John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then you're arguing that the WM mutilated a woman with only a 5ft whatever fence separating him from a witness a few yards away.

As I said initially, that would be highly unusual.

Yes but an unusual circumstance that he had no control over. If he waited for the killer to go back inside before killing her then what would the chances have been for the neighbour to have come back out for the loo within 5 minutes? Once Cadosch had gone back indoors the killer would naturally have assumed that that was the last that he would have heard of him. It was only due to his recent illness that he’d needed the loo so soon.

The killer killed Nichols with Mrs Green in bed a few feet away and on an open street. The Stride murder scene I’ve already described. What about Kelly? The killer was trapped in a room. How would he have known that someone else didn’t have a key and would come bursting in? Or that someone wouldn’t look through the broken window?

The chances of discovery were always present. The killer couldn’t avoid risks but he must always have had in his mind the thought that he had a knife. If discovered can we believe that he’d have hesitated in killing someone catching him in the act? Risk free murder doesn’t exist. Killers often feel invincible.

[Trevor Marriott]

What about the risk in Berner Street right next to a club with the door open, men singing inside, a ooo just across from the door and an open gate onto a street a few feet away. Get real.

All the evidence point to Stride not being a victim of The Ripper

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

All the evidence point to Stride not being a victim of The Ripper

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not true. She might or might not have been a victim. The point about the knife is weak. The point about being one side of the Whitechapel Road is even weaker. The actual location (the yard) is a fair point imo but we still have a woman (prostitute) with her throat cut, within a small area, during a series of throat-cutting prostitute murders, over a short period of time and occurring on a night that we know the ripper was out committing a murder about 15 minutes walk away. Yes we have no mutilations but then we ask - is there any way that he could have been interrupted and we conveniently we have a man pulling into the yard just at that time.

Ive never been certain on Stride but it’s hard to dismiss her as a victim.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yes but an unusual circumstance that he had no control over.

The WM did have control over the situation.

Assuming this was a 5.30am TOD, then what you're suggesting is that the WM heard Cadosch, a few yards away, and made the decision to carry on with the mutilations.

When it was getting light, with only a fence separating them.

This behaviour was not displayed at any other crime scene.

Supposedly, the "no" came from Annie and so this wasn't someone incapacitated, and you'd have to think capable of screaming.

The killer killed Nichols with Mrs Green in bed a few feet away and on an open street. The Stride murder scene I’ve already described. What about Kelly? The killer was trapped in a room. How would he have known that someone else didn’t have a key and would come bursting in? Or that someone wouldn’t look through the broken window?

The chances of discovery were always present. The killer couldn’t avoid risks but he must always have had in his mind the thought that he had a knife. If discovered can we believe that he’d have hesitated in killing someone catching him in the act? Risk free murder doesn’t exist. Killers often feel invincible.

The WM was propositioning and murdering women in the streets and so he had to take risks. There really weren't any low-risk options open to him.

The point is that he couldn't control who came along, but he had decisions to make when somebody did come along. The evidence is that the decisions he took meant he wasn't heard at any other crime scene. Supposedly, only with Annie's murder.

Liz and quite probably Polly: he made the decision to leave before he was seen or heard. Mary and Catherine: he wasn't heard.

As for 'killer's feeling invincible', I think that's an abstract, throw-away line that has no evidential basis. What we can say is that the WM did not want to be caught.

[Fleetwood Mac]

All the evidence point to Stride not being a victim of The Ripper

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Given this thread has veered all over the place, I don't think there's any harm in throwing this in:

Ritual and Signature in Serial Sexual Homicide | Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (jaapl.org)

Notwithstanding numerous anecdotal case reports, ritual and signature have rarely been studied empirically. In a national sample of 38 offenders and their 162 victims, we examined behavioral and thematic consistency, as well as the evolution and uniqueness of these crime scene actions. The notion that serial sexual murderers engage in the same rituals and leave unique signatures at every scene was not supported by our data. In fact, the results suggest that the crime scene conduct of this group of offenders is fairly complex and varied.

I think it's an error of judgement to believe that the WM would have displayed the same traits at every crime scene. I think the core traits/manner of the murder (carotid artery, knowledge of where to cut the throat for it to be fatal, probably murdered while on the ground and so on) are sufficient to connect Liz's murder to the WM.

