John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

He hears "no" at around 5:15, then a few minutes later comes back out and hears the thud. Just how long do you imagine strangulation can take?

Well ,if like most people who think the ''No'' was the start of the murder i.e ''Strangulation' , then 3/4 minutes later the same people think it was Chapmans body hitting the fence as she fell . Its very unlikely[ almost impossible id say] the killer was holding a dead lifeless body upright for that period of time before letting her go or/placing her down accidently letting her brush up agaisnt the fence !

So as per my previous post .If indeed the ''No'' it was the start iof the murder, it wasnt chapmans body that made the noise that cadosch heard brushing up against the fence, as she was already on the ground dead by the time he made his return trip inside

[Lewis C]

There seems to be some overlooking the obvious here....Liz Stride wasnt moved. She dropped and was found in that same position. But Polly was placed on her back and the legs were spread, so was Annie,. so was Kate. Unless you imagine that after choking them to a state of unconsciousness the just happen to fall on their back and their legs somehow spread open on their own. Even Mary was supposedly moved to the centre of the bed after being cut closer to the partition wall.

The victims were moved by the killer...at least after first subduing them, it isnt really debateable. The evidence is clear.

I thought when they were talking about moving the body they meant moving it to a different location rather than just placing the body on the ground in the location where she had stood.

[Wickerman]

There seems to be some overlooking the obvious here....Liz Stride wasnt moved. She dropped and was found in that same position. But Polly was placed on her back and the legs were spread, so was Annie,. so was Kate. Unless you imagine that after choking them to a state of unconsciousness the just happen to fall on their back and their legs somehow spread open on their own. Even Mary was supposedly moved to the centre of the bed after being cut closer to the partition wall.

The victims were moved by the killer...at least after first subduing them, it isnt really debateable. The evidence is clear.

Posed, is the word I would have used. Especially apparent in the Kelly case, though a similar argument could be made for Chapman.

[Michael W Richards]

Well ,if like most people who think the ''No'' was the start of the murder i.e ''Strangulation' , then 3/4 minutes later the same people think it was Chapmans body hitting the fence as she fell . Its very unlikely[ almost impossible id say] the killer was holding a dead lifeless body upright for that period of time before letting her go or/placing her down accidently letting her brush up agaisnt the fence !

So as per my previous post .If indeed the ''No'' it was the start iof the murder, it wasnt chapmans body that made the noise that cadosch heard brushing up against the fence, as she was already on the ground dead by the time he made his return trip inside

I think some fair rebuttal has been made, but to just address your post above, if the attack...meaning strangulation or some form thereof, garotting. choking,....its around 5:15. Just because no-one heard any scuffle before that later thud it doesnt negate the idea that the attack was ongoing for a brief time. Someone did get "no" out so the air wasnt cutoff effectively before she was subdued, a bad placement of cord or rope or wire or whatever can extend that strangulation process painfully. Perhaps they moved about shuffling while she tried to resist even after her air is cutoff. She wasnt cut standing up.

I think its perfectly plausible to imagine that her killer bumped the fence, perhaps with Annies body, while moving her to the position he decided he would use.

[Michael W Richards]

I thought when they were talking about moving the body they meant moving it to a different location rather than just placing the body on the ground in the location where she had stood.

I think I was not precise with my use of the word moved, its really just repositioned while she may there, but I did not intend to suggest the body came from elsewhere, Im sure Annie was killed in that yard, almost on the spot where she later found, killed by someone she thought was a client, initially subdued by some choking method then "positioned" according to his further intentions. I think this is a signature. And although a poorly chosen venue...perhaps Polly did something that necessitated immediate action in his mind, ..that signature is there too. Its hard to see that present in some other of these cases.

[Michael W Richards]

Posed, is the word I would have used. Especially apparent in the Kelly case, though a similar argument could be made for Chapman.

