John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Actually, Dr. Phillips isn't even the odd one out. Estimates of the ToD even today have a margin of error of +-3 hours. Dr. Phillips estimated 4:30, that means the window associated with that estimate spans from 1:30 to 7:30; meaning the estimate places the ToD not "at" 4:30, but between 1:30 and 7:30.

Davies testifies he found the body around 6:00, so based upon that witness testimony we can rule out some of the medical based time window (basically rule out 6:00 to 7:30). Based upon the witness testimony of Donovan we know she was seen alive when she left the doss house around 1:50, so again we use the witness testimony to narrow down the medical time window even more(we remove the part from 1:30 to 1:50).

We use witness testimony to fine tune the rather broad time range that such medical estimates give us. We now, based upon witness testimony, only have to consider her death as occurring between 1:50 and 6:00, rather than 1:30 and 7:30.

Given the witnesses in question point towards a time around 5:25-5:30, and given that falls between 1:50 and 6:00, and given there is no definite evidence that all of those witnesses are wrong, the time that corresponds to all of the testimony, both witnesses and medical, is a window around 5:25-5:30 ish.

In short, if we make the assumption that Long, Richardson, and Cadoshe are all wrong, even though all could be right, there is still no basis to prefer say 4:00 over 5:25, all we can say is that she died somewhere between 1:50 and 6:00, which is still window that is based upon witness testimony. If we throw them out too, and want to argue only based upon Dr. Phillips estimated ToD, then one is left with saying she died somewhere between 1:30 and 7:30 - and there is no justification for choosing any particular point in that time window - just somewhere in there (so even then we have no justification for saying it couldn't be 5:25).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Correct as ever. I did recall that you’d previously talked about margins for error in todays estimates but I couldn’t recall the exact details so I chickened out and side-stepped it. As you’ve said, this presents a position where we could still plausibly suggest a later ToD even if Richardson, Cadosch and Long had never existed. In a previous discussion I’d put it that, in effect, Phillips is neutral on this issue which caused much gnashing of teeth but I stand by it! We can’t re-assess the condition of the body at the time and we have a +-3 hr margin for error to consider (even at the existent level of knowledge 135 years later)

The reality of the situation is that we certainly have no reason to favour Phillips over the witnesses (and yet much effort is made to do just that). I’d call that pretty much of a no brainer Jeff (but not 100% of course)

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Correct as ever. I did recall that you’d previously talked about margins for error in todays estimates but I couldn’t recall the exact details so I chickened out and side-stepped it. As you’ve said, this presents a position where we could still plausibly suggest a later ToD even if Richardson, Cadosch and Long had never existed. In a previous discussion I’d put it that, in effect, Phillips is neutral on this issue which caused much gnashing of teeth but I stand by it! We can’t re-assess the condition of the body at the time and we have a +-3 hr margin for error to consider (even at the existent level of knowledge 135 years later)

The reality of the situation is that we certainly have no reason to favour Phillips over the witnesses (and yet much effort is made to do just that). I’d call that pretty much of a no brainer Jeff (but not 100% of course)

No worries Herlock. It's easy to fixate on the point estimate, but when dealing with estimates, or any thing witnesses say, there is always a margin of error and you cannot assess an estimate without also considering the error range of that estimate. For ToD, the error range is pretty large and it is easy to forget that.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

It's always been a rather messy sequence of events surrounding the murder of Chapman.

We have a random appearance from Richardson; who by his own admission has a knife (to cut the troublesome piece of leather from his boot) and would have seen the body had Chapman of been there at the time he was there.

Do we know where Richardson went afterward? Did he make it to work?

We have a witness next door, who uses the outhouse facilities a couple of times and despite hearing something hit the fence after hearing a woman say 'No,'...he can't see over a 5ft fence at a time when it would have been light enough to see. The only way he wouldn't be able to see the killer would be if the killer was plush up against the fence and kneeling down to Chapman the whole time Cadosch was outside.

We then have John Davis who seems to take an eternity to get up, make a tea, and then go downstairs to eventually find the body. The murder occurring around the time he was making his brew. His only real alibi for taking so long, is his making the tea.

We have an estimated time of death that is completely wrong and misleading and contravenes all the witnesses.

The only credible witness we have is Elizabeth Long, who gives a brief and accurate account of what she saw and almost certainly saw the killer standing with Chapman shortly before he killed her. Unlike the alleged MJK witness; the elusive George Hutchinson, who gives an exaggerated description of the potential killer...Elizabeth Long gives what would be considered a 'typical' response to what she saw.
Furthermore, her timing could have only been up to 5 minutes out either way, on the basis that 5 minutes is a reasonable amount of 'give and take' time.

The question is, seeing as Hanbury street is busier than a public house with multiple witnesses; how did JTR know when he had time to kill AND escape? Similar to Stride and MJK, there was arguably only 1 point of escape; back through the front of the house and into Hanbury Street... So how did he leave without being seen?


At what point did Richardson state that he left back through the front of the house and into Hanbury Street to go on to work? This is important because JTR and Chapman made no visual contact with Richardson (based on Richardson not seeing Chapman and the potential killer standing outside).

In other words, how long was it BETWEEN Richardson leaving back through the front of the house, to the point when Long sees Chapman standing outside the front of 29 Hanbury street?
And why did he kill her n the back garden when there was clearly a lot of activity with Davis being up making his tea and Cadosch using the outdoor facilities on multiple occasions?