[FISHY1118]

Why are you so obsessed with George’s #1320 post? The first part simply tells us that witnesses can be mistaken. Well we all know this Fishy. It’s a generic comment that proves nothing. It doesn’t mean that witnesses can never be trusted or that they are always or even usually wrong. Witnesses can be mistaken….yes it’s an entirely fair point…..it proves nothing though.

Then we have the second part…


- Cadosch's original statement to the press was that he heard voices from which he distinguished only the word "no", a rustle of clothing and a scuffle and a noise of something falling against the fence, all as one incident. Then he remembered they occurred at different times, some on his way to the toilet, and the last on his return. At the inquest his recollection was of two trips to the toilet with no rustle or scuffle, only the "No" on one trip, and the noise against the fence on the second trip some 3-4 minutes later. He summarised by saying that he didn't look over the fence because what he heard was nothing out of the ordinary.

What was earlier reported in the Press have to be viewed through a lens of caution. We know as a provable fact that Press can make errors. If we compiled a list of Press errors in this case it would be longer than this thread so we can’t keep assuming that witnesses keep giving different versions to whoever they talked to. We have to take the inquest as likelier to be truth. So what we have is a very clear statement. He heard the ‘no’ which his first instinct told him came from 29 but that as it came out of the blue it might conceivably have come from elsewhere. But when he heard the noise he was already primed. He already believed that there was someone in the yard of number 29 so his attention was drawn. He was totally confident about this. Attempts to prove him a liar are without foundation, contrary to reason and motivated by an agenda to eliminate witnesses to bolster a doctors inaccurate guess.

Long stated that she saw many people and couples on the street that morning, but picked out one couple of whom she stated she took no notice. Four days after the event she identifies Chapman, a woman she had never seen before, in the morgue, as the woman she had seen on that morning.

This doesn’t eliminate her evidence though. It just means that she might have been mistaken in that she just happened to see a woman who looked just like Annie talking to a man just outside the spot where the real Annie was killed and at the right time. We would need strong reasons to dismiss her and no reasons exist apart from the usual and obvious possibility of human error. Some people have better memories for faces than do other people. How do we know that Mrs Long wasn’t one of these people. She saw them up ahead, then walked toward them which implies that she looked at the woman’s face for a few seconds. Mistaken? Possibly. Not mistaken? Possibly. Reasons to dismiss her….none.

Richardson told Chandler and the press that he had checked the lock on the cellar door that morning by the method he had been using for two months.

This isn’t true. He never mentioned that he always checked the lock in the same way. This error is based on reading Mrs R saying that her son could see the lock from the step. But naturally he’d have told her what he’d done that morning so this doesn’t mean that he checked the door in the same way ever time. Maybe he usually stepped into the yard but on this occasion didn’t bother because he’d sat to fix his boot and could see the lock from that position?

Two days later he remembered that he sat on the step to cut leather from his boot.

Not true. There’s no way this can be stated as a fact.

At the inquest he told the coroner he sat on the step and cut leather from his boot, but after retrieving the knife he said he used, then remembered in wasn't sharp enough and that the leather removal was actually achieved afterwards at his work with a borrowed knife.

This is what we repeatedly get. An attempt to make things look sinister when they are anything but. He didn’t mention the work done with the second knife because it didn’t occur at number 29 and the coroner was only interested in events at number 29. He mentioned the second knife only after the coroner mentioned the first knife looking blunt.


….

There’s too much creative fiction required to discredit the witnesses. The chances of 3 witnesses all being liars, morons or mistaken have to be vanishingly small. And those promoting this are the ones that believe that they know more about forensics that the worlds experts so hardly weighty. So keep parroting ‘Fisherman’ and ‘ambiguous’ and all of the nonsense you want Fishy. You made a trumpeting point of saying that most people go for and earlier TOD (something you felt important to post) then when I showed you that your maths was crap to say the least and that 15 out of 20 on here go for a later TOD these figures suddenly became unimportant.

I dont see anyway forward with this topic for you Herlork, its quite clear you have no intension of evaluating all the evidence of the Chapman murder properly as to include an earlier t.o. d.

