John Richardson

[Lewis C]

Hi Fishy,

I think that Cadosch should have stuck to his original story:
Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 9 September 1888
On visiting the house next door to the tragedy, 27, our representative saw Mr. Albert Cadosen [sic], a carpenter, who resides there and works in Shoe-lane, Fleet-street. He says: I was not very well in the night and I went out into the back yard about 25 minutes past five. It was just getting daylight, and as I passed to the back of the yard I heard a sound as of two people up in the corner of the next yard. On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say “No.” Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found. As I thought it was some of the people belonging to the house, I passed into my own room, and took no further notice.

By the time he got to the Inquest, his single visit to the Loo had become two visits, he decided he hadn't heard anything from the back of the yard, and had forgotten about the "scuffle" and someone falling heavily on the ground against the fence in favour of "something touching the fence".

His original story was far more supportive of his having heard the murder. I wonder if he became increasingly embarrassed over the fact he had not bothered to even glance over the fence? But of course when a witness has multiple accounts of what happened it does weaken the value of his testimony, but since we are relying on press reports in both cases, perhaps he meant something else entirely (sarcasm alert).

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I think that as a general rule, if a newspaper account contradicts an official report, it's best to disregard the part of the newspaper account that contradicts.

[JeffHamm]

I wasn't, but now that we're on the subject, John was told to go and get his knife that cut his boot. John returned with the knife and when they all looked at it and said: "are you sure?", John said: "oh, not this knife, another knife". At that point they probably should have done John for wasting the authorities' time.

John was not necessarily straight down the line.

That is not what he said, nor does it even reflect what he meant.

He said his boot was bothering him, he tried to fix it on the steps. When asked about the knife, he didn't say "not this one", he said this one, that he used on the steps, was not sharp enough to complete the repair so he had to use another one at work to complete the job.

You have presented it as if he said that the knife he showed wasn't the knife he had on him at the time, which is not what he says at all, nor can his actual words be read that way.

John attempted to lead the inquest a merry dance with his knife tale, and so it follows John should be viewed as not necessarily reliable.

That is an entirely unsupported statement.

As I said in the post to which you replied, at quarter to five on the 8th September it will be dark. Try it. Go somewhere where there isn't a light nearby. Furthermore, Annie's body lay with a tall building blocking one side, acting as a sort of cul-de-sac, making it darker still. As I said, it really depends on where the nearest light source was at that time of the morning.

The official time of "sun rise", is well after the time the sun starts to brighten the sky. His visit was something like 30 minutes prior to official sun rise, so there would be light in the sky.

Aye because of course you're pouring over the statements with time to think about it 150 years later. At the inquest, they were giving their accounts in accordance with their status, as opposed to being sat in a police room scrutinising witness statements. They didn't have the time to scrutinise in minute detail, and in the event they were afforded that time the inquest would still be going on now.

the police looked into Richardson, we have official sources on that. If it was too dark to do what he said, that would have come up in their investigation. If his story was a "merry dance", as you portray it, that would have been cause for suspicion, but the police official reports indicate that nothing against him of suspicion could be found, indicating that his statement was both investigated and found to be reliable.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

hi george, and fishy and FM
so what do you think is going on with richardson and cadosch? something sinister? were they involved in tje murder somehow? mistaken, with innocent explanation? fifteen minutes of fame? what?

Hi Abby ,No i dont think Richardson or Cadosch had anything to do with the murder . My opinion all along has been that each of their testimonies raises much doubt and uncertainty as the t.o.d of Chapman , throw Mrs Long into the mix and makes it even more unsure as to the t.o.d fixed at 5.30am

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Abby ,No i dont think Richardson or Cadosch had anything to do with the murder . My opinion all along has been that each of their testimonies raises much doubt and uncertainty as the t.o.d of Chapman , throw Mrs Long into the mix and makes it even more unsure as to the t.o.d fixed at 5.30am

Yes, Richardson makes an earlier ToD seem likely, add Cadosch to make it more likely and then Long just to prove it.

Three good witnesses, all tying up, none of whom had any reason to lie but we dismiss them on the basis of a Doctor (who admitted the possibility of a late ToD) and who was a magician.