There was also several other witnesses meeting up a few doors down prior to their work.. and none of them saw anything. That would suggest the killer left in the opposite direction after the murder.

Another interesting point is the placement of the items belonging to Chapman and other items found in the garden which appear to have been placed. This adds time to the killer being in the garden and increases his chances of getting caught because by the time he left, it would have been light enough to have seen the body laying in the garden from the windows of the building.
I believe that he intended to kill Chapman earlier, but he pushed it as late as he could.


Of course, there's a chance that Long was wrong, Cadosch wasn't there and Richardson never stopped off like he said he did. In which case, the killer may have killed Chapman earlier to correspond with the initial clinical TOD.

Personally, i think this, while possible, is highly improbable.

I believe that both Cadosch and Richardson were never there BUT Long was STILL correct and did see the killer with Chapman shortly before he killed her. I don't believe JTR would have taken the risk of killing her in the garden when the likes of Richardson and Cadosch were around. The garden would have been clear and the only person who actually went into the garden was Davis when he found her.

Thoughts?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

With Long, who I think is one of the interesting puzzles in the case, we have a number of statements that all have to be considered.
1) She says she left home at 5:00 and headed to the market.
2) She says she saw a man and woman outside of #29, and overhears part of a conversation ("Will you?").
3) She identifies Annie Chapman as the woman she saw, and goes so far as to say she is sure it is the same woman.
4) She recalls hearing the Brewer's clock strike the half hour.

All of that would be fine, and we would have no way of questioning it, except for Cadosche's testimony of hearing people talking in the back yard of #29 (Hearing someone say "No"), and later hearing something bump against the fence where Annie's body is subsequently found. Cadoshe's testimony places these events before 5:30, as he appears to leave home at that time (he passes the Spitalfield's clock at 5:32 on his way to work, and it's about a 2 minute walk from his house based upon the distance).

We're dealing with a discrepancy in the order of minutes here, which could be nothing more than the fact that Cadosche and Long are basing their times on different clocks.

But, there are indications that Long may very well have misremembered which set of chimes she heard, and that it was 5:15 at the time of her sighting and not 5:30. First, that is exactly the type of error of detail that witnesses will make, yes she heard the chimes, but later misremembers which ones they were (obviously, she didn't necessarily misidentify them at the time she heard them, just later when she recalls her walk to the market after hearing about the murder, she has to recall those events and that's when details can get blurred).

While she states her address, people have tried to locate that address, and there appears to be something not quite right with it. As such, there are some old threads where people were trying to work out where she lived. In that thread a number of possible locations were suggested, none confirmed but one did look more promising than the rest. I've measured the distance from each of the various possible addresses, and if she left from any of those at around 5:00, she should have passed by Hanbury street very close to 5:15. If we could verify with certainty her address, I would be happier with this, but at the moment, it is still not rock solid as it would be best if her actual residence location could be confirmed properly (as there is always the chance that none of the above proposed addresses is correct).

There is no way to test if her identification of Annie was correct or not. She states it with confidence, but people can be very confident in things they are wrong about. Confidence and accuracy are not the same thing, although I believe there is some evidence of a correlation, it is not particularly strong.

It is possible she was wrong both about the time and the identification. It is possible she was wrong about the time she left for the market. It is possible she left around 5:00 and stopped along the way somewhere, which she never mentions. There are tonnes of ways things could have gone. But based upon what we do know from her statements, combined with the possible addresses people have suggested for her residence, the most straight forward reading is that she left around 5:00, passed Hanbury Street around 5:15, saw Annie and a man, and continued to the market. In her testimony the only error of detail would be the time at Hanbury Street. If, however, that detail is correct, it appears one has to argue she got the 5:00 o'clock leaving time wrong, and she actually left closer to 5:15. One is still having to "correct her time by 15 minutes", but one of those corrections reconciles her testimony with Cadosche, and validates her confidence in her identification of Chapman, while the other doesn't fit with Cadosche and usually results in concluding that despite her confidence it still wasn't Annie.

Yes, both of those are possible, but that means we cannot rule out the possibility that Long did indeed see Chapman alive and well.

As for Deimshutz, his time entirely reconciles with the events. I built a recreation of the events around the Stride case, and working backwards from Dr. Blackwell's arrival on the scene at 1:16, and calculating the passage of time based upon people's movements and distances and using research to convert people's estimates of durations (i.e. I waited 5 minutes - generally means someone actually waited closer to 3 or 4, we over estimate short durations, and starting around an hour, we tend to under estimate them ; i.e. I waited 1 h 15 is more likely to be a true wait of 1 h 35 m - I'm making these example numbers up as I don't have the table with me, but I posted it on some Stride related threads a while ago).

Anyway, by working backwards that way, rather than setting events based upon the time the witnesses give, that results in Deimshutz arriving at the club almost bang on 1 o'clock (might be +- 1 minute type thing). So Diemshutz's testimony is entirely consistent with all the rest. In fact, despite the complications with the Stride case given the large number of witnesses and all the comings and goings, the events tend to line up pretty good. There was only one witness, one of the PCs, who appears to have their times set to a noticeably different clock (around 5 minutes out?), which given the clock sync issue is still pretty reliable.

So I would suggest that Diemshutz testimony does indeed reconcile very easily. Long's appears not to though. Basically, by performing the same type of analysis, it shows how the approach can both show a questioned time statement to be acceptable or not. In D's case it was acceptable, in L's case, not so much.

