John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

However, IF the only reason to consider an earlier TOD is because of Philips initial findings, then I would be wary of basing an earlier TOD argument on the views of just one man...who later implied he may have been mistaken about the earlier TOD.

I think people are taking what Phillips said too literally he stated he may have been mistaken but that doesn't rule out the possibility that he was correct, he took a guess which opens up an earlier TOD and a later TOD. I think researchers not only have to scrutinize the witness testimony in the CHapman murder to try to determine a TOD but alongside that exercise look at all the facts and evidence in all the other murders and in my opinion having lived with all this testimony for the past 15 years the MO of the killer does not lend itself to a later TOD.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

That's a very fair and balanced point Trevor.

[FISHY1118]

I think people are taking what Phillips said too literally he stated he may have been mistaken but that doesn't rule out the possibility that he was correct, he took a guess which opens up an earlier TOD and a later TOD. I think researchers not only have to scrutinize the witness testimony in the CHapman murder to try to determine a TOD but alongside that exercise look at all the facts and evidence in all the other murders and in my opinion having lived with all this testimony for the past 15 years the MO of the killer does not lend itself to a later TOD.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Also regarding Phillipps from one of Georges previous post .


''Phillips - I don't know that any doctor would admit that his methods were unreliable. That's a modern day assessment, but strangely, other ToD's were surprisingly accurate, relatively speaking. I know the common answer to this suggestion is that the others cribbed their ToD's by finding out the answer first, but I see no evidence that the doctor's interrogated beat cops or witnesses before they produced their ToD's so as to ensure they got the right answer.''

Great guessing wasnt it ?

[GBinOz]

I think people are taking what Phillips said too literally he stated he may have been mistaken but that doesn't rule out the possibility that he was correct, he took a guess which opens up an earlier TOD and a later TOD. I think researchers not only have to scrutinize the witness testimony in the CHapman murder to try to determine a TOD but alongside that exercise look at all the facts and evidence in all the other murders and in my opinion having lived with all this testimony for the past 15 years the MO of the killer does not lend itself to a later TOD.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well said Trevor. I absolutely agree.

Cheers, George

[A P Tomlinson]

Yet were still left with the evidence of Richardsons[ '' I went to the house that morning about a quarter to five.'' I came to the back door'' notice no mention of thesteps] and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to work." .This cant be ignored or dismissed lightly , together with the contempory drawings that show the door not recessed enough that which the lock could not be seen from this postion . Together with his mothers claim he could see the lock from the back step , and his own admission he didnt go into the yard .

Nobody IS ignoring it, or dismissing it, it's just that its only part of the story.
YOU are avoiding having to deal with the rest. By insisting that any veracity Richardson has begins and ends with THAT.

When you ADD to it the difficulty he would have had (being a big chunky fellow) getting into a position to see the cellar door from being exactly AT the back door without taking at least one step down, taking into acount the peripheral vision of the human eye, PLUS... Davies saying that he saw the body "Directly" he opened the door thereby proving that a body could be seen from that very position you want to fix Richardson in... AND the fact that the Detective who took that statement had also stood EXACTLY where Richardson had, and had no cause to doubt the claim that he WOULD have seen the body...
You start to understand that there might just be a BIT more to it than simply coming to the back door, looking down then walking away, without ever catching sight of the west side of the yard. Even if that is what you really wish had happened.

And please, with the contmeporary drawings... did you know that "Clutching At Straws" was also the title of the fourth studio album by Marillion?
Go find one of those drawings (preferably one that doesn't show the lean-to with walls, otherwise you're in real bother...) then compare it with the photos of the house and tell me which has the most accurate depiction in YOUR mind as to where the window frames sit within the wall. Like I explained before the celllar door would be set to the same depth (Give or take an inch). If you like we can then have that discussion all over again, but nothing will change.
And I hope don't need to explain why that door would struggle even harder to open outward, especially if it were as far forward and framed on the outside edge of the wall as the contemporary drawings seem to put it.