Still no answer to my very specific question Fishy. That’s 8 times that I’ve asked for an answer,

[FISHY1118]

Yes, Richardson makes an earlier ToD seem likely, add Cadosch to make it more likely and then Long just to prove it.

Three good witnesses, all tying up, none of whom had any reason to lie but we dismiss them on the basis of a Doctor (who admitted the possibility of a late ToD) and who was a magician.

Still no answer to my very specific question Fishy. That’s 8 times that I’ve asked for an answer,

All 3 witnesses are to be treated with caution in relation to t.o.d due to the uncertainty and contradictory nature of their testimony, a 5.50 am t.o.d is undeterminable, this is just a fact and the evidence shows that plainly . When you get to 50 let me know, youll have caught up with amount of times youve been asked to admit the witnessses statements are also to be considered in such a way that you view dr phillips testimony.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All 3 witnesses are to be treated with caution in relation to t.o.d due to the uncertainty and contradictory nature of their testimony, a 5.50 am t.o.d is undeterminable, this is just a fact and the evidence shows that plainly . When you get to 50 let me know, youll have caught up with amount of times youve been asked to admit the witnessses statements are also to be considered in such a way that you view dr phillips testimony.

Another piece of detail-free drivel. Simply repeating stock statements isn’t debate or discussion. Try actually contributing for once Fishy.

There is no contradictory nature of their testimony. They match up perfectly.

Treating witnesses with caution (as we should always do) isn’t the same as saying - witnesses are unreliable therefore they can be dismissed. Witnesses aren’t unreliable Fishy……witnesses can be unreliable. So we have to assess them. You never have.

And I’ll ask the question for the 9th time (although I’ve asked it in past threads.) It’s about ‘Fishy logic.’

If a person says “I think that X was the case but I’m not certain.” Then he says “I’m certain that Y was the case.” Do you think that the second statement is unreliable because of the first.

[FISHY1118]

''There is no contradictory nature of their testimony. They match up perfectly.''


Theres the problem right there , ignorance and utter stupidity and the inablility to assess information and evidence with out bias , 4500 post on the subject ,youd think people would know a little more than that . Guess not

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now then Herlock. It's just not cricket to base a theory on what you think a court stenographer may have recorded. We can only work with what was reported. It would be like saying that a batsman would have been given "not out" but for that pesky video evidence.

Cheers, George

But if it was reported that a batsman went out to bat carrying a tennis racket we would assume that this couldn’t have been the case.

Surely you can’t allow that Richardson would have said something that so obviously made no sense and no one pulled him up on it? Then we have the information that the previous day he’d cut some leather from his boot but it hadn’t been enough. Again, clearly showing a firs unsuccessful attempted repair. Is it so unlikely that someone like Richardson wouldn’t have wanted to have risked ruining a pair of boots by taking off too much? So in the yard of number 29 he either cautiously took of a small piece which proved not enough (so he finished the job at work) or that the knife that he was carrying wasn’t good enough to cut enough leather off (so he finished the job at work)

He might even have always intended to have done the job at work until he found the knife in his picked and thought that he’d have a go on the steps.

I really think that way too much hard work is needed to make Richardson seem ‘dodgy.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

''There is no contradictory nature of their testimony. They match up perfectly.''


Theres the problem right there , ignorance and utter stupidity and the inablility to assess information and evidence with out bias , 4500 post on the subject ,youd think people would know a little more than that . Guess not

And for the 9th time, in plain view, refuse to answer the question.

Why?

Because you know that your position makes no sense. And that you’ve taken that position in a biased attempt to dismiss Cadosch so you can have it nice and dark for that 71 year old stroke victim.

[FISHY1118]

And for the 9th time, in plain view, refuse to answer the question.

Why?

Because you know that your position makes no sense. And that you’ve taken that position in a biased attempt to dismiss Cadosch so you can have it nice and dark for that 71 year old stroke victim.

Or a cricketer whos was 200 miles away. im glad his been banished to the sin bin .
.


Your question has nothing to do with the ''uncertainty'' of cadosch testimony , there for its irrelivant as per the subject matter. If Bromley has a opinion based on the evidence so be it, his article is a senario based on the inquest testimony of Annie Chapman his personal opinion on whether he believes cadosch ,richardson and long ,well youll have to ask him that ,. But thats not what were are disussing tho is it? , Cadosch = uncertainty = fact. Question answered .