Again, the analysis doesn't prove Long must have misremembered the time, but it does suggest that a simple time detail error (a pretty trivial and common type of error), easily reconciles her entire statement, justifies her confidence in the ID, and certainly means her statements could be correct. Could still be wrong, but there's no way for us to know for sure.

- Jeff

Thanks for your perceptions on this Jeff. I will offer 2 points in return, if Mrs Long made her alleged sighting at 5:15, that means someone else was in that backyard at approximately the same time. The fact that he hears a voice, then shortly thereafter a thud, suggests that the party that made the "no" call is still in that yard when the thud occurs. No-one was there just before 5, someone was there just after Five, and a dead woman is there near 6am. These combined facts suggest the Cadosche heard the killer and Annie just after 5. So Mrs Long still would be incorrect.

As for Louis, we have numerous witnesses that gave statements that cannot be reconciled with his arrival "precisely" at 1. We have Mrs Mortimer at her door "nearly the whole time" between 12:30 and 1..only going inside, presumably to sleep, at 1...she saw nothing, we have the young couple who were interviewed and saw nothing including Israel Schwartz, a Pipe smoking fella and Liz Stride, we have Eagle and Kozebrodski suggesting that they went for help before 1am, we have that PC you mentioned saying he was summoned there before 1. There are other members who said they were alerted to the dead woman about 20 minutes to 1....I beg to differ with you that Louis's statement of the time reconciles with all the other accounts. It really doesnt.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Some simple questions intrigue me when we put together the evidence of Davis, Richardson, Long, Cadosch and Phillips, the only relevant witnesses recorded. If we allow for the possibility of simple nominal human error, like mistaking a clock stricking quarter past the hour for half past, or just that the two clocks simply weren't in sync, and bear in mind that Phillips made certain that the Coroner knew that he wasn't insistent on his ToD, then we have a murder at about 5. 30 am. The Coroner, who would have experienced this sort of minor time discrepancy on previous occasions, dismissed the time differences as "not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details,but that the variation was not very great or very important".

So, if these witnesses aren't being truthful, how is it that their times match so reasonably well? Did each of them know exactly what all of the others were saying before they made their statements? For example, did Long know about the evidence of all of the others before she made her statement? Did Cadosch? If they didn't, how come the only witness statements that exist can be matched if they aren't correct? What are the chances of these statements being wrong, but still agreeing so closely?

In other words, were the police at the outset, ignoring the first ToD suggested by Phillips, and looking for a murder time that fitted the evidence of Davis and Richardson? I don't think that this is the case, because we know from Swanson that the police initially accepted Phillips' ToD and suspected Richardson, checking out his story thoroughly, and examining his clothing for blood.

So, does anyone know whether Long and Cadosch came forward only after a police statement that the murder must have taken place between 4. 45 am and 6 am?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your perceptions on this Jeff. I will offer 2 points in return, if Mrs Long made her alleged sighting at 5:15, that means someone else was in that backyard at approximately the same time. The fact that he hears a voice, then shortly thereafter a thud, suggests that the party that made the "no" call is still in that yard when the thud occurs. No-one was there just before 5, someone was there just after Five, and a dead woman is there near 6am. These combined facts suggest the Cadosche heard the killer and Annie just after 5. So Mrs Long still would be incorrect.

Well, Cadosche says he got up around 5:15, and he appears to leave for work around 5:30 (in order to pass the Spitalfields clock at 5:32), so the events he describes would occur after 5:15 (after my proposed time for Long's sighting). Long just moved on after seeing the couple, and if they were Annie and JtR, then what must have happened is they went to the backyard of #29 after Long past but before Cadosche goes to the loo the first time and hears one of them say "no" (to the best of my knowledge, Cadosche never says if the No was said by a male or female, so unless that detail is contained in one of the reports, then either of them could have been the speaker). I'm not sure how Long being mistaken in her recollection of the time would mean we have to conclude that Cadoche's testimony also has to be adjusted to mean Cadosche hears things just after 5, given he testifies he got up at 5:15. Long's error doesn't mean Cadoshe also erred.

To be clear, I obviously don't know for a fact that Long has made an error, but given some of the things I've looked at and mentioned elsewhere, I think that is a very real possibility. On the other hand, by looking at Cadoshe's testimony in a similar way, I don't see anything to suggest his times are unlikely.

As for Louis, we have numerous witnesses that gave statements that cannot be reconciled with his arrival "precisely" at 1. We have Mrs Mortimer at her door "nearly the whole time" between 12:30 and 1..only going inside, presumably to sleep, at 1...she saw nothing, we have the young couple who were interviewed and saw nothing including Israel Schwartz, a Pipe smoking fella and Liz Stride, we have Eagle and Kozebrodski suggesting that they went for help before 1am, we have that PC you mentioned saying he was summoned there before 1. There are other members who said they were alerted to the dead woman about 20 minutes to 1....I beg to differ with you that Louis's statement of the time reconciles with all the other accounts. It really doesnt.

The Stride case is incredibly complicated as there are so many witnesses, some who appear only in the news, and so forth. The more and more witnesses one includes, the more and more likely some of them will introduce errors. The problem is working out who made the errors, and what those errors were. That's the challenge, and that's where different views come from. For what it's worth, and I've covered this in detail on some Stride threads ages ago and there's the simulation/recreation that I put together as a result, I found that Deimshutz's stated time could be recovered by plotting out the movements people describe. In any recreation and simulation, things are approximations, so of course they are not to be viewed as "facts". What they are useful for, though, is examining how well the testimony, as stated, all hangs together and it can highlight the statements that just don't fit in with the rest - and that can alert one to which witnesses might be the ones making errors. Not a problem if your thinking leads you to different ideas, that is, after all, the nature of things.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Rookie Detective,

It's always been a rather messy sequence of events surrounding the murder of Chapman.