Hopefully you are sated by my revised "positioned", because the body itself might be moved slightly from the spot it falls on. Then posed. In Liz's case, do we see that at all? Did he even attempt to re-position her or pose her, because he must have had some short time there alone with her,..no-one sees him show up or leave, unless you factor in Blotchy and that sidebar..which I dont. He wasnt in imminent danger of getting scared off because he wouldnt have just resorted to the impulsive timing of his first kill... it wasnt completed. Failing to him Im sure. But that second victims killing went like butter. If the only trace he leaves of his presence there is his victim, then he had his act tuned. The only things found near Annie were hers, and no-one has found the things that were taken....although Dr T does have that little tidbit in his bio and legend. How many people in that house at that time, was it 17? Plus the overlooking windows of neighbors and within earshot in some. He has that act down.

Its present in Kates for the most part, however too many variables to be sure of much...starting with Lawendes sighting. And the cutting didnt seem as precise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We do not know whether Elizabeth Long saw Annie Chapman.

We do not know whether Albert Cadoche heard Annie Chapman say no, nor whether he heard her fall against the fence.

We do not know whether John Richardson sat on the second step and cut a piece of leather when he said he did.

But we do know that at about 6.30 a.m., Dr Phillips examined Annie Chapman and observed that rigor mortis had commenced and her body was almost completely cold.

That evidence suggests that she was killed at 4.30 a.m. or earlier.




The phenomenon of rigor mortis was first described in 1811 by the French physician, P.H. Nysten, but its physiological basis was not discovered until 1945 by Szent-Györgyi (2004). It consists of a sustained contraction of the muscles of the body, which begins at 2–6 hours after death

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rigor-mortis

Most textbooks report that most cases of rigor mortis commence between two to three hours after death.

https://biologydictionary.net/rigor-mortis/

muscular stiffening that begins 2 to 4 hours after death

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rigor%20mortis

Rigor mortis usually sets in between two and four hours after death.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rigor-mortis

At two to six hours: Rigor mortis (stiffening of muscles) will begin.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-happens-to-my-body-right-after-i-die-1132498

Rigor mortis begins within two to six hours of death

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/rigor-mortis-and-other-postmortem-changes

It begins two to four hours after death

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/rigor-mortis

Unlike livor mortis, which develops less than an hour from the time of death, rigor mortis begins 2 to 4 hours after death

https://www.osmosis.org/answers/livor-mortis

When it happens, it indicates that deaths had occurred from 2-4 hours ago.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343473450_An_overview_of_Rigor_Mortis

This stiffness, known as rigor mortis, occurs about two to six hours after death.

https://www.britannica.com/story/what-happens-to-our-bodies-after-we-die

Rigor mortis starts to develop 2–4 hours after death

Role of Rigor Mortis in Assessment of Time Since Death
medicopublication.com


Typically, the onset of rigor mortis begins at approximately 2 to 6 hours after death

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300985816629720

Rigor mortis happens within two to seven hours after death.

https://www.virtualhospice.ca/en_US/Main+Site+Navigation/Home/Topics/Topics/Final+Days/Care+of+the+Body+After+Death.aspx

It begins two to four hours after death

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rigor-mortis

How about we look at what some real experts in the field think shall we?


From: Forensic Biology For The Law Enforcement Officer by Charles Grady Wilber,1974

'The stiffening of the body or rigor mortis develops usually within an hour or two hours after death.'


Or…..


From: EstimationOf Time Of Death by Ranald Munro and Helen M.C. Munro.

"The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2-4 hours) after death.'


Shall we ask a legend in the field of Pathology?

"Francis E. Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."


Let’s try another one…

"Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."


Or…

Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."

Or….

From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'


Or…

Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short".The paper also states that according to W.G. Aitcheson Robertson, author of 'Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', in "death followed by convulsions, muscular exertion, racing, the rigor mortis will appear earlier". We are told thatMason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat. Then what about the physical condition of the deceased? Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"


What does Jason Payne James say in a standard text on the subject? (He was the expert used in Fisherman’s Lechmere documentary by the way)…

From Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

Or….

