, 5th October 1888). To compare Eddowes to Chapman is really desperate stuff.

The fact of the matter is that the medical opinion in this case cannot possibly help us as to when Chapman died. It's just as likely to mislead as to assist.

Yet, despite saying that it's "fair enough" that "people were unaware of how unreliable Victorian doctors were", Fisherman amazingly wants to focus on the fact that Swanson and the Home Office accepted Phillips's estimate, as if this is some kind of point in his favour. But it's literally the entire argument against him which he is ignoring. The whole point is that not enough was known in 1888 about estimating time of death, so what does it matter if Scotland Yard, the entire Salisbury Government and even Queen Victoria herself swallowed what Phillips said? Fisherman concludes his post by saying that "the general sentiment in 1888 was always that Phillips was correct". That is, of course, rubbish because the coroner discarded the doctor's 2 hour PMI estimate in favour of 1 hour – meaning that a 4.30 TOD is the official finding of history - but, even if it was right, so what? If people in 1888 didn't understand the limitations of estimating time of death, which limitations are now known and confirmed by, for example, Dr Biggs, to name just one expert, what does it tell us? Simply that people in 1888 were ignorant. How can you rely on ignorance to support your argument?

Fisherman says: "And the medical implications were all in line with a TOD three or four hours removed. It is not the other way around". The amazing thing about this statement is that Fisherman is literally telling us that Dr Phillips got it wrong! Because Dr Phillips didn't provide a TOD of "three or four hours" removed. This exists only in Fisherman's imagination. It also just shows that Fisherman has learnt nothing. The fact of the matter is that the "medical implications" are consistent with a body murdered one hour earlier, two hours earlier, three hours earlier and four hours earlier. They are also consistent with a murder five hours earlier. Why don't we conclude that Chapman was murdered five hours earlier? Because she was seen alive five hours earlier, that's why. If she hadn't been seen alive after midnight, from the medical evidence alone, with a cold body, and rigor supposedly commencing, she might have been murdered at 1am. The medical evidence would be consistent with that. That's why the medical evidence is useless. It's consistent with just about everything and anything!

Finally, Fisherman asks "Did the naysayers ever get around to finding an expert that disagreed with Thiblin? No?" As I've already pointed out, Thiblin didn't actually say anything particularly controversial. Everyone agrees that the core temperature would be expected to diminish over time (although, as Thiblin himself tells us, not necessarily over as short a period of four hours). But Thiblin hasn't given an opinion about the time of Chapman's death. So there's nothing for an expert to disagree with Thiblin about!!!! As we've seen, however, Dr Biggs has confirmed the impossibility of anyone, even today, estimating a reliable time of death in the circumstances of the Chapman case. And he has confirmed that she could have been murdered at 5.30.

I imagine some people will complain that I'm repeating myself but those same people don't seem to complain when Fisherman says exactly the same thing over and over again without offering any new sources or information. On the contrary, they congratulate him for his uninformed waffle!

Good points that the master of bluff will brush off with angry bold font.

Stands to reason that someone so far down the track as to produce a book and documentary on a particular suspect will not give an inch on anything that compromises their suspect. Basically, a complete waste of time arguing with him.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Christer,

I won't print out your last memo, it takes up so much space.

So, "some amount of doubt" is attached to Mrs Long's account! That is a recognition being expressed, which is not the same as Swanson accepting that Phillips was absolutely correct and the witnesses were wrong, is it? The Echo claimed that the police had totally accepted Phillips' ToD, but Swanson merely expressed doubt about Long's story, and added "which is to be regretted". I have some doubts about Long's evidence too, and have said so previously.

There is not one word in Swanson's report which backed up the Echo story. He doesn't say that Phillips discussed the matter again, nor that he persuaded the police that he was right, nor does he say that Richardson was mistaken etc. He said that if Phillips was correct it was difficult to understand how Richardson missed the body. That is hardly a statement saying Phillips was correct and Richardson did miss seeing the body. None of the Echo's claims are shown to be correct as far as Swanson is concerned.

