John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

It’s a bit rich to hear you unfairly accusing me of being insulting and of personal attacks and then you finish your post by calling me ‘chump. ‘Which is a personal attack and an insult combined.

What I’ve done here is to stick to the evidence and not get caught up in an agenda like some but your responses have just been the simple repetition of the same phrases. Then you wait for a poster to make a comment that you like then you pop up to do a bit of cheerleading. You never discuss the detail which is the purpose of this Forum. You avoid this like the plague because you know that it’s in the facts and the details where your agenda fails.

Neither you or I get to decide when the topic is over Fishy. The actual meat of the debate certainly has been concluded though - and the verdict is overwhelmingly in favour of an earlier TOD. A fringe minority favouring an earlier one exists of course but that we always be the same. Despite the attempted manipulation we basically have this:

The worlds Forensic experts telling us to a man, and without a single exception, that even today the estimating of TOD is fraught with the possibilities for error and that this possibility was much magnified in the Victorian era with their poorer knowledge and lack of technology. Of all the opinions in this case, anyone that denies this fact cannot be taken seriously. It’s in all of the books, papers and essays. It’s all over the internet and easy to discover so there is simply no excuse but bias for denying it (as only 3 or 4 people appear to do)

From modern day experts that we can get a direct opinion from we have….

Professor Thiblin:

"I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September".

Dr. Biggs:

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted... I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

So the medical evidence from Dr. Phillips, as we have known all along, is useless to us. It simply cannot be relied up. It tells us that Chapman could have been killed either later or earlier. So Phillips simply has to be dismissed……as I said months ago (but you, FM and Fisherman clearly have some secret knowledge which has yet to reach the Forensic Medicine community.

So then we have to ask ourselves……what re the chances of three witnesses all lying or being mistaken? Was there some kind of conspiracy to frame a later TOD? What we then have from you is a repetition that witnesses can be mistaken. That’s it! That’s the result of your analysis. “Well, witnesses can be wrong.”

So the final summing up should be, and the only fair-minded, agenda-free one, is that the evidence (without being manipulated) points overwhelmingly to a later TOD. And this appears to be the opinion of the overwhelming majority of posters too.

Is there anything new .nope

[FISHY1118]

Ask Fishy if the blood was actually from when Sir William Gull and Walter Sickert were lugging Annie’s body from the Royal Carriage parked outside to the yard.

When in doubt ,go the personal attack , shall we also bring back the Druitt topic you so miserable failed at ? I'm game if you are.,.

Off you go back to Facebook

[FISHY1118]

The witnesses show exactly that. Have you missed that part?

And no one has ever claimed that the TOD estimate couldn’t encompass an earlier TOD. Have you missed that part too?

Nothing new , already answered , I think you missed a lot of parts along the way ,right from post 1.

[FISHY1118]

Do you mean the personal attack in post #3147?

I mean your attitude towards posters from the start regarding there opinions.

[jmenges]

That's it for tonight, folks.
We'll try again tomorrow.

JM

[etenguy]

It was Allan Close by the way Eten. It only struck me this morning when I saw your post again. It shows how rusty we all get when we don’t discuss something for a significant time.

I should have checked before posting - it's been a while since I considered the Wallace case. Thanks for correcting me.

[GBinOz]

It is easy to imagine that Hanbury St was relatively deserted when Elizabeth Long claimed to have observed Annie Chapman and her murderer at 5:30am on Market Day. I discovered this photo of Brick Lane on Market Day in "Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates" by Evans and Rumbelow, in the section on Annie Chapman.



Would the street have been this crowded at 5:30am on Market Day? Possible indications that is was are:

John Richardson was already at work at his market stall by 5:00am.

Amelia Richardson at the Inquest:
"But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle.".

Elizabeth Long at the Inquest:
Did they appear sober? - I don't know, sir. I did not take particular notice of them. I did not see anything that made me think they were the worse for drink.
Was it not unusual to see a man and a woman talking together at that hour? - No; I see lots of them.

So Elizabeth Long was proceeding through the street on her way to work with no idea that a murder was about to take place in the backyard of a house on her route, and out of a crowd of people, and by not taking any particular notice of them, she was able to identify the victim of the murder four days later.