We have a random appearance from Richardson; who by his own admission has a knife (to cut the troublesome piece of leather from his boot) and would have seen the body had Chapman of been there at the time he was there.

Do we know where Richardson went afterward? Did he make it to work?

He does say he went to work and borrowed a knife there to complete his boot repair. To the best of my knowledge, though, there is no record of what the police did specifically to rule him out. They did, however, apparently investigate him closely and decide he wasn't involved, so presumably part of what they would have done was check what time he arrived at work, perhaps verify he did borrow a knife, and so forth. While those details are not found in any record, given they did have an interest in him for a while and then not, they must have done/found something to convince him he was a witness not a suspect.

We have a witness next door, who uses the outhouse facilities a couple of times and despite hearing something hit the fence after hearing a woman say 'No,'...he can't see over a 5ft fence at a time when it would have been light enough to see. The only way he wouldn't be able to see the killer would be if the killer was plush up against the fence and kneeling down to Chapman the whole time Cadosch was outside.

To the best of my knowledge Cadosche never says if the "No" was said by a male or female. As such, we should be careful in asserting that it was a female voice he heard - it is quite possible that it was a male, and therefore JtR, who said "No". Either way, given his lack of interest, the "No" doesn't appear to have been said in a way that might signal distress, etc.

We then have John Davis who seems to take an eternity to get up, make a tea, and then go downstairs to eventually find the body. The murder occurring around the time he was making his brew. His only real alibi for taking so long, is his making the tea.

I think Davies gets up around 5:45? In most descriptions of a "post-5 am murder" the murder is thought to have occurred around 5:25 and 5:30, meaning that JtR is generally presumed to have left before Davies gets up. Getting up, getting dressed, and boiling a kettle to make tea, and finding the body by 6:00ish means that all happens in 15 minutes, so I don't think calling that an eternity to get up is quite the right word. Rather, he seems to have gotten up and got about his day.

We have an estimated time of death that is completely wrong and misleading and contravenes all the witnesses.

Again, not really. Estimates have error ranges associated with them, and for estimated ToD that error range is +-3 hours. As such, Phillips estimate of 4:30 is not at odds with the witness statements at all because the time window his estimate sets for us includes the times the witnesses point to as well. There is no conflict between the medical testimony and the witnesses when the testimony is evaluated properly. It is only when people ignore the error ranges associated with estimating the ToD that conflict gets raised, but that's not how medical estimates work.

The only credible witness we have is Elizabeth Long, who gives a brief and accurate account of what she saw and almost certainly saw the killer standing with Chapman shortly before he killed her. Unlike the alleged MJK witness; the elusive George Hutchinson, who gives an exaggerated description of the potential killer...Elizabeth Long gives what would be considered a 'typical' response to what she saw.
Furthermore, her timing could have only been up to 5 minutes out either way, on the basis that 5 minutes is a reasonable amount of 'give and take' time.

Long's testimony certainly can be easily reconciled with the rest of the witnesses, that is true. On the other hand, mistaken identifications do occur quite frequently, and depending upon how the identifications are conducted, that "false recognition rate" goes up. It seems likely that Long was probably taken to the mortuary and just shown Annie, and she confirmed that was the woman she saw. If so, that type of identification procedure is not a great one as it has a high rate of false positives. When someone is only shown a single person and says "Yes, that was who I saw", I think it boils down to not that far off 50/50 - meaning 1/2 the yeses are correct, and half the time they falsely recognize the wrong person! We know Long said Yes, so really, whether or not she saw Annie is, as far as we know, a coin toss. As such, we should not put too much emphasis on her description of JtR, while on the other hand, we should not dismiss her entirely either. Given that including her or excluding her doesn't really change the timeline of the murder that we get from the other witnesses, that choice generally doesn't matter - but given that choice is very important when one focuses on her description of JtR, it is then when making the wrong choice has a big impact on things.

The question is, seeing as Hanbury street is busier than a public house with multiple witnesses; how did JTR know when he had time to kill AND escape? Similar to Stride and MJK, there was arguably only 1 point of escape; back through the front of the house and into Hanbury Street... So how did he leave without being seen?

Much of that is unknowable. All we know is that he left without being seen. However, given the murder occurred before 5:30ish (how much before is debated), and given Davies appears to be the first to have gotten up at 5:45, JtR was able to leave without being seen because nobody in the house was up yet.

I've seen posts mentioning that there are some news reports about a fellow seen running towards Brick Lane that morning, and above the idea of the dustman who saw someone who may have had blood (or something that looked like blood) on their clothes. Maybe those were sightings of JtR fleeing the scene? Or maybe not. These reports are very minimal, we know so little detail, that it becomes hard to evaluate them for reliability and/or relevance. That being said, they may be the only indications we have left to us about JtR leaving the area. They are something that makes us go "Hmmmm". In a case where we have so little good information, it is dangerous to throw things out too readily, but at the same time, it is equally dangerous to incorporate things too readily too.

At what point did Richardson state that he left back through the front of the house and into Hanbury Street to go on to work? This is important because JTR and Chapman made no visual contact with Richardson (based on Richardson not seeing Chapman and the potential killer standing outside).