[The Macdonald Triad]

I think the reason you people are rubbernecking this thread is for the obvious reasons. John Richardson (Jack) and Mommie Dearest (TK) were both religious fanatics. And they hold more credibility and movie fun over Charles Cross/Lechmere. OMG he said Cross, be shocked lol.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Agreed.

Don't think I've forgotten about your Ass Hattery.

[etenguy]

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

I would add that the coroner held a different view and this was expressed to the jury in his summing up when he basically told the jury that Dr Philip's estimate was likely incorrect which explained the different timings provided in the witness statements.

Of course, I cannot be absolutely sure that Richardson did not see a body lying at his feet. I just find it extremely unlikely, particularly given his insistence he would have seen the body if it had been there. If the body was there, then I prefer (ie think it more likely) the explanation that Richardson lied rather than did not notice the body. But Richardson's version of the truth is corroborated by Long and Cadosch. We can pick apart each witness individually and find reason to doubt their narrative individually - and we all are wary of relying too much on witnesses - but when three independently provide a story, each of which supports the others in terms of t.o.d. it is much more difficult to expect that all three were mistaken or lied in just such a way that they all point to the same conclusion.

[JeffHamm]

I would add that the coroner held a different view and this was expressed to the jury in his summing up when he basically told the jury that Dr Philip's estimate was likely incorrect which explained the different timings provided in the witness statements.

Of course, I cannot be absolutely sure that Richardson did not see a body lying at his feet. I just find it extremely unlikely, particularly given his insistence he would have seen the body if it had been there. If the body was there, then I prefer (ie think it more likely) the explanation that Richardson lied rather than did not notice the body. But Richardson's version of the truth is corroborated by Long and Cadosch. We can pick apart each witness individually and find reason to doubt their narrative individually - and we all are wary of relying too much on witnesses - but when three independently provide a story, each of which supports the others in terms of t.o.d. it is much more difficult to expect that all three were mistaken or lied in just such a way that they all point to the same conclusion.

Indeed. While it doesn't qualify as "beyond reasonable doubt", once we also take into consideration the associated margins of error with estimating ToD, Dr. Phillip's opinion cannot be said to be inconsistent with the witnesses (and vice versa). Therefore, much of the discussion focusing on which to prefer is unnecessary as Dr. Phillips' testimony, and the witnesses' testimony, do not actually conflict. There is no conflict as a result and so there is no need to dismiss any of the statements. And if one does not dismiss any of the statements, they all converge on a ToD after Richardson's visit. While Long's testimony also fits in, I do suggest that her testimony be viewed with caution simply because she also provides a description, and it is with caution I think that description needs to be viewed because Long could be wrong, but the other 2 witnesses reliable, and we get to the same point.

I really don't understand why people are focused on separating the testimonies given they do not actually create any conflict between them to resolve.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

He had no reason to lie. The lie he allegedly told very obviously placed him alone at the scene with a knife. Clearly he didn’t lie.

The reason for the "alleged" lie is on no consequence tho,he knew he was in the clear after the police no longer suspected him as the killer on that morning. Placing himself at the scene with a knife after that fact is of little important in my opinion.

[Varqm]

Exactly.

Also the people who believe in a pre-5 am death is also asking that the commotion observed by Cadosche near where Anne's dead body was found,those person(s) involved in it also missed the body.

[FISHY1118]

Also the people who believe in a pre-5 am death is also asking that the commotion observed by Cadosche near where Anne's dead body was found,those person(s) involved in it also missed the body.

The evidence also suggests that their might not have been anyone in the yard , the "no" can't be verified to come from no 29 .

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

I won't print out your last memo, it takes up so much space.

So, "some amount of doubt" is attached to Mrs Long's account! That is a recognition being expressed, which is not the same as Swanson accepting that Phillips was absolutely correct and the witnesses were wrong, is it? The Echo claimed that the police had totally accepted Phillips' ToD, but Swanson merely expressed doubt about Long's story, and added "which is to be regretted". I have some doubts about Long's evidence too, and have said so previously.