Especially when it has been shown to you over thousands of post by other posters such as Fisherman ,George , Trevor ,Mac and Harrry , as well as myself . We all use the same evidence that shows in our opinions that its is not only possible but more than likely, given the ambiguious , uncertain , contradictory circumstances surrounding the conflicting witness testimony . Futhermore the ''Endorsment'' of a modern day Medical Expert of Dr Phillips opinion and conclusion regarding and eariler t.o.d , should now lay to rest . The old excepted theory [sorry Trevor to pinch that line] that ''all'' medical expert agree that victorian Drs couldnt be accurate in their estimating .t.o.d is for ever over . Thanks fisherman for your post btw.

Unless their is any new evidence that comes to light ,this really should be put to bed, as your just going round and round in your own circles posting the same old rhetoric that have already been successfully answered by many , many times over .

The evidence just doesnt ,and cant be proven in your case to eliminate an earlier time of death, no more than it cant for a later time. That is just a fact, and thats all that matteres

[Herlock Sholmes]

The WM did have control over the situation.

Assuming this was a 5.30am TOD, then what you're suggesting is that the WM heard Cadosch, a few yards away, and made the decision to carry on with the mutilations.

When it was getting light, with only a fence separating them.

Well firstly, we can’t say for anything like certain that the killer heard Cadosch. He might not have heard him; we shouldn’t just assume that he did. Secondly, as I’ve already said, if they heard Cadosch enter the yard then it would have been entirely reasonable for the killer to assume that he was going to use the outside loo. That would have meant, a) that he was unlikely to have been there long, and b) that once he’d gone back inside he would have been unlikely to have come back out.

This behaviour was not displayed at any other crime scene.

Because he wasn’t in a backyard with a neighbour going to the loo at any other crime scene. Sometimes events occur and a killer has to make decisions an adapt.

Supposedly, the "no" came from Annie and so this wasn't someone incapacitated, and you'd have to think capable of screaming.

I’ve only looked at the inquest testimony from The Telegraph (strangely Cadosch appears to be omitted from The Times) but it doesn’t mention the sex of the voice so how can we assume that the voice was Annie’s?

Ive covered this ‘no’ issue before because Fishy used to regularly make the same point. We can’t assume that the ‘no.’ if it came from Annie, was the beginning of the attack. The ‘no’ could just have been a response to something said.

The WM was propositioning and murdering women in the streets and so he had to take risks. There really weren't any low-risk options open to him.

The point is that he couldn't control who came along, but he had decisions to make when somebody did come along. The evidence is that the decisions he took meant he wasn't heard at any other crime scene. Supposedly, only with Annie's murder.

But circumstances change. Some might say “well we have BS man’s scuffle with Stride in the street….he might have been her killer?” Or we have some proposing Astrakhan Man as Mary Kelly’s killer, going on to murder after Hutchinson had stooped down to look into his face. Or some proposing Lechmere, deciding not to scarper when he heard Paul approaching.

Liz and quite probably Polly: he made the decision to leave before he was seen or heard. Mary and Catherine: he wasn't heard.

As for 'killer's feeling invincible', I think that's an abstract, throw-away line that has no evidential basis. What we can say is that the WM did not want to be caught.

From Psychology Today:

“They relish their ability to kill and avoid detection and may come to believe they will never be apprehended. Such empowerment can cause serial killers to take more risks in their work.”

I’m not going to start posting loads of quotes here but I’ve read hundreds of books on murder and I’m certain that you have too. Surely you can’t argue the fact that some killers can feel as if they are simply too clever to be caught. Look at Shipman. Look at Zodiac. I can’t produce a direct quote but I’ve read of serial killers who have felt that God was protecting them. We can’t know what was in the rippers mind. I can’t prove that he felt invincible but you can’t prove otherwise either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont see anyway forward with this topic for you Herlork, its quite clear you have no intension of evaluating all the evidence of the Chapman murder properly as to include an earlier t.o. d.

Especially when it has been shown to you over thousands of post by other posters such as Fisherman ,George , Trevor ,Mac and Harrry , as well as myself . We all use the same evidence that shows in our opinions that its is not only possible but more than likely, given the ambiguious , uncertain , contradictory circumstances surrounding the conflicting witness testimony . Futhermore the ''Endorsment'' of a modern day Medical Expert of Dr Phillips opinion and conclusion regarding and eariler t.o.d , should now lay to rest . The old excepted theory [sorry Trevor to pinch that line] that ''all'' medical expert agree that victorian Drs couldnt be accurate in their estimating .t.o.d is for ever over . Thanks fisherman for your post btw.