He says he got there around 4:45 and 4:50, says he sat on the steps doing his boot repair for about 2 minutes, and leaves for work. Add a minute or two to check the lock, and any other delays that people often forget about, it sounds like he wasn't there for more than maybe 5 minutes. So, he would have left somewhere around 4:50 to 4:55 ish. Generally people bench mark his departure to around 5:00, but that's probably at the latest.

In other words, how long was it BETWEEN Richardson leaving back through the front of the house, to the point when Long sees Chapman standing outside the front of 29 Hanbury street?

Well, based upon the above, it depends upon when you place Long's sighting. As she stated it (5:30) that would mean 30 minutes or more have passed, but if you consider that she may have mis-recalled the time at it was really 5:15, then around 15 minutes have passed. Either way, there's plenty of time for Richardson to have left and for Annie and JtR to show up after that..

And why did he kill her n the back garden when there was clearly a lot of activity with Davis being up making his tea and Cadosch using the outdoor facilities on multiple occasions?

Probably because he was a psychopathic or psychotic serial killer.

There was also several other witnesses meeting up a few doors down prior to their work.. and none of them saw anything. That would suggest the killer left in the opposite direction after the murder.

Or when he left they hadn't come out yet.

Another interesting point is the placement of the items belonging to Chapman and other items found in the garden which appear to have been placed. This adds time to the killer being in the garden and increases his chances of getting caught because by the time he left, it would have been light enough to have seen the body laying in the garden from the windows of the building.
I believe that he intended to kill Chapman earlier, but he pushed it as late as he could.


Of course, there's a chance that Long was wrong, Cadosch wasn't there and Richardson never stopped off like he said he did. In which case, the killer may have killed Chapman earlier to correspond with the initial clinical TOD.

Long could be wrong. I think it is unlikely that either Cadoshe or Richarson lied about being there and there's no basis for that other than it doesn't violate the known principles of the universe.

And the "clincial ToD" is properly described as an "estimated ToD", and that estimate has a +-3 hour margin of error.

Personally, i think this, while possible, is highly improbable.

I believe that both Cadosch and Richardson were never there BUT Long was STILL correct and did see the killer with Chapman shortly before he killed her. I don't believe JTR would have taken the risk of killing her in the garden when the likes of Richardson and Cadosch were around. The garden would have been clear and the only person who actually went into the garden was Davis when he found her.

Thoughts?

I think that is highly unlikely, and I think the chances of Long seeing Annie and JtR could be viewed as a 50/50, given the error associated with such identifications.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Rookie Detective,


He does say he went to work and borrowed a knife there to complete his boot repair. To the best of my knowledge, though, there is no record of what the police did specifically to rule him out. They did, however, apparently investigate him closely and decide he wasn't involved, so presumably part of what they would have done was check what time he arrived at work, perhaps verify he did borrow a knife, and so forth. While those details are not found in any record, given they did have an interest in him for a while and then not, they must have done/found something to convince him he was a witness not a suspect.

To the best of my knowledge Cadosche never says if the "No" was said by a male or female. As such, we should be careful in asserting that it was a female voice he heard - it is quite possible that it was a male, and therefore JtR, who said "No". Either way, given his lack of interest, the "No" doesn't appear to have been said in a way that might signal distress, etc.

I think Davies gets up around 5:45? In most descriptions of a "post-5 am murder" the murder is thought to have occurred around 5:25 and 5:30, meaning that JtR is generally presumed to have left before Davies gets up. Getting up, getting dressed, and boiling a kettle to make tea, and finding the body by 6:00ish means that all happens in 15 minutes, so I don't think calling that an eternity to get up is quite the right word. Rather, he seems to have gotten up and got about his day.

Again, not really. Estimates have error ranges associated with them, and for estimated ToD that error range is +-3 hours. As such, Phillips estimate of 4:30 is not at odds with the witness statements at all because the time window his estimate sets for us includes the times the witnesses point to as well. There is no conflict between the medical testimony and the witnesses when the testimony is evaluated properly. It is only when people ignore the error ranges associated with estimating the ToD that conflict gets raised, but that's not how medical estimates work.

Long's testimony certainly can be easily reconciled with the rest of the witnesses, that is true. On the other hand, mistaken identifications do occur quite frequently, and depending upon how the identifications are conducted, that "false recognition rate" goes up. It seems likely that Long was probably taken to the mortuary and just shown Annie, and she confirmed that was the woman she saw. If so, that type of identification procedure is not a great one as it has a high rate of false positives. When someone is only shown a single person and says "Yes, that was who I saw", I think it boils down to not that far off 50/50 - meaning 1/2 the yeses are correct, and half the time they falsely recognize the wrong person! We know Long said Yes, so really, whether or not she saw Annie is, as far as we know, a coin toss. As such, we should not put too much emphasis on her description of JtR, while on the other hand, we should not dismiss her entirely either. Given that including her or excluding her doesn't really change the timeline of the murder that we get from the other witnesses, that choice generally doesn't matter - but given that choice is very important when one focuses on her description of JtR, it is then when making the wrong choice has a big impact on things.

Much of that is unknowable. All we know is that he left without being seen. However, given the murder occurred before 5:30ish (how much before is debated), and given Davies appears to be the first to have gotten up at 5:45, JtR was able to leave without being seen because nobody in the house was up yet.