There is not one word in Swanson's report which backed up the Echo story. He doesn't say that Phillips discussed the matter again, nor that he persuaded the police that he was right, nor does he say that Richardson was mistaken etc. He said that if Phillips was correct it was difficult to understand how Richardson missed the body. That is hardly a statement saying Phillips was correct and Richardson did miss seeing the body. None of the Echo's claims are shown to be correct as far as Swanson is concerned.

There we are, the one and only poster I am engaging with as per now has answered! So letīs see if you bring something new to the table!

You ask whether the chosen wording "some amount of doubt" does not have to mean that Swanson must have accepted that Phillips was "absolutely correct" and that the witnesses were wrong.

That is a much more complex question than it may look like. To begin with, you do not use the "absolutely wrong" phrasing for the witnesses, you only do so for Phillips. And to untangle the matters, we really need to work with the exact same parameters for both parts.

When we do, the question becomes this one: Does Swanson accept everything Phillips said as true and everything the witnesses said as wrong? Letīs see!

Swanson writes: " ...he ... gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt..."

This is what I have pointed out before: There are two elements involved, and element one (Phillips professional opinion) affects element two (Longs claim). Phrased otherwise: BECAUSE the doctor said that Chapman had been dead at least two hours, Mrs Long MUST be doubted.

The part of Longs testimony that is touched upon here is how she said that she saw Chapman outside 29 Hanbury Street at around 5.30-ish. Nothing of the rest of her testimony is involved in what it was that means that we must doubt her. And this, I think, is what Swanson stresses: although she MUST be dwrong about seeing Chapman at 5.30ish, it may well be that she did see a couple, that the woman DID resemble Chapman, etcetera.

Neither Cadosh nor Richardson is mentioned here, but it goes without saying that if Long must have been wrong because of the doctors opinion, then it equally diqualifies any other witness who claims that Chapman was alive after 4.30. But it does NOT disqualify any other parameter in the testimony of Cadosch and Phillips.

And there is your answer: Much as Swanson does not say anything about the veracity and character of the witnesses, he does say that Long MUST be doubted to a degree, and he qualifies why: Because Phillips professional opinion rules out that she could have been correct about seeing Chapman outside 29 Hanbury Street at 5.30-ish.

All of this is of course also in perfect sync with the Echos story. True, Swanson does not say anything about any conferring between Phillips and the police, but since Swanson very clearly ruled against Long on the important parameter we discuss, one must of course accept that the police will have questioned Phillipos how sure he was about his timings. If you are going to decisively rule out testimony, you need to have a firm ground to stand on.

Of course, I could instead have said that there is nothing contradicting the suggestion that Phillips and the police conferred in the Echo article either. But that would be kind of silly, since all we can do is to look at the probabilities. And I find it very improbable that the Echo would have concocted a sheer fantasy story, just as I find it equally improbable that the police would not have asked Phillips exactly how certain he felt he could be. As always, to stand on the naysayers side, an almighty stretch is required. It is much like how Chaman must have suffered from all sorts of strange diseases to produce a cold body with onsetting rigor in an hour only.

I seem never to have such problems. In my version, the pieces fit without having to use an axe and a hacksaw first. Sorry, but there you are.

[Fisherman]

My apologies to anybody else but for Doctored Whatsit, who feel they may have had something importnt to say/ask - I have not even read your posts, and I will not do so either. My aim is to cover all the bases in my discussion with Whatsit, and then get out of here double quick.

[Fisherman]

A correction: Im my post to Doctored Whatsit, the second sentence reads:

You ask whether the chosen wording "some amount of doubt" does not have to mean that Swanson must have accepted that Phillips was absolutely correct and that the witnesses were wrong.

It should of course read:

You ask whether the chosen wording "some amount of doubt" has to mean that Swanson must have accepted that Phillips was absolutely correct and that the witnesses were wrong.

Sorry about that.