Unless their is any new evidence that comes to light ,this really should be put to bed, as your just going round and round in your own circles posting the same old rhetoric that have already been successfully answered by many , many times over .

The evidence just doesnt ,and cant be proven in your case to eliminate an earlier time of death, no more than it cant for a later time. That is just a fact, and thats all that matteres

Absolute rubbish.

Why do you keep pointing out that 6 of you go for an earlier TOD as if it’s somehow important and yet you ignore the fact that 15 go for a later TOD! So the reality is that of those who have posted on this thread 70% go for a later TOD. In the poll on whether Richardson was reliable or not 84% felt that he was and only 10% felt that he wasn’t. In a poll on whether Cadosch was reliable or not 93% felt that he was. And in the poll on the caveat 100% interpreted it to mean that Phillips was clearly accepting that he could have been wrong.

And before you begin ranting about ‘pointless polls’ or ‘stupid polls’ let’s remind ourselves that you felt it important enough to stress how many posters favoured an earlier TOD. So I’m simply responding with facts. The majority disagree with the earlier TOD. And they do this because the evidence clearly favours a later TOD. The same evidence that you’ve selectively read. The difference being is that they’ve read it without bias.

Your hero worship of Fisherman is touching but misguided. Thiblin accepted the possibility of a later TOD as did Biggs (Trevor accepts this so why can’t you?) You and FM simply latched on to the part of Thiblin’s statement when he said “if….” You naturally and conveniently ignore the ‘if…’ though. And you also ignore the blatantly dodgy information fed to him by Fisherman.

So the Doctors evidence has to be sidelined. 14 posters tell you this - I should say 15 because Trevor accepts what Dr. Biggs said too (Trevor favours an earlier TOD on criteria excluding the Doctors TOD) So that’s 15-5. I’m unsure about what George thinks because he hasn’t commented recently. I’ve no doubt that he still favours an earlier TOD but I’d be surprised if George dismisses the point that that Doctor’s estimate cannot be relied upon.

Yes you can keep parroting “ambiguous” as much as you want but you still haven’t shown that you actually understand what the word means. Cadosch wasn’t ambiguous about hearing the noise. Richardson wasn’t ambiguous about there not being a mutilated corpse 6 inches from his left boot! Long was ambiguous on her identification.

So what we have Fishy is the vast majority of posters favouring a later TOD. So who backs your ‘opinion.’

Harry - ok.
George - ok
FM - a man who believes that he knows more about Pathology that the worlds express.
Yourself - the only man on the planet who supports the Stephen Knight theory.
Trevor - who accepts that Phillips TOD cannot be relied upon.

……..

So the verdict….

Dr. Phillips TOD was categorically unreliable and has to be dismissed.
Three witness point to a later TOD.
Theres not a single piece of evidence that implies that the witnesses lied.
The only way that doubt can be manipulated into existence over witnesses is by assuming ridiculous levels of stupidity

The evidence heavily favours a later TOD. So let’s hope we hear no more of this embarrassingly biased nonsense.

The verdict is in……the overwhelming majority favour a later TOD

[Fleetwood Mac]

From Psychology Today:

“They relish their ability to kill and avoid detection and may come to believe they will never be apprehended. Such empowerment can cause serial killers to take more risks in their work.”

What we're talking of here is a murderer who supposedly murdered and mutilated while someone else was a few yards away, separated by a fence in daylight. This is not: "relishing their ability to avoid detection". This is asking to be detected.

I can’t prove that he felt invincible but you can’t prove otherwise either.

As said, it would be highly unusual for a serial killer to murder and mutilate in those circumstances and it is a risk not displayed at any other crime scene.

For you to conclude: "we can't prove that he felt invincible" and use this as some sort of discussion point, is quite frankly ludicrous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What we're talking of here is a murderer who supposedly murdered and mutilated while someone else was a few yards away, separated by a fence in daylight. This is not: "relishing their ability to avoid detection". This is asking to be detected.

Can’t you understand the simplest of suggestions? I really do try to make my posts easy to understand.

1. When Cadosch came out the second time Richardson might not have heard him.
2. If he had heard Cadosch, and Richardson knew that he’d made a noise by brushing against the fence, then he’d have heard Cadosch go back inside and therefore he’d have know that there wasn’t a problem. Unless you’re suggesting that, because of a simple noise, he suspected that Cadosch might come round to number 29 carrying a baseball bat!

