John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

And how many times do I, and others, have to keep explaining to you how inconsequential or even non-existent these flaws are. It’s only because certain people, like yourself, raise them to a level of importance that they don’t merit that they become issues.

These flaws are important and they are not non-existent because they impact the witness testimony and moreso bring the TOD into question.

I have not seen any document or any report that categorically sets a specific time of death based on the inquest testimony. So we are left to assess and evaluate the witness testimony left to us from 1888, to try to if possible establish an accurate TOD, and clearly, you and I assess and evaluate that witness testimony differently, You need to take the blinkers off and look and listen to what others are saying and how they are assessing and evaluating the evidence and not keep posting your same replies which I have to say are becoming to the point of boring and repetitive and are not doing you any favours with the casebook community.

Why can’t you accept this? Why do you keep trying to brush witnesses off with generalities and assumptions? And what’s most staggering of all is that you, a former Police Officer, rely on these trivialities and non-issues to bolster a ToD estimate which you yourself admit was unreliable. How does that make sense?

The flaws in the testimony are there for all to see it's not just me, and have been highlighted many times but you seem to not be able to see the flaws in the testimony or if you can you don't accept them and you keep saying the witnesses must be correct. The fact is that there are flaws so care has to be taken when assessing their accuracy.

You pays your money and you takes your choice as to the TOD because we will never know exactly all we can do is as I have said assess and evaluate all the evidence in this murder but not losing track of the evidence in all the other murders and make your own decision. I think all that could be said has been said, my view having done exactly that is that she was murdered much earlier

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

One thing that I have always wondered about Victorian doctors and their estimated ToDs, is that because we know nowadays just how approximate an estimated ToD can be, how accurate did Dr Phillips believe he could be? As a very experienced police surgeon, did he believe that he was merely helping the police by expressing a reasonably accurate opinion which might be of some guidance for them, or did he really believe he could be especially accurate? His inquest caveat may suggest that he was aware of the potential flaws in the method.

Some contributors here seem to believe that he was almost totally reliable, and that he was absolutely convinced of this himself. Personally, I think a thoroughly experienced police surgeon may well have been aware that he could only give a reasonable guide in many instances. In the cases of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes they could be fairly confident because they had fresh blood, not yet congealed, to take into account, so minutes rather than hours. When presented with a later ToD, as in the case of Kelly, they were very vague, and admitted they couldn't be sure.

I think he would have understood a fairly straightforward timeline of body temp decline, which would give a rough guideline, and he would have stuck to it. He should have known that extenuating factors played a part in moving the marker on that graph, and I think he simply didn't apply those elements appropriately enough at the Chapman murder scene. i don't think he was a bad doctor, and I know he came in for some stick over his thoughts on the medical skills of the killer. And it's hard to tell how many of those, if any, were based on genuine opinion on the attacks, or simply professional pride in not wanting the Medical Community linked to such things in such a vulgar insinuation.

I have wondered if the various statements that were made later by the Police in support of his findings were in some part a concession made to allow Baxter to make his final deliberation on the ToD without controversy or negative impact on Philips.
That Philips realised he had erred and getting the Vote of Confidence from the police showed that even if WB said something like "He may well be wrong about this one thing..." that no one was suggesting that he's not doing anything other than a very good job.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The flaws in the testimony are there for all to see it's not just me, and have been highlighted many times but you seem to not be able to see the flaws in the testimony or if you can you don't accept them and you keep saying the witnesses must be correct. The fact is that there are flaws so care has to be taken when assessing their accuracy.

You pays your money and you takes your choice as to the TOD because we will never know exactly all we can do is as I have said assess and evaluate all the evidence in this murder but not losing track of the evidence in all the other murders and make your own decision. I think all that could be said has been said, my view having done exactly that is that she was murdered much earlier

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m tired of discussing this with someone who keeps saying things that aren’t true. I have never said that witnesses must be correct. How many times do I have to waste my time repeating this until you stop doing it? What I’ve said…….now read this slowly and more than once!!!!!

What I’ve repeatedly said is that just because witnesses can be unreliable it doesn’t mean that they all are. Some aren’t. We have to ASSESS them. We have to weigh up any pro’s and cons. We can’t (or at least we shouldn’t) just point out some trivial error and use it as an excuse for throwing out a witness. This is exactly what you do and you do it constantly and repeatedly across numerous threads when dealing with witnesses that you don’t like. When you find one that you do like you conveniently ignore or dismiss any of the faults that are pointed out to you. You’re ‘unreliable’ rule always appears very ‘flexible,’ and always in your own favour.

Cadosch said that he heard a noise against a fence that he was virtually standing next to after first being alerted to a presence in the yard of number 29 by the ‘No.’ He wasn’t subject to hallucinations as far as we know. He wasn’t Walter Mitty as far as we know. He had nothing to gain by lying. He didn’t exaggerate what he’d heard. If he showed caution about the ‘no’ this can only indicate honesty and not a person pushing a suggestion at all costs. There’s just nothing….zero…..zilch that gives us a single reason to doubt what he said. All that you have is “he might have been mistaken.” Ok, so let’s dump him and while we’re at it we’ll dump all witnesses because they all ‘could have been mistaken.’

Its about assessment and remaining balanced. Something that you consistently struggle with. There is nothing wrong with Cadosch. No witness is perfect but you need a good reason for dismissing them. And bias doesn’t count!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can anybody come up with a non-humorous reason why John Richardson would have invented his story in the press for the 10th September report? After speaking to the police and before appearing at the inquest where Chandler would have testified too? What made him think that it was a whizz to place a knife in his own hand when he wasn’t pressured into doing it?

Why would anyone take this suggestion seriously?