From the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology:

The time of onset and duration of Rigor is varied by multiple factors as will be discussed shortly but in general it is likely to be apparent in about 1-2 hours after death,


Or again….

From Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition (updated by Jason Payne James and others)

'...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'


I’ll just add one more….

Mason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.".

…. like someone getting their throat cut perhaps?




Constantly quoting an average (2-4 hours) serves no purpose except to confirm a bias.

Modern day experts tell us (without exception) that the methods used by Dr. Phillips to assess the TOD were unreliable and subject to variation due to numerous factors…some of which we know today but Dr. Phillips wouldn’t have been aware of in 1888. It’s why they aren’t relied on today. This is a fact and not an opinion.



Hypothetical Scenario:

A woman is found strangled in the bedroom of her flat at 4.00 pm. Her body was near her bed but just behind the door as the room was entered. A Doctor says that she had probably been dead for around 4 to 6 hours with the former being the likelier time but due to the nature of her death and the fact that she was seriously ill at the time plus other certain factors he accepted that there might be some leeway in his estimated range. So according to his original estimation the TOD was between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm. But….

At 12.15 pm her mother visited her but there was no response when she rung the bell so she took her key out and let herself in. She looked in every room, including the bedroom, but her daughter wasn’t in so she left, intending to call back later.

At 12.45 pm a neighbour (who didn’t know the deceased) left her flat and saw a woman, who closely resembled her standing downstairs near to the lift talking to an unidentified man. She later saw the deceased at the morgue and said that she was certain that it was the same woman that she’d seen at 12.45 near the lift. She was also sure of her time because she was going to work and she always caught the 12.55 bus, so it was certainly around 12.45 when she’d seen the woman because her bus stop was around 7 minutes walk away.

At 1.00 pm a next door neighbour heard a cry which she thought came from the deceased woman’s flat but as it was out of the blue she couldn’t be 100% certain that it didn’t come from different neighbour. Naturally this made her curious and more attentive though and 5 minutes later she heard a noise which she was absolutely certain came from the deceased’s flat.

The police had one suspect….her ex-boyfriend. It was known that they’d had a violent relationship and that the split was acrimonious. The previous day they had bumped into each other in the town and the ex-boyfriend had pleaded with her to take him back. A loud argument ensued with bystanders hearing the ex-boyfriend making threats against her. But…..his alibi was that he was proven to have been in the company of various people between 10 am and 12.45 pm at a location that was around 5 minutes away from the block of flats where his ex-girlfriend was killed.

So…..should the police exonerate the ex-boyfriend by rigidly adhering to a TOD estimate? I’d say absolutely not but if you and others would apparently (as per your opinion on Chapman’s TOD) then you should claim that (even though a later TOD was within a reasonable estimation range) the deceased’s mother missed seeing her body and lied about how thoroughly she’d looked around the flat, that one neighbour saw someone else who just looked like the victim or got the day or time wrong and wouldn’t admit to any possibility of being mistaken and that the other neighbour was wrong about the noise even though she was a very few feet from her wall when she heard the noise and was already alerted to something going on next door and she also wouldn’t accept the possibility of error. It would also have to be suggested that you would assume that the police wouldn’t have bothered checking various clocks and phones because it was assumed that they were always accurate and synchronised.

If we were faced with my scenario how many of us would suggest exonerating the boyfriend? But this is just what is being suggested when discussing Chapman’s death. I’m sorry to say it but it smacks of an agenda. We should follow the evidence and the evidence very clearly favours a later TOD. It’s not even close imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes but the two different sketchers both show the gaps in the palings tho dont they ? So both artist responsible for them must have seen gaps as to draw them . Its still open for interpretation.