I've seen posts mentioning that there are some news reports about a fellow seen running towards Brick Lane that morning, and above the idea of the dustman who saw someone who may have had blood (or something that looked like blood) on their clothes. Maybe those were sightings of JtR fleeing the scene? Or maybe not. These reports are very minimal, we know so little detail, that it becomes hard to evaluate them for reliability and/or relevance. That being said, they may be the only indications we have left to us about JtR leaving the area. They are something that makes us go "Hmmmm". In a case where we have so little good information, it is dangerous to throw things out too readily, but at the same time, it is equally dangerous to incorporate things too readily too.

He says he got there around 4:45 and 4:50, says he sat on the steps doing his boot repair for about 2 minutes, and leaves for work. Add a minute or two to check the lock, and any other delays that people often forget about, it sounds like he wasn't there for more than maybe 5 minutes. So, he would have left somewhere around 4:50 to 4:55 ish. Generally people bench mark his departure to around 5:00, but that's probably at the latest.

Well, based upon the above, it depends upon when you place Long's sighting. As she stated it (5:30) that would mean 30 minutes or more have passed, but if you consider that she may have mis-recalled the time at it was really 5:15, then around 15 minutes have passed. Either way, there's plenty of time for Richardson to have left and for Annie and JtR to show up after that..

Probably because he was a psychopathic or psychotic serial killer.

Or when he left they hadn't come out yet.

Long could be wrong. I think it is unlikely that either Cadoshe or Richarson lied about being there and there's no basis for that other than it doesn't violate the known principles of the universe.

And the "clincial ToD" is properly described as an "estimated ToD", and that estimate has a +-3 hour margin of error.

I think that is highly unlikely, and I think the chances of Long seeing Annie and JtR could be viewed as a 50/50, given the error associated with such identifications.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff, thank you for your reply post. It is extremely well measured and thought out and I can concur with everything you said.
The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the idea that Richardson and Cadosch are unlikely to have lied about being there because by stating they were there, it would perhaps implicate them.
On that basis I agree that they were there because it wouldn't make sense to claim they were if they actually weren't.

Well said sir, well said.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff, thank you for your reply post. It is extremely well measured and thought out and I can concur with everything you said.
The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the idea that Richardson and Cadosch are unlikely to have lied about being there because by stating they were there, it would perhaps implicate them.
On that basis I agree that they were there because it wouldn't make sense to claim they were if they actually weren't.

Well said sir, well said.

No problem. It is good to mull around different ideas, to try on something that is different from the usual view. That's how we turn over ideas, explore them, and analyze them from all angles. Sometimes, when we do that, we realize that a new idea has a lot going for it, accounting for bits of information that don't seem to quite fit, other times, we find that the original notion stands up better than our new suggestion. The information we have is very sparse, often the most we have is contained in a summary report by the police, when what we really want are the detailed reports of the full investigation. We get things like "nothing could be found against him no matter how closely we looked", but that doesn't tell us how they looked, what they looked at, or what information they did find that cleared someone! All we get is a summary report that tells us what they concluded, not on what basis that conclusion was made. As such, it is always possible to suggest "Well, they did a stink job of it and he really was guilty and they messed up", and hey, maybe they did. Peter Sutcliff comes to mind. He was interviewed 9 to 11 times over the course of the Yorkshire Ripper case, and while some of the detectives wanted to investigate him further the head of the investigation was focused on the tapes and letters (which were hoaxes) and so prevented the investigation of anyone without a Geordie accent. Was something like that the case in the JtR series? We don't know because all we have are summary reports. On the flip side, we also don't know that such a misstep was made because ... all we have are summary reports.

As John Lydon tells us "I could be wrong I could be right".

- Jeff

[Mark J D]

This is how John Richardson should have been questioned:

Q: Was there a mutilated corpse in the yard at 4.45?

A: No.

Actually, this is how John Richardson should have been questioned:

Q: You're pissing us about, Richardson. And if you don't stop right now, you're going to find yourself in a world of pain like you can't imagine. Now, you have one chance left, so listen. I'm putting to you that the reason you didn't see a mutilated corpse in the yard at 4.45 is that you weren't in the yard at 4.45. You didn't go there. Am I right?

A: Uh, yes...

Mark D.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually, this is how John Richardson should have been questioned:

Q: You're pissing us about, Richardson. And if you don't stop right now, you're going to find yourself in a world of pain like you can't imagine. Now, you have one chance left, so listen. I'm putting to you that the reason you didn't see a mutilated corpse in the yard at 4.45 is that you weren't in the yard at 4.45. You didn't go there. Am I right?

A: Uh, yes...

Mark D.

And the reason that he lied and placed himself at the scene of a knife murder with a knife in his hand when he wasn’t there was?

Another Lechmere supporter who dismisses 3 perfectly good witnesses in favour of a convenient earlier ToD. I wonder why because it’s certainly not the evidence which overwhelmingly favours a later ToD?

[JeffHamm]

And the reason that he lied and placed himself at the scene of a knife murder with a knife in his hand when he wasn’t there was?

Another Lechmere supporter who dismisses 3 perfectly good witnesses in favour of a convenient earlier ToD. I wonder why because it’s certainly not the evidence which overwhelmingly favours a later ToD?