[FISHY1118]

Nobody IS ignoring it, or dismissing it, it's just that its only part of the story.
YOU are avoiding having to deal with the rest. By insisting that any veracity Richardson has begins and ends with THAT.

When you ADD to it the difficulty he would have had (being a big chunky fellow) getting into a position to see the cellar door from being exactly AT the back door without taking at least one step down, taking into acount the peripheral vision of the human eye, PLUS... Davies saying that he saw the body "Directly" he opened the door thereby proving that a body could be seen from that very position you want to fix Richardson in... AND the fact that the Detective who took that statement had also stood EXACTLY where Richardson had, and had no cause to doubt the claim that he WOULD have seen the body...
You start to understand that there might just be a BIT more to it than simply coming to the back door, looking down then walking away, without ever catching sight of the west side of the yard. Even if that is what you really wish had happened.

And please, with the contmeporary drawings... did you know that "Clutching At Straws" was also the title of the fourth studio album by Marillion?
Go find one of those drawings (preferably one that doesn't show the lean-to with walls, otherwise you're in real bother...) then compare it with the photos of the house and tell me which has the most accurate depiction in YOUR mind as to where the window frames sit within the wall. Like I explained before the celllar door would be set to the same depth (Give or take an inch). If you like we can then have that discussion all over again, but nothing will change.
And I hope don't need to explain why that door would struggle even harder to open outward, especially if it were as far forward and framed on the outside edge of the wall as the contemporary drawings seem to put it.

Sorry A.P ,i can only go by what the evidence in the case tells us ,and it tells us exactly what i said in my previous post to you . Tell me tho, how you compare Richardson partly opening the door looking to his right to check the lock then turning inward back through the doorway to go to work , to Davies fully opening the door and seeing the body as he is standing there ? .There two different situations ,not the same as you suggested . Sorry but Davies does not validate Richardsons claim regarding the way in which he he saw the body , speculation on your behalf , and speculation get us to... 'Uncertainty'' .

[The Rookie Detective]

Okay...George, Trevor, Fishy and Co...so let's flip this thing on its head and indulge in the earlier TOD.

Would that explain WHY there is time unaccounted for after Chapman is seen leaving the lodging house?

We know it's been a mystery in that there's a period of time that Chapman wasn't seen...

So...how does THIS scenario work....

Chapman is last seen alive around 1.35- 1.40am

SO let's say that around 1.50-1.55am Chapman accompanies a man and takes him to the back of 29 Hanbury Street where he kills her....

Chapman is murdered around 2am and has left the scene by 2.15am at the latest.

This would be in keeping with a similar MO to the ripper in relation to the other murders. This would also vindicate Philip's initial findings.


So far so good and this is an open and shut case.


We just need to rule out those 3 pesky "witnesses" and try to explain away their contradictory statements which fly in the face of the killer's MO and the ever-reliable Dr Philip's.


Richardson arrives around 4.50am, almost 3 hours after the murder.

Richardson is not the sharpest tool in the box and he fails to notice the dead body of Chapman lying next to his left foot; because the door obstructs his view. However, he can see the cellar door is secure from his immovable position on the steps, by leaning over and seeing the lock in the darkness without needing to physically go to the cellar door. This explains why he never saw the body of Chapman.

It's just a coincidence that Richardson missed the dead body of a mutilated prostitute but noticed a secure padlock in the dark.

Cadosh then goes into the yard to use the toilet and although this may have happened more than once at different times, he at some point heard the word "No" and then the sound of something hit the fence adjoining 27 to 29 Hanbury St.

This can perhaps be explained.

Cadosh heard a woman say "No" but this may have been one of the residents on the ground floor of 29 or 31 Hanbury St. They may have slept with their window open.