But we have to ask ourselves an obvious question when considering which is the more accurate version of the fence in the sketches. Is it at all likely that the police, when questioning Cadosch about what he’d heard from the other side of that fence, wouldn’t have noticed this fence and asked the obvious question: “how come you didn’t see anything through these large gaps in the fence when you were standing right next to it?” Why would they have asked him why he hadn’t looked over the fence if it was obvious that he would have been able to have seen through it?

We’re on very solid ground to say that there couldn’t have been gaps as shown in the sketch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree.

For Long to have been wrong about the time, she has to have made two mistakes: to mistake the quarter-past chime for the half-past chime and to have lost track of time that morning.

There is nothing in her testimony to suggest that her trip to the market was anything other than a routine one and that her noticing the 5.30 a.m. chime was to be expected around that time.

For Long to have been right in her identification of Chapman, too many other things need to have been wrong.

It is evident from Cadoche's testimony that he noticed no conflict between his own timing at home and that of the clock he passed.

As I have pointed out before, the many timings given at the Eddowes inquest are all more or less in agreement with one another and only one witness at the Nichols inquest got the time wrong.

The unreliability of clocks is, in my opinion, exaggerated, and it is asking too much to expect one to accept that clocks were wrong and/or Long was wrong about the time in order to have Cadoche hearing the woman seen by Chapman being murdered.

... apart from the fact that it means having to find a 40-plus Jewish man who according to Long's testimony was not even standing in front of number 29 before he supposedly entered it.

It seems strange that anyone who trusts the nonsense written by Macnaghten and Swanson about Kosminski should at the same time favour someone about twice his age as a suspect - unless we are expected to dismiss such an age difference as due to the unreliability of witness testimony, in which case one wonders what reliability can be attached to Long's identification of Chapman.

“The unreliability of clocks is, in my opinion, exaggerated..”

Based on what evidence? Intuition? Or is it more a case of wish-thinking and your unwillingness to accept the inconvenient? That clocks were often poorly synchronised is a fact PI, proven by evidence which has been produced on here by Jeff and it’s from people who know far more about the subject than you or I do, unless you’re an expert on Victorian timekeeping and timepieces too? To claim that clocks were all accurate and synchronised isn’t worth even the briefest of considerations. If clocks can be wrong and poorly synchronised in 2023 I struggle to see how you could claim that Victorian timepieces were somehow better and more reliable?

A few days ago I had family visiting so there were 5 other people in my house so I took the opportunity to do a very simple experiment. I checked the time on my phone and it was 3.30. I then asked the other 5 to check their phones and got 1 x 3.28, 1 x 3.31, 2 x 3.33’s and a 3.35. The clock on my hi-fi said 3.30, the one on the living room wall said 3.31, the one on the kitchen wall said 3.36 and the one on the microwave said 3.33.

So in 2023, five smartphones, one iPhone and four modern clocks gave a range of 8 minutes at the same time. So why do you sound so incredulous when it’s suggested that such discrepancies or errors of timings could have occurred 135 years ago in the middle of one of Europe’s worst slums?

Elizabeth Long said that it was about 5.30 (after hearing the chimes of a clock) when she saw the couple.

Cadosch was less certain in regard to time. He said: “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.”

This was the point when he heard the ‘no.’ Hardly pinpoint accurate timing is it? The ‘about’ makes it unlikely that he’d consulted a clock as soon as he’d got up or he’d have been able to have given an exact time as per that clock so perhaps he’d been ‘knocked up?” If so, we can’t assume that this would have occurred at exactly the same time every day. That fact that these are estimations can’t be ignored. It’s been explained before that there is no issue of timing with the 3 witnesses. Do we really need to go over it again?


You are working far, far too hard to dismiss witnesses to favour a Victorian Doctor’s estimate. Why is that PI?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, Jeff, when one talks of what's likely and what's unlikely, how likely is it that Cadoche heard Chapman say no to the Whitechapel Murderer and about five minutes later, her being murdered and pushed against the fence?

And how likely is that five minute interval, when considering that it was starting to get light?