There's no real evidence that favours an ToD prior to Richardson's visit at 4:50ish. The medical estimate allows for it, but given medical estimates are not single points in time, but need to be viewed as windows of time, the medical evidence by itself just allows for a wider range of times, and with that comes increased uncertainty with regards to any given time. I suppose, taken in isolation, one could argue that the estimate of 4:30, if treated as the centre of the distribution of the errors, would suggest that the errors will span from 1:30 to 7:30, although tend to cluster more closely to the centre rather than a flat, equal distribution of errors, we could assume the errors are normally distributed around the estimated value. That assumption may not be valid, of course, but it is an empirical question that could be addressed by a proper study. Basically, though, regardless of the assumption about how the errors are distributed, any symmetrical distribution would mean 50% of estimates would be too early, so 50% of the actual ToDs are later than the estimate. The error range is +-3 hours, and that represents a 95% confidence interval (95% of actual ToDs fall inside a range spanning 6 hours, centred on the estimated ToD). It's a fairly simply calculation to then determine that, given Dr. Phillips estimate of 4:30, and the suggestion that the murder was around 5:25, it would be that about 27.5% of the time the actual ToD is even later than that (for those who benchmark the murder to 5:30, it would be 26.7% of the time the actual ToD is even later than that).

Basically, as I've said many times, Dr. Phillips estimate is not actually in conflict with an actual ToD of between 5:25 and 5:30, and that yes, it is very common for the estimate to be out by that much!

And if we take into account that Dr. Phillips himself does indicate that he's not adverse to shifting his estimate later, so closer to 5:25/5:30, then he himself is telling us his estimate is not in conflict with an actual ToD of around 5:25/5:30.

As for Richardson making up a story about visiting the yard, how convenient for him that his legging spring was found in the vicinity of the body, a piece of physical evidence that corroborates his boot repair story? How lucky was he that when the police took a close look at him, as we know they did, they were never able to detect any indication that his story was untrue. How lucky for him that he was in the habit of checking the lock to the cellar, but what a shame that he didn't do that routine on this particular day? And how lucky for Cross/Lechmere that some random bloke decided to present false testimony and put himself not only at the scene of the crime, but with a knife in his hand, for no readily apparent reason? And how lucky for that fellow, who makes up false statements, that unbeknownst to him, two other witnesses would come forth and also present their testimony that just so happens to tie in to Richardson's made up story? I'm sorry, but the idea that Richardson made up his visit to #29 really is something that makes no sense if one spends even a moment thinking about it. Sure, it doesn't violate the known principles of the universe and so is "possible", but being "possible" doesn't in any way make it at all plausible or probable.

But, what I would have like him to have been asked was:
Q: Could you see the location where the body was found?
A: ....

well, if I knew for sure what his answer would be, I could fill that part in. I would be dumbstruck if his answer was other than Yes, but he was never asked so I refrain from putting words in his mouth. In the end, our task is to try to follow the breadcrumbs that remain in order to infer what his answer would be - not to fill in the answer that we wish he would give.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

There's no real evidence that favours an ToD prior to Richardson's visit at 4:50ish.
But there is the fact that Jack never killed anyone else in daylight easily visible to dozens of potential witnesses. Also, none of the other outside victims went unseen for 3 1/2 hours in an area where they lived.

Basically, as I've said many times, Dr. Phillips estimate is not actually in conflict with an actual ToD of between 5:25 and 5:30, and that yes, it is very common for the estimate to be out by that much!
Would it not be true to say that it is not in conflict with, say, 2:30am either?

As for Richardson making up a story about visiting the yard, how convenient for him that his legging spring was found in the vicinity of the body, a piece of physical evidence that corroborates his boot repair story?
Amelia Richardson actually identified it as the spring from a child's legging. But if it is to be accepted as evidence of a boot repair, it must also be accepted as evidence of him being close enough to murder her.

How lucky was he that when the police took a close look at him, as we know they did, they were never able to detect any indication that his story was untrue.
We only know this because of newspaper reports. (More on this below) There was another newspaper report that said the police investigated Richardson's boot repair story and proved that the door had obscured his view of the body. Can we accept one set of newspaper reports but dismiss another?

How lucky for him that he was in the habit of checking the lock to the cellar, but what a shame that he didn't do that routine on this particular day?
In fact that is exactly what he told Chandler that he did do on that day. It was not until two days later, while talking to the press, that he started remembering his boot repair.

And how lucky for that fellow, who makes up false statements, that unbeknownst to him, two other witnesses would come forth and also present their testimony that just so happens to tie in to Richardson's made up story?
His original story, without the boot repair, would also fit into this category. Not that I'm agreeing with the concept that he didn't go to #29 when he said he did. It just seems that the visit that he described to Chandler wouldn't have given him the star witness status that he enjoyed as a consequence of his augmented version.

Sure, it doesn't violate the known principles of the universe and so is "possible", but being "possible" doesn't in any way make it at all plausible or probable.
That's how I view the later TOD. The witnesses consist of a woman who, three days after the event, suddenly remembers seeing someone she had never previously laid eyes on in the bustle of people on market day. A man who hears a voice when he is entering in the doorway of his premises with the door closing behind him from an enclosed arena of multi-story buildings filled with people just getting up for work. A man who has tried unsuccessfully to mend the inside toe of his boot at home, presumably with an adequate knife and optimum conditions, who decides to make another attempt sitting on a damp step, in the dark, with a broken dessert knife that he knew was blunt, have just used it to cut up carrots for his rabbit, rather than wait two minutes until he arrived at his market bench.

But, what I would have like him to have been asked was:
Q: Could you see the location where the body was found?
A: ....

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

He answered that question at the inquest when he stated that if the body was there he must have seen it. Uncorroborated testimony.
My question would have been phrased
Q: Can you show us how you sat on the step so we can determine if you could have seen past the door to the location where the body was found ?