[GBinOz]

He might even have always intended to have done the job at work until he found the knife in his picked and thought that he’d have a go on the steps.

Hi Herlock,

The coroner, the jury, in fact no-one expressed an opinion that the knife he produced could possibly have cut leather. Why would he, supposedly being familiar with the knife have thought so? Of course we have no way of knowing if the knife that he retrieved on request was anything other than a knife that he chose to present into evidence. Retrieving a sharp knife would not have convinced anyone that it was not capable of visiting upon Annie the injuries that she sustained. Who, other than he, would know the difference?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or a cricketer whos was 200 miles away. im glad his been banished to the sin bin .
.


Your question has nothing to do with the ''uncertainty'' of cadosch testimony , there for its irrelivant as per the subject matter. If Bromley has a opinion based on the evidence so be it, his article is a senario based on the inquest testimony of Annie Chapman his personal opinion on whether he believes cadosch ,richardson and long ,well youll have to ask him that ,. But thats not what were are disussing tho is it? , Cadosch = uncertainty = fact. Question answered .

Question completely dodged. Again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The coroner, the jury, in fact no-one expressed an opinion that the knife he produced could possibly have cut leather. Why would he, supposedly being familiar with the knife have thought so? Of course we have no way of knowing if the knife that he retrieved on request was anything other than a knife that he chose to present into evidence. Retrieving a sharp knife would not have convinced anyone that it was not capable of visiting upon Annie the injuries that she sustained. Who, other than he, would know the difference?

Cheers, George

Well he did provide some description of the knife which would have left him trying to find a suitable one if he had been lying.

“I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.”

What if the police had visited John Street and found no rabbit? Richardson gave a description of the knife and a plausible, checkable reason for his use of it.

When he returned with the knife we get:

He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

He added….

So no suggestion that anyone had pointed out that it wasn’t sharp enough. If they didn’t then Richardson volunteered this information. But what we can say with certainty is that he wouldn’t have said “I sat a cut some leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut some leather from my boot because my knife wasn’t sharp enough.” Yet this is what it’s being suggested that Richardson meant. It can’t be.

[A P Tomlinson]

This, (assuming my Chromebook plays fair) is an image taken from Lemmino's Youtube video. (I was quite surprised that I couldn't find a still mock-up of this, overlaid on one of the old photos via Google)
It doesn't bring any great new revelations to the debate, but one thing that channel always does to a high standard is the graphic depictions. (If you haven't seen it, its worth watching just for some of the graphics and 3D stuff)

This one shows Richardson's seated position in relation to the size and shape of the yard, and how (un)likely it would have been for him to miss seeing a body who's head is essentially between the fence and the stair. That door would not block his view.
Dawn was before 5.00 am that morning, so it would be just starting to get light. He would need to be able to see what he was doing to faff about with his boot.

I'm sure this has been noted already, but if Philips is estimating his ETD based on the victims Body Temp, then having a substantial amount of the stuff that holds the heat and keeps the body warm after death being scattered about the yard... and the insides exposed... on a "cool morning" will cause the body temp to drop faster and give a far colder reading than one might get from the same victim left intact... probably skewing a standard measurement of body temp toward an earlier death?
Didn't he say something to that effect himself?

Chapman and Hanbury St is really not my wheelhouse, but these elements don't seem too complicated. If Richardson didn't see anything 15 minutes or so before Cadosch heard the bang against the fence etc... and Philips accepted that his estimate could have been off due to, (for want of a better term...) environmental circumstances. What is the rationaloe for them being mistaken/unreliable/dishonest, unless the finger is beng pointed at Richardson himself. In which case I can see an argument for him becoming a suspect.
But I don't think Philips wildly differing ETD, especially with his own caveat that it may be off, is enough to cast pretty much all the wintesses testimonies into doubt.