As said, it would be highly unusual for a serial killer to murder and mutilate in those circumstances and it is a risk not displayed at any other crime scene.

Because Cadosch turned up out of the blue. Absolutely incomparable to the other crime scenes. What are you talking about?

For you to conclude: "we can't prove that he felt invincible" and use this as some sort of discussion point, is quite frankly ludicrous.

I guess that this is from the same well of ‘logic’ that produced the classic - well we have no record of Annie eating between 1.45 and 5.30 so we have to assume that she didn’t?

Serial killers can sometimes feel invincible. Some even feel that they have god looking after them. No, of course I can’t prove that this was the case with the ripper and I never claimed to be able to or that it was the case. I just stated that killers can often feel like this. Or perhaps if you prefer over-confident. Do you deny that serial killers often believe that they are cleverer than the police? Why is this such an issue? I sometimes think that if I said that John Richardson was a man you’d find some way of arguing the point.

Im not claiming to know how this serial killer thought but amazingly you appear to claiming to know what he couldn’t have been thinking. Unless you hadn’t noticed, they aren’t ‘normal’ people.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So…..Cadosch at the inquest:

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.

……

So we see that he heard the ‘no’ just as he was going back indoors. So if the ‘no’ came from number 29 (and that was the impression that he got standing 6 feet away) then Chapman and her killer entered the yard while he was in the outside loo. He couldn’t have known this of course. The ‘no’ could simply have been a response to a question or Annie might have realised what was about to happen and said ‘no’ but the killer slapped his hand over her mouth. Either way Cadosch was actually going through the door at the time and simply thought nothing of it. There was someone in number 29’s backyard. So what? He thought that it was the residents who worked from the yard. He wouldn’t have though “I bet that’s Jack the Ripper at work.”

Then 3 or 4 minutes later he returns to the loo but hears nothing on the way. As he wouldn’t if Annie was dead because she’d been killed while he was indoors. He hears the noise on the way back. It wasn’t a massive or lengthy noise so this wasn’t the killer struggling with Annie (she was already dead of course) So the noise that he hears was either the killer brushing against the fence or Annie’s arm or leg as the killer was doing what he did. The noise wasn’t suspicious so Cadosch goes back inside. He’d already heard a ‘No’ so it was hardly news that there was someone in next doors yard.

When Cadosch heard the noise Annie was already dead so what choice did the killer have but to finish off after Cadosch had gone back inside knowing that as long as he didn’t brush against the fence again (in the unlikely event of Cadosch returning a third time) there was no issue. We can assume that he wasn’t using power tools for the mutilation so there was no noise.

Where is the problem? Risk always existed. Cadosch’s arrival was unexpected but manageable.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Where is the problem? Risk always existed. Cadosch’s arrival was unexpected but manageable.

It was a risk the WM didn't take at any other crime scene, and a serial killer committing a murder in those circumstances is highly unusual.

"We just don't know" doesn't negate this proposition.

(I preferred your "we just don't know" in poem form, by the way).

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was a risk the WM didn't take at any other crime scene, and a serial killer committing a murder in those circumstances is highly unusual.

"We just don't know" doesn't negate this proposition.

(I preferred your "we just don't know" in poem form, by the way).

This is a wind up.

Its a risk that he didn’t take at the other crime scenes because it was an UNFORESEEN risk which occurred once he was ALREADY in the yard with his victim. So we can’t compare them because at no other crime scene was there a fence with a neighbour showing up out of the blue.

[Fleetwood Mac]

it was an UNFORESEEN risk

As a reminder, my point isn't based around an 'unforeseen risk'.

I'm talking about the behaviour of the WM when the risk materialised, i.e. in the event Cadosch heard a murder taking place, it was not an unforeseen risk for the WM to carry on murdering and mutilating.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As a reminder, my point isn't based around an 'unforeseen risk'.

I'm talking about the behaviour of the WM when the risk materialised, i.e. in the event Cadosch heard a murder taking place, it was not an unforeseen risk for the WM to carry on murdering and mutilating.

But you’re saying that he didn’t take the kind of risk that he took at Hanbury Street (with a witness close by) at the other crime scenes. And the reason is of course - he didn’t because risk at Hanbury Street (a witness appearing close by) was entirely unforeseen and didn’t occur at the other scenes. He had no choice but to deal with it once he’d entered number 29 with the victim.