Long's story sounds pretty thin to me, but I accept it has its adherents.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

Monty Python Spanish Inquisition Part 1 - YouTube

[FISHY1118]

It is easy to imagine that Hanbury St was relatively deserted when Elizabeth Long claimed to have observed Annie Chapman and her murderer at 5:30am on Market Day. I discovered this photo of Brick Lane on Market Day in "Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates" by Evans and Rumbelow, in the section on Annie Chapman.



Would the street have been this crowded at 5:30am on Market Day? Possible indications that is was are:

John Richardson was already at work at his market stall by 5:00am.

Amelia Richardson at the Inquest:
"But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle.".

Elizabeth Long at the Inquest:
Did they appear sober? - I don't know, sir. I did not take particular notice of them. I did not see anything that made me think they were the worse for drink.
Was it not unusual to see a man and a woman talking together at that hour? - No; I see lots of them.

So Elizabeth Long was proceeding through the street on her way to work with no idea that a murder was about to take place in the backyard of a house on her route, and out of a crowd of people, and by not taking any particular notice of them, she was able to identify the victim of the murder four days later.

Long's story sounds pretty thin to me, but I accept it has its adherents.

Cheers, George

Very interesting addition to the topic George ,and sound reasoning regarding the Long issue.

[GBinOz]

There has been much discussion about the three witnesses in this case: Long who said she saw someone, Richardson who said he saw no-one, and Cadosch who said he heard some things.

The other witness said she heard no-one. Amelia Richardson was adamant that she would have heard anyone passing in the passage, which had a wooden floor. She heard, and spoke to Thompson at about 3:30am, and testified that he went out the front door without visiting the yard, but she seems to have missed five other traversings of that passageway. Two for Jack and Annie going to the yard, one for Jack returning and two for her son. She explained the first three missed detections by saying that at 5:30am there was the bustle of the market day, and they may have tiptoed to avoid detection. The other alternative is that those trips to and from the yard were before 3am, when she was asleep. However, John Richardson was wearing boots, possibly hob-nailed, so it is unlikely that he tripped the light fantastic down the hallway. So why didn't his mother hear him?

In my recent readings I came across a theory that it was because he wasn't there. The poster postulated that John had long since wearied of checking the lock on a cellar door to humour his mother. What was the point? If burglars had broken in they would likely be long gone, so why couldn't dear old mum check the lock herself each morning in the daylight?

So why would he tell Chandler that he was there that morning to check the lock? Was he dominated by an overbearing mother and afraid that she would find out he was deceiving her? Was he afraid of what his mother had already told Chandler? Suspicion was immediately cast upon him. The house was searched, John's clothes were examined for blood stains and he was searched. Curious that his little blunt dessert knife that he had accidentally put in his pocket that morning wasn't still in his pocket when he was searched. Would anyone have known if he had gone home (he lived just around the corner in John St) to change his clothes and left the knife in his other pocket?

So why add the doorstep cobbling story? Chandler testified that by standing on the step and looking to the right to check the lock, the door would have obscured the body. Richardson, feeling he was in hot water, needed a situation that would put beyond any doubt that he could not have missed the body and therefore could not be suspected of a murder that had yet to happen. A boot repair with a knife that, as Jon said, might as well have been a spoon, in his mind, did the trick.

This is all speculation, but it is new speculation, so could we refrain from repeating again the St John the Honest rebuttals and rusted on opinions and engage in some positive new open minded discussions please?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Very interesting addition to the topic George ,and sound reasoning regarding the Long issue.

Hi Fishy,

I recall that Warren had the GSG erased because of the crowds that assembled for the markets at about 5:30am.

I was going to suggest a scenario where posters consider their last visit to their supermarket coinciding with a criminal having been there at the same time, and being asked to attend an identification parade four days later to potentially convict him. But Damaso Marte posted and example here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/795398-i-was-an-eyewitness-today-how-i-did-itt#post795399

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Indeed George . Again some interesting points youve brought up, I belive in many of my previous post on this topic ive mention what i belive to be many possible descrepencies when looking at all the witness testimony .

One thing thats always bothered me that as yet had an answer im more than happy with , is the fact that Richardson claimed he came to the back door to check the lock and then went back to work . Chandlers confirms he told him this and nothing else regarding the boot cutting incident.