And how likely is it that the murderer would overlook water with which to wash his hands at such an hour?

This is based on 2 assumptions. That the “no” was the point at which Chapman was assaulted and that sound was Chapman falling against the fence. If we make these true then of course it makes little sense but they aren’t true, they are assumptions. The alternatives, which have been mentioned numerous times, make perfect sense.

It’s instructive that no one has ever been able to give a remotely plausible suggestion as to what could have made the noise in a yard that they claim was home to a mutilated corpse.

How far can the evidence be stretched in an attempt to bolster a Doctor’s provably unreliable estimate? And why would you feel compelled to? This is all obvious stuff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats one possibility, however

The only problem there is, the injuries inflicted on Chapman were all done from her right side. There was no need for the killer to move her body from the position which she was found, or for him to be between Chapman and the fence to make the noise heard by Cadosch.

Could you point us in the direction of the evidence that Chapman’s injuries were done from her right side Fishy please? I see no mention of this ‘fact’ in Phillips inquest testimony. Or if the killer was left or right handed (or ambidextrous for that matter?) Or that the body must have fallen in the position and location that it was discovered in and so didn’t require moving? And when I say moving I’m only talking of moving in terms of a foot or two - perhaps more a change of position.

It’s also worth mentioning Chapman’s few belongings found in the yard. This meant that the killer had found these items (for reasons known only to himself) which would have involved searching her person and could have involved moving the body to access any pockets that she might have had and which may have been tucked beneath her inside her skirts. So we can add another possibility….that he brushed against the fence whilst searching her.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Albert Cadosch and Elizabeth Long are surplus to requirements but they serve to reinforce the obvious. John Richardson proves close to an absolute certainty that Annie Chapman died at some time between 5.20 and 5.30 despite the evidential gymnastics which we see displayed in the attempt to show that a Victorian Doctor out-performed modern day Forensic experts in estimating TOD. That Dr. Phillips could accurately estimate TOD using body temperature (by the mere touch of his hand no less!) the notoriously unreliable rigor mortis, livor mortis and digestion (which was based an unconfirmed assumption ) - something that experts in 2023 can’t do, shouldn’t be worthy of the confidence displayed by some. And yet Phillips was apparently so far ahead of his time, such a super-genius, that some feel it worthwhile to bend over backwards to try and discredit and dismiss witnesses simply to uphold his estimate. Isn’t it time that this effort to distort reality ended?

So what are the chances that Richardson missed seeing an horrifically mutilated corpse, lying with her knees splayed, around a foot from his left boot? I’d say about as likely as the killer being a one-legged, one-armed blind, deaf man dressed in a pink teddy bear costume. We have gone into these details before so I really don’t want to disappear back down the same rabbit hole but for a start, to get to a position where he descended the steps to put his feet on the flags Richardson would have had to have opened the door to around a ninety degree angle or obviously he’d have been walking straight into the door itself….look at the huge gap under the door and tell me that he could have missed the corpse. Apart from that Richardson said that he could see all of the yard, and as he was fully aware of the location of the body and how much floor space it had taken up (he’d actually seen the body in situ later) and he would have been totally aware of whether a door could or couldn’t have concealed the body from him. He was 100% certain that it couldn’t have and that there was no blind spot. For him to have missed it he would have had to have been both an idiot and a liar. But as Richardson himself said that he could see all of the yard then we have to dismiss that option which means that to dismiss it he has to be accused of lying….based on no evidence.

Could he have lied? What reason would he have had? He had already admitted to being at the scene (he could easily have lied about that and said that he’d just gone into his mother’s place to see her or to collect something but hadn’t actually gone into the yard and no one would have been any the wiser) Or just as easily he could have said that he’d gone to the back door, leaned out to check the cellar door and then gone back inside, accepting that possibility that the corpse could have been behind the door. But no, he places himself on the back step, where he couldn’t have missed the body and with a knife in his hand. Why on earth would any none-halfwit have done this unless it was what actually happened?