Edit to add: I should have probably done that on my proper computer and scaled it up a bit first.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This, (assuming my Chromebook plays fair) is an image taken from Lemmino's Youtube video. (I was quite surprised that I couldn't find a still mock-up of this, overlaid on one of the old photos via Google)
It doesn't bring any great new revelations to the debate, but one thing that channel always does to a high standard is the graphic depictions. (If you haven't seen it, its worth watching just for some of the graphics and 3D stuff)

This one shows Richardson's seated position in relation to the size and shape of the yard, and how (un)likely it would have been for him to miss seeing a body who's head is essentially between the fence and the stair. That door would not block his view.
Dawn was before 5.00 am that morning, so it would be just starting to get light. He would need to be able to see what he was doing to faff about with his boot.

I'm sure this has been noted already, but if Philips is estimating his ETD based on the victims Body Temp, then having a substantial amount of the stuff that holds the heat and keeps the body warm after death being scattered about the yard... and the insides exposed... on a "cool morning" will cause the body temp to drop faster and give a far colder reading than one might get from the same victim left intact... probably skewing a standard measurement of body temp toward an earlier death?
Didn't he say something to that effect himself?

Chapman and Hanbury St is really not my wheelhouse, but these elements don't seem too complicated. If Richardson didn't see anything 15 minutes or so before Cadosch heard the bang against the fence etc... and Philips accepted that his estimate could have been off due to, (for want of a better term...) environmental circumstances. What is the rationaloe for them being mistaken/unreliable/dishonest, unless the finger is beng pointed at Richardson himself. In which case I can see an argument for him becoming a suspect.
But I don't think Philips wildly differing ETD, especially with his own caveat that it may be off, is enough to cast pretty much all the wintesses testimonies into doubt.

Edit to add: I should have probably done that on my proper computer and scaled it up a bit first.

Hello AP,

Although no diagram can be totally accurate of course (given that we can’t know exactly how Richardson was sitting at the time) the one that you’ve illustrates the sheer unlikeliness of him missing the body. Thanks for posting it. For me, the chances are so remote to safely be placed in the ‘to be ignored’ section. We also have to consider the position of the door as he descended the steps and how wide he would have been forced to have opened it.

Richardson was fully aware that the door was there and that doors aren’t transparent and he knew the exactly location of the body and how much floor space it took up as he’d seen the body in situ from a neighbours yard. He was asked specifically by the police if he could have missed it and he was adamant that he couldn’t have (despite the fact that it wouldn’t have incriminated him if he’d admitted that he might have missed it.) He had no reason to lie. His testimony is strong.

Phillips ToD was arrived at using methods that we know are unreliable and that even today with our advanced knowledge extreme caution would be required. Body temperature is especially unreliable even using equipment and Phillips only used his hands (David Barrat’s book The Temperature of Death is excellent on this. He uses real cases to illustrate those problems - and which makes the book enjoyable to read) Phillips also mentions stiffness, and rigor is notoriously unreliable. He also mentions that there was a small amount of food in the stomach but we don’t know if this fact was taken into consideration. Assessing ToD via digestion is only potentially possible if we are 100% certain when the victim last ate and this isn’t the case with Chapman (we only have her last recorded meal) Also digestion can be affected by various things like lung diseases for example, which Chapman suffered from) So, competent professional as he undoubtedly was, his estimate has to be viewed in light of these unreliable factors. He also added a caveat allowing for a more rapid cooling which could allow for a later ToD. A suggestion of more rapid cooling is only applicable if a later time is considered even though he strongly favoured 4.30 or before (it’s worth noting that he doesn’t say how much before 4.30 though) So Phillips estimation is no impediment to an earlier or later ToD.

So what we have left is three witnesses. We know that witnesses can be mistaken or even lie at times but they are usually honest. So what are the chances of all three witnesses in this case being wrong? A man sitting on a step with his left boot a foot from where a mutilated corpse lay and he didn’t see it despite him saying that he couldn’t possibly have missed it. A man in the next yard minding his own business and using the loo who first hears the word ‘no’ (see dispute about what he meant about being uncertain) and then a noise against the fence of which he was 100% certain. Then to top it off we have Long (who of course might have been mistaken) but what are the chances of her seeing a woman (who she identified as Chapman - so a Chapman lookalike) talking to a man just a very few feet from number 29 at just that time? The odds must be fairly huge that all three of these witnesses were wrong.

Reason, evidence and common sense tell us that a later ToD is overwhelmingly the most likely to have been the case.