Sensible/obvious alternative - when interviewed by Chandler he told him that he’d sat on the steps but not why he had (the boot repair) because it wasn’t relevant, he had no need to and because Chandler wouldn’t have bothered asking “why did you sit on the step?” Then when a reporter spoke to him at greater length than Chandler did in his short interview he gave the added detail. Possibly after being asked why he hadn’t gone into the yard or why he had chosen to sit on the steps.

The whole thing is a non-issue elevated to Watergate proportions to try and paint John Richardson as a liar. Which he clearly wasn’t.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can anybody come up with a non-humorous reason why John Richardson would have invented his story in the press for the 10th September report? After speaking to the police and before appearing at the inquest where Chandler would have testified too? What made him think that it was a whizz to place a knife in his own hand when he wasn’t pressured into doing it?

Why would anyone take this suggestion seriously?

Sensible/obvious alternative - when interviewed by Chandler he told him that he’d sat on the steps but not why he had (the boot repair) because it wasn’t relevant, he had no need to and because Chandler wouldn’t have bothered asking “why did you sit on the step?” Then when a reporter spoke to him at greater length than Chandler did in his short interview he gave the added detail. Possibly after being asked why he hadn’t gone into the yard or why he had chosen to sit on the steps.

The whole thing is a non-issue elevated to Watergate proportions to try and paint John Richardson as a liar. Which he clearly wasn’t.

Well either Chander was lying or Richardson when he gave Chandler his first account

Chandler was asked a specific question in court "Did Richardson mention he sat on the steps to cut his boot" Chandler replied "No" How much plainer can than be?

You can argue as much as you like or invent scenarios to fit your belief the facts don't lie

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Can anybody come up with a non-humorous reason why John Richardson would have invented his story in the press for the 10th September report? After speaking to the police and before appearing at the inquest where Chandler would have testified too? What made him think that it was a whizz to place a knife in his own hand when he wasn’t pressured into doing it?

Why would anyone take this suggestion seriously?

Sensible/obvious alternative - when interviewed by Chandler he told him that he’d sat on the steps but not why he had (the boot repair) because it wasn’t relevant, he had no need to and because Chandler wouldn’t have bothered asking “why did you sit on the step?” Then when a reporter spoke to him at greater length than Chandler did in his short interview he gave the added detail. Possibly after being asked why he hadn’t gone into the yard or why he had chosen to sit on the steps.

The whole thing is a non-issue elevated to Watergate proportions to try and paint John Richardson as a liar. Which he clearly wasn’t.

By the time Richardson allegedly spoke to the press and after speaking to Chandler he had time to reflect on his first account.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well either Chander was lying or Richardson when he gave Chandler his first account

Chandler was asked a specific question in court "Did Richardson mention he sat on the steps to cut his boot" Chandler replied "No" How much plainer can than be?

You can argue as much as you like or invent scenarios to fit your belief the facts don't lie

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In the version where we get a quote:

[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Nowhere does he say that Richardson hadn’t said that he’d sat on the steps. Only that he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair and that he hadn’t gone down the steps.

The emboldened bit is interesting though. So it has to be assumed that he held the door to prevent it going to the fence? Convenient….again. Isn’t it surprising how conveniently Richardson would have had to have acted to have avoided seeing the body?

Enough of this infantile nonsense. The body clearly wasn’t there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the time Richardson allegedly spoke to the press and after speaking to Chandler he had time to reflect on his first account.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And decided that it was to his advantage to put a knife into his own hand at the scene of a knife murder. What a stroke of genius! What would he have replied to the question “do you have a hobby Mr. Richardson?”

Probably “yes, female anatomy and dissection.”

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'd expect them to get it right 8 times out of 10.

I'd imagine you do.

But, there's a problem. That being you've plucked this out of thin air.

There's a further problem: professionals who have studied witness testimony extensively do not agree with you.

We have your expectation, which isn't even an anecdote let alone research, and then we have research undertaken by professionals.

I for one have concluded that your '8 out of 10' doesn't amount to very much.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd imagine you do.

But, there's a problem. That being you've plucked this out of thin air.

There's a further problem: professionals who have studied witness testimony extensively do not agree with you.

We have your expectation, which isn't even an anecdote let alone research, and then we have research undertaken by professionals.

I for one have concluded that your '8 out of 10' doesn't amount to very much.

And that’s all fine and dandy coming from someone who thinks that his knowledge of ToD estimations exceeds that of the worlds authorities. Or when a quote is posted from an expert on Victorian clocks and timekeeping you don’t accept it. Clearly you’re quite selective on expert opinion. Tending to prefer anything that suits the particular side of a debate that you’re on.

So are you aware of a paper that tells us that if a man standing 5 feet of so from a fence hears a sound that he says, with confidence, came from something hitting against that very same fence, that he’s usually wrong? Or often wrong? Or wrong 50% of the time? Or are you simply, like Trevor, falling back on the generality that ‘witnesses can be mistaken?’ Which is something that I’ve never doubted by the way. There was certainly something strange occurring that morning though. A ‘no’ came from an unknown location but it sounded to a man standing next to number 29 that it came from number 29. Then a very few minutes later a thud against a fence from some unknown location also sounded to the man standing next to the fence that it came from number 29? Coincidence? No chance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm merely the messenger. These are people who have undertaken extensive research and they are telling you that witness recollection is unreliable, particularly in an event where the witness has no reason to take notice.

The reason why people do not understand this, is because memory does not work in the manner that your average person assumes it works.

In an early study of eyewitness memory, undergraduate subjects first watched a slideshow depicting a small red car driving and then hitting a pedestrian (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). Some subjects were then asked leading questions about what had happened in the slides. For example, subjects were asked, “How fast was the car traveling when it passed the yield sign?” But this question was actually designed to be misleading, because the original slide included a stop sign rather than a yield sign.

Later, subjects were shown pairs of slides. One of