I just cant understand why Richardson didnt tell Chandler that only 2 hours earlier he sat on the middle step and cut his boot , and by that time he had already seen Chapmans murdered mutilated corpse in plain view!!!. A shocking sight for any person.

99 time out of 100 George one would think the first thing that should have come out of Richardsons mouth when he spoke to Chandler was ''jesus christ inspector i sat on that step 2 hour ago and i can tell you that body was definatley not there''

Which would you do, tell Chandler there and then or wait many hours later and tell a reporter ? .

Some might say, and have the right too of course [as we know nothing can be proven or disproven ] that 1 time Richardson just plain forgot , mentioned it and Chandler for some reason and he didnt report it, Chandler didnt hear him when he said it. Or even chandler could have lied , yes this may well have happened . But for me, and its only my opinion remember, and after reading your previous post i think there is enough evidence to cast suspicion or at the very least some doubt and uncertainty regarding the events of the morning of the Chapman murder .

[GBinOz]

Indeed George . Again some interesting points youve brought up, I belive in many of my previous post on this topic ive mention what i belive to be many possible descrepencies when looking at all the witness testimony .

One thing thats always bothered me that as yet had an answer im more than happy with , is the fact that Richardson claimed he came to the back door to check the lock and then went back to work . Chandlers confirms he told him this and nothing else regarding the boot cutting incident.

I just cant understand why Richardson didnt tell Chandler that only 2 hours earlier he sat on the middle step and cut his boot , and by that time he had already seen Chapmans murdered mutilated corpse in plain view!!!. A shocking sight for any person.

99 time out of 100 George one would think the first thing that should have come out of Richardsons mouth when he spoke to Chandler was ''jesus christ inspector i sat on that step 2 hour ago and i can tell you that body was definatley not there''

Which would you do, tell Chandler there and then or wait many hours later and tell a reporter ? .

Some might say, and have the right too of course [as we know nothing can be proven or disproven ] that 1 time Richardson just plain forgot , mentioned it and Chandler for some reason and he didnt report it, Chandler didnt hear him when he said it. Or even chandler could have lied , yes this may well have happened . But for me, and its only my opinion remember, and after reading your previous post i think there is enough evidence to cast suspicion or at the very least some doubt and uncertainty regarding the events of the morning of the Chapman murder .

Hi Fishy,

If he'd just told Chandler his abbreviated version it might be put down to adding details later, but he told the press the same story on the day, and again two days later. However, he also told another journalist on the tenth his new all improved augmented version that he repeated at the inquest. The Echo report on the 19th firmed my opinion on discounting JR's relevance, but it also had the effect of exonerating him, rightly or not. Richardson is an enigma. His presence at the scene of a crime at about the time of the crime qualifies him as a person of interest, but he could also be totally honest and innocent, or somewhere between. I don't think that deviation from a centre position markedly in either direction is justifiable. I lean slightly towards him being mistaken. JMO.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

If he'd just told Chandler his abbreviated version it might be put down to adding details later, but he told the press the same story on the day, and again two days later. However, he also told another journalist on the tenth his new all improved augmented version that he repeated at the inquest. The Echo report on the 19th firmed my opinion on discounting JR's relevance, but it also had the effect of exonerating him, rightly or not. Richardson is an enigma. His presence at the scene of a crime at about the time of the crime qualifies him as a person of interest, but he could also be totally honest and innocent, or somewhere between. I don't think that deviation from a centre position markedly in either direction is justifiable. I lean slightly towards him being mistaken. JMO.

Cheers, George

Fine George , in the end i guess were left with a lot of unanswerable questions as far as Richardson testimony goes.

[etenguy]

Fine George , in the end i guess were left with a lot of unanswerable questions as far as Richardson testimony goes.

hi Fishy

I am of the view that JR told the essence of his story with all the main points covered and expanded on it later. There are no contradictions, just more detail added, perhaps in answer to a journalists questions initially. it does not leave me with concerns or questions.

Long is more open to question though, I think. I don't get the sense of a bustling street from her testimony though, nor from Cadosch who says he saw neither Long nor her couple when he left at 5.32.