What about Chandler’s comment about Richardson not mentioning the boot repair to him? I’ll start by asking a question - how is it that some have no issue calling Macnaghten, Anderson, Swanson, PC’s Long, Hutt, Robinson and others liars or possible liars at times and yet Chandler is assumed to have been perfectly honest or efficient and beyond error and given a free pass? Couldn’t he have lied to cover his own a**e for not questioning Richardson closely enough about what he’d actually done? I’m not saying that he did lie but it’s possible, he was human and it shouldn’t be entirely dismissed. Could he have been mistaken? Why not? People make mistakes and this wasn’t a formal interview after all and we have no proof of what was or wasn’t actually said, especially in an interview which took place in a corridor at a busy murder scene with Chandler under pressure? How can we be certain that Richardson didn’t say ‘sat’ and that Chandler in trying to write everything down quickly put ‘stood’ in a notebook by mistake as he’d trying to keep up with what Richardson was telling him or perhaps he didn’t write it down and was relying on memory? Richardson might even have seen no reason for mentioning what he was doing. He might have said something like: “I went to the back door to check the cellar and there was no body there,” to which Chandler might have asked: “but are you certain that you couldn’t have missed seeing the body?” With Richardson replying: “no chance, it was getting light and I could see all of the yard.” We don’t know exactly what was said so we shouldn’t assume that we do. We should also remember that Richardson testified before Chandler did at the inquest so he had no opportunity to respond and explain. Richardson might even have been reluctant initially to mention that he was using a knife for obvious reasons and so he kept quiet about it but had to explain fully after he was pressed later on whether he could have missed seeing the body.

So how likely would it have been for a man at the scene of a brutal knife murder to have lied and placed a knife in his own hands for no reason? After all even someone of the meanest intelligence could have come up with a less potentially incriminating lie to explain why he couldn’t have missed seeing a body (he’d actually have been better off saying: “yes, perhaps it was behind the door and I didn’t see it.”) A better lie like, that he’d sat on the steps to have a smoke or that he crossed the yard to use the outside loo. But no, he explains that he was trying to repair his boot because that was very obviously what he’d done. I think that it’s also worth asking why an innocent Richardson would have lied when he’d have known that the police might have apprehended the killer and discovered that the murder had taken place before he’d arrived at the yard? The points against him lying are obvious but still they get ignored in the rush to dismiss him.

Then we have the point about Richardson saying that he cut leather from his boot and then mentioning that the knife wasn’t sharp enough. On the face of it this appears a strange of course but there are few points that need to be made on this. We don’t have a verbatim report and so a missing sentence or even a missing word or two can significantly change the meaning of any sentence and so context is important.

Richardson said “…it was not sharp enough…” This doesn’t have to mean that it wasn’t sharp enough to cut a piece of leather. It could easily have meant that ‘it was not sharp enough’ to do a sufficiently thorough job. That he couldn’t cut off enough leather. The Times inquest report doesn’t even mention this matter which tells us how inexact these reports were.

If the ‘suspicious’ interpretation is applied then not only do we have to accept that Richardson was saying something as nonsensical as, in effect, ‘I cut a piece of leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut a piece of leather from my boot” but we have to accept that neither the coroner nor any member of the jury picked him up on this piece of gibberish. No one said “hold on Mr. Richardson, how could the knife have been both ‘not sharp’ enough’ and ‘sharp enough?’” The fact that no one did pull him up on this should confirm that he never said this or meant this. If the coroner was at all suspicious why did he never ask him to produce the second knife (which was sharper and a more plausible possible murder weapon if it wasn’t because nothing that Richardson had said had given him the slightest cause for concern?) I’ll repeat…the Coroner heard nothing suspicious or dodgy in anything that Richardson said. He was there, we weren’t.