According to press reports, Richardson was suspected and comprehensively questioned, but all the police gained from that exercise was Richardson's uncorroborated answers. Chandler spoke well of the impression he gained from Richardson, but I'm sure that Jack had to have worn a personable mask to evade suspicion, as he did. Why would he admit to carrying a knife at a murder scene? The knife that he retrieved, which he alleged was the one was carrying that night, was observed to be incapable of inflicting damage on anything more than carrots for a rabbit - hardly a risk to his story. More of a conflict - not sharp enough to cut up a body but thought by him to be sharp enough to cut boot leather.

As I've said before, I don't claim the 99-110% certainty claimed by some (not you), just 5% either way from centre. As always, a pleasure to shoot the breeze with you.

Best regards, George

P.S. I would like to use your observation "Sure, it doesn't violate the known principles of the universe and so is "possible", but being "possible" doesn't in any way make it at all plausible or probable." as my (acknowledged) signature. Do I have your permission to do so?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

He answered that question at the inquest when he stated that if the body was there he must have seen it. Uncorroborated testimony.

Yes, but that gets ignored because he doesn't specifically say he looked right at that spot. People argue that he's mistaken, he thinks he would have seen it, but in reality he wouldn't. Hence, I would have liked a very definite statement about looking right at the location of where the body was found. But I agree, he does indicate that if it was there he would have seen it.

My question would have been phrased
Q: Can you show us how you sat on the step so we can determine if you could have seen past the door to the location where the body was found ?

According to press reports, Richardson was suspected and comprehensively questioned, but all the police gained from that exercise was Richardson's uncorroborated answers. Chandler spoke well of the impression he gained from Richardson, but I'm sure that Jack had to have worn a personable mask to evade suspicion, as he did. Why would he admit to carrying a knife at a murder scene? The knife that he retrieved, which he alleged was the one was carrying that night, was observed to be incapable of inflicting damage on anything more than carrots for a rabbit - hardly a risk to his story. More of a conflict - not sharp enough to cut up a body but thought by him to be sharp enough to cut boot leather.

As I've said before, I don't claim the 99-110% certainty claimed by some (not you), just 5% either way from centre. As always, a pleasure to shoot the breeze with you.

Best regards, George

P.S. I would like to use your observation "Sure, it doesn't violate the known principles of the universe and so is "possible", but being "possible" doesn't in any way make it at all plausible or probable." as my (acknowledged) signature. Do I have your permission to do so?

Hi George,

We've discussed a few of those points before, but the one about Dr. P's evidence not in conflict with 2:30 would be yes, it is also fair to say that too. Dr. P's estimated ToD is not inconsistent with an actual death of anywhere between 1:30am and 7:30 am. What I was pointing out, and perhaps was unclear in my meaning, is that the argument that the witnesses must be wrong because they conflict with Dr. P's estimated ToD is an invalid argument because there is no conflict. Dr. P's estimated ToD does not conflict with any particular time between her leaving the doss house around 1:45 am and her subsequent discovery around 6:00 am. Basically, Dr. P's estimated ToD allows us to say "She was killed between the time when she was last seen alive and when she was found dead", which to me doesn't really help narrow things down all that much.

And as for the time of the murder, JtR didn't kill anyone in their room before Mary Kelly. JtR didn't leave any victims without abdominal mutilations until Stride. JtR didn't perform cuts on faces until Eddowes. We can always find something unique about each case and go "but he never did this before". Also, there are some witnesses who would place Kelly's murder during the day time (I'm not sure I buy that, but I've bet wrong before), so is Chapman really the odd one out? Curiously, the two that potentially occur during daylight (or near enough) hours, are very close to each other, and that could suggest that JtR lives close by - he knows he isn't going to be in the street for long afterwards type idea. In the end, JtR killed when he did, and if he killed Chapman at 5:25ish, that would be information that could be very important to our understanding of things. I think it could be unwise to say "he must have killed earlier because he killed earlier before" - we start to impose our ideas on the evidence rather than the evidence upon our ideas.

As for when Richardson first mentions his boot repair, the fact that he doesn't mention it when talking to the police right at the scene doesn't surprise me at all. That would be the sort of detail that isn't going to really come out until he's being questioned about his activities in detail. His first report to the police at the scene is going to be perfunctory and to the main point of "I was here around 5:00 and there was no body there at that time", other details would come out later.

The only other one I would wanted to mention is the boot spring one, but I want to double check. My recollection is that it was identified as being his, but my recollection is not always what it should be. I just remember this coming up in various threads, and don't know where all the mentions of it are located though.

And sure, if you want to use that as your sig, fill your boots! (see what I did there? ha ha)

As always, a pleasure.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi George,

Re - #3733 above, we know that the police thoroughly investigated Richardson's story, not because of a newspaper report, but because Swanson said so. On 19th October 1888, he wrote of the interview with Richardson, "...his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although the police specially directed their attention to him".

As Jeff says, Richardson was not interviewed by Chandler at the site, they merely spoke briefly in the passage. We do not have Richardson's original witness statement, so we cannot say that he didn't tell the whole story straight away. In fact, we can say from Swanson that his story was fully investigated, and that they were totally satisfied with the outcome. This strongly suggests that there was no changing of story whatever, as story changing would attract suspicion, and Swanson says there "was not a shred of evidence" against him.

Chandler said that Richardson sitting on the steps must have seen the body if it were there.