Perhaps the person had a bad dream and woke up calling out "No"
Perhaps an amorous husband was trying it on with their wife and the wife was having none of it..."No"
or perhaps a cat stood on the window seal and tried to get in through the window, only to be observed by a woman who shouted to the cat "NO" (but the sound being muffled by the window)...

This could have caused the cat to fall/jump against the fence with a bump and then explain the sound that Cadosh heard.

Of course, at this point, the cat may have landed on Chapman's body and then ran off.

It's only a coincidence that there happened to be a woman lying murdered on the other side of the fence.


We can also forgive Cadosh for being a native Parisian, so his words may have been lost in translation.


Policeman - "Did you go out into the yard and for what purpose?"

Cadosh - "Oui oui"

Policeman - "Ah, the toilet, that makes sense!"


And then we have Long.

Perhaps Chapman had a doppelganger.

When Long walked west along Hanbury St around 5.30am, or perhaps 5.15am...or perhaps 4.45am... those clock chimes are confusing sometimes...and saw Chapman's doppelganger talking to a man outside the house that the real Chapman had been murdered a few hours earlier and was indeed already lying there since 2am.


It all just one big coincidence.


And so, yes, I can see how Richardson missed the body, Cadosh heard a woman other then Chapman say "no" and something else other than a body hit the fence, and that Long only believed she saw Chapman, but was instead her lookalike.

This is all starting to fit together.


The later TOD instead suggests that Richardson missed the body because Chapman wasn't there, Cadosh heard Chapman say "no" and then heard the sound of her body hit the fence from the killer strangling her, and then Long saw Chapman with her killer standing talking outside the same address just moments before she was butchered after telling the man "Yes"

I'm not sure which is more probable or easier to explain, but at least the earlier TOD is still in keeping with Dr Philip's and also coincides with the ripper not being allowed to kill after 4am because of the curfew with his mum.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Could have been" but that comment should not be taken as fact!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

More rapid cooling than would normally be expected can only result in a shortening of the gap between the murder and the time that the examination was made.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a quick query regarding TOD for Chapman.

IF Philips had initially stated he thought Chapman was murdered sometime AFTER 5am....then would the debate on an earlier TOD still be pushed?

I ask because IF the answer is that an earlier TOD should still be considered regardless of Philips, then I can understand the argument for an earlier TOD.

However, IF the only reason to consider an earlier TOD is because of Philips initial findings, then I would be wary of basing an earlier TOD argument on the views of just one man...who later implied he may have been mistaken about the earlier TOD.


If we conclude that Richardson missed seeing a dead body laying next to his left foot

If we can accept that Cadosh was mistaken about hearing the word "No" and was mistaken about the scuffle and then the sound of something hitting the fence of 29 Hanbury St...combined with the huge coincidence and with the fact that a dead mutilates body was found on the other side of the same fence.

And if we can reject Long as stating she saw the victim alive and well around 5.30am talking with man outside the house that Chapman was murdered...

Then I believe there's a good reason to investigate the potential earlier TOD


Suspend the probable and most likely scenario, in favour of scrapping the views of 3 independant witnesses, and we have another good angle from which to approach the case.


RD

I asked this question earlier RD but, to be honest, I can’t recall if anyone responded or not. Personally, I don’t that that we would be looking at the witnesses as if they were mistaken or lying. At least two posters who have contributed to this subject have theories/suspects who would be weakened considerably so you can read into that what you will. George and Trevor however have no reason to want an earlier ToD and so they are just giving their opinions.

With Cadosch we have a man with no reason to lie who was absolutely certain that something hit against a fence that he was standing right next to. And if he did hear it then we can come up with no remotely sensible alternative suggestion as to what else it could have been. He appeared to show caution about the ‘no’ but it could actually have meant that he wasn’t sure what side of number 29’s yard it came from. But even if he was uncertain about the ‘no’ it speaks of honesty. If he was wimp,y trying to push a lie why didn’t he just insist that the ‘no’ undoubtedly came from number 29. We might even ask why he didn’t exaggerate what he’d heard and just said that he thought that the neighbours were having an argument!