Then we have to ask ourselves why he would have told a pointless lie? When the apparent bluntness of the knife was mentioned he could have just said ‘well it was only a minor repair and it was good enough.” He couldn’t have been asked to recreated the repair for the inquest after all. The lie suggestion just doesn’t hold water whichever way we look at it. Unless we look at it with a deliberate attempt to discredit Richardson of course. It might be suggested that Richardson could have been a bit dim but we can’t assume that an experienced Coroner was so stupid that he missed an obvious discrepancy concerning a knife at an inquest on a knife murder and where the witness in question was actually at the scene! Because there was none. This couldn’t be more obvious.

John Richardson was transparently telling the truth in my opinion when he said that he’d sat on the step to repair his boot and that there was no corpse there. Because there very obviously wasn’t. Cadosch and Long serve to strengthen this obvious fact. I can imagine casual readers shaking there heads in disbelief at the lengths that some will go to to promote Philips and to denigrate witnesses. Anyone would think that there was an agenda going on.



I’ll finish with a question - if we had no estimate from Phillips would we dismiss Richardson, Cadosch and Long on their own merit as witnesses? I don’t think so. It’s only because of Phillips that some feel the need to try and create reasons for dismissing these witnesses. There’s no stronger witness in the case as John Richardson imo. Three witnesses over a Victorian Doctor’s unreliable estimated TOD range every day of the year.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for your response, Fishy, but my question was really rhetorical.

There has never been any evidence of any of the bodies having been moved.

What evidence could exist? If the killer strangled Chapman can we assume that she conveniently fell in the exact position and location that she was found in? If she had landed in a position that wasn’t ideal for carrying out the rest of his work then he could have moved her leaving no trace. Without evidence we can’t assume or dismiss this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well ,if like most people who think the ''No'' was the start of the murder i.e ''Strangulation' , then 3/4 minutes later the same people think it was Chapmans body hitting the fence as she fell . Its very unlikely[ almost impossible id say] the killer was holding a dead lifeless body upright for that period of time before letting her go or/placing her down accidently letting her brush up agaisnt the fence !

So as per my previous post .If indeed the ''No'' it was the start iof the murder, it wasnt chapmans body that made the noise that cadosch heard brushing up against the fence, as she was already on the ground dead by the time he made his return trip inside

Some might ‘think’ that the ‘no’ was the start but that’s an assumption which might well not have been the case. And even if it was the case then, as has been explained numerous times, the sound didn’t have to be the body actually falling against the fence. There are other very plausible, very possible explanations. So basically what’s being said is, in effect: “I assume that x is the case and I assume that y is the case therefore z can’t be correct.”

Do you have any suggestions as to who or what could have been innocently moving around in a yard containing a mutilated corpse that was capable of brushing or bumping against a fence hard enough for Cadosch to have heard noise that was made?

[Herlock Sholmes]

John Richardson is accused by some of being a liar due to what he said at the inquest about the knife. I’d suggest that this was clearly down to an incomplete or incorrect version of what was said but that tends to get ignored as inconvenient. So if we apply the same kind of thinking fairly… which of Dr. Phillips and Inspector Chandler was lying about the finding of the objects belonging to Chapman?

Chandler said: “After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman. A portion of an envelope was found near her head, which contained two pills.”

Phillips said: “I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there. I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police.”

Chandler stated explicitly that he found the items after the body had been removed. And as the items were at the victims feet we have to ask how he could have missed seeing them as soon as he first looked around?

From Phillips testimony it’s impossible to deduce at what point he supposedly found the items but he mentions noticing remaining heat in the body after he mentions finding the items so did he have a quick look at the body and then a look around the crime scene before taking a closer look at the body? I don’t know but he said that he immediately handed the items to the police.

Either way, going exactly on what was said (as is done by some in John Richardson’s case) we would have to assume that either Dr. Phillips or Inspector Chandler were lying.

Take your pick….or is there an innocent explanation that is lost to us in the transcriptions?