So there isn’t a single thing suspicious about Cadosch - except of course that he’s in conflict with Phillips. Hence the tendency to portray him as mistaken or worse, a liar despite the total lack of evidence for this.

We’ve discussed Richardson of course and I stick by what I said - that I’ve never read of such a concerted effort to demonise and dismiss a witness. I find it rather strange in fact. And of course he’s in conflict with the Doctor too of course.

Long might have been mistaken of course. She is certainly the likeliest of ther 3 to have been wrong but we still have to ask ourselves - what are the chances of her seeing a woman that closely resembled Long at just the right time and at just the right place. Witnesses can be right however many times we quote how u reliable they could be.

Finally, it’s interesting to note how often the unreliability of witnesses gets quoted. This doesn’t mean that all witnesses were unreliable of course. But we I quote expert after expert after expert after expert all telling us without a single exception that a Victorian Doctors ToD estimation methods were always unreliable. Not occasionally but always. Peopke start whistling and shuffling their feet before coming out with excuse after excuse. And of course a Doctor could still get the ToD correct using unreliable methods before anyone misunderstands this point….again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think people are taking what Phillips said too literally he stated he may have been mistaken but that doesn't rule out the possibility that he was correct, he took a guess which opens up an earlier TOD and a later TOD. I think researchers not only have to scrutinize the witness testimony in the CHapman murder to try to determine a TOD but alongside that exercise look at all the facts and evidence in all the other murders and in my opinion having lived with all this testimony for the past 15 years the MO of the killer does not lend itself to a later TOD.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And after living with this testimony for 36 years I can see what is very obvious. That you favour something that was close to a guess over 3 witnesses. Perhaps we should try reading the tea leaves Trevor?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also regarding Phillipps from one of Georges previous post .


''Phillips - I don't know that any doctor would admit that his methods were unreliable. That's a modern day assessment, but strangely, other ToD's were surprisingly accurate, relatively speaking. I know the common answer to this suggestion is that the others cribbed their ToD's by finding out the answer first, but I see no evidence that the doctor's interrogated beat cops or witnesses before they produced their ToD's so as to ensure they got the right answer.''

Great guessing wasnt it ?

And of course you completely ignored the two examples that I posted of this from David Barrat’s book after you had specifically requested them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nobody IS ignoring it, or dismissing it, it's just that its only part of the story.
YOU are avoiding having to deal with the rest. By insisting that any veracity Richardson has begins and ends with THAT.

When you ADD to it the difficulty he would have had (being a big chunky fellow) getting into a position to see the cellar door from being exactly AT the back door without taking at least one step down, taking into acount the peripheral vision of the human eye, PLUS... Davies saying that he saw the body "Directly" he opened the door thereby proving that a body could be seen from that very position you want to fix Richardson in... AND the fact that the Detective who took that statement had also stood EXACTLY where Richardson had, and had no cause to doubt the claim that he WOULD have seen the body...
You start to understand that there might just be a BIT more to it than simply coming to the back door, looking down then walking away, without ever catching sight of the west side of the yard. Even if that is what you really wish had happened.

And please, with the contmeporary drawings... did you know that "Clutching At Straws" was also the title of the fourth studio album by Marillion?
Go find one of those drawings (preferably one that doesn't show the lean-to with walls, otherwise you're in real bother...) then compare it with the photos of the house and tell me which has the most accurate depiction in YOUR mind as to where the window frames sit within the wall. Like I explained before the celllar door would be set to the same depth (Give or take an inch). If you like we can then have that discussion all over again, but nothing will change.
And I hope don't need to explain why that door would struggle even harder to open outward, especially if it were as far forward and framed on the outside edge of the wall as the contemporary drawings seem to put it.

You’re simply AP. You’ll get used to it though.

Clutching At Straws is an absolute classic. Possibly my favourite Marillion album.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry A.P ,i can only go by what the evidence in the case tells us ,and it tells us exactly what i said in my previous post to you . Tell me tho, how you compare Richardson partly opening the door looking to his right to check the lock then turning inward back through the doorway to go to work , to Davies fully opening the door and seeing the body as he is standing there ? .There two different situations ,not the same as you suggested . Sorry but Davies does not validate Richardsons claim regarding the way in which he he saw the body , speculation on your behalf , and speculation get us to... 'Uncertainty'' .

We know what Richardson did. He told a newspaper on the 10th and the inquest (under oath) on the 12th.

Simples. Game over. Annie Chapman absolutely wasn’t in the yard at 4.45. So clearly a wheel had come off Newley’s carriage and he had to stop to replace it while Gull and Sickert sat there with Annie’s bloodies corpse chomping grapes and discussing The Duke Of Clarence and how they are going to track down Mary Kelly.

It all makes sense now.

[Trevor Marriott]

And after living with this testimony for 36 years I can see what is very obvious. That you favour something that was close to a guess over 3 witnesses. Perhaps we should try reading the tea leaves Trevor?

How many times must it be explained to you the flaws in those three witnesses you seek to rely on to prop up a later TOD which make their testimony unsafe to totally rely on

and Phillips may have guessed right

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

Sorry A.P ,i can only go by what the evidence in the case tells us ,and it tells us exactly what i said in my previous post to you . Tell me tho, how you compare Richardson partly opening the door looking to his right to check the lock then turning inward back through the doorway to go to work , to Davies fully opening the door and seeing the body as he is standing there ? .There two different situations ,not the same as you suggested . Sorry but Davies does not validate Richardsons claim regarding the way in which he he saw the body , speculation on your behalf , and speculation get us to... 'Uncertainty'' .

How do I compare them? Simple I don't believe for a second that he merely stuck his head round the corner and glanced down for ALL of the reasons I've been trying to explain to you... Physics... the biology of the human eye, balance, algebra... architecture... common sense, police NOT considering hsi story to be "Uncertain". Because all the evidence including his testimony, suggests he was ON the steps not in the doorway.
Neither do I believe he partly opened the door.
Where in ANY of this nonsense has anyone shown that he PARTLY opened the door?
Who said that he only "partly" opened the door?

So let me throw that one back at you. Removing the stuff you made up. ("...only go by what the evidence in the case tells us..." then start talking about parly opened doors... and which way he turned round... blimey...)
"How do YOU compare Richardson opening the door to Davies opening the door?" (Given that neither gave any indication as to how far they opened the door, which way they turned, other than both said they were able to see the spot where the woman was.) ONLY using the evidence in the case mind... Don't start having Richardson pirouetting on that top step so that he can't deliberately see anything west of the privvy... not unless that is the evidence we already have)


You've gone from blithely ignoring that "It was not quite light, but I could see all over the place. I could not have failed to have noticed the deceased, had she been there then". in favour of a made up situation. Because you feel a need to discredit him.

He COUDN'T have seen that the padlock was "all right" from that position unless he stepped out ON to the steps and leaned down a bit. (How is that even still a thing?????)
Or... consider this... SAT on the step and leaned over. Like he said
At which point, unless you can demonstrate severe tunnel vision in his medical history he would have seen the body.
It is LITERALLY the darkest part of the yard as the sky just begins to lighten from the east it's both recessed and under a lean-to roof. It would receive less ambiant skylight than anywhere else in the yard. A glance from the doorway is...
It's just silly and the further you keep pushing him back up the stairs and into the doorway the sillier it gets.

I've done everything possible to show you the way those doors are framed. To the point where you are resorting citing artist's renditions that are so obviously wrong it's annnoying to have to even refer to it.
Do you not see how THAT in and of itself is pure agenda driven grasping for anything that will support your theory?
And then you say you can "Only go by what the evidence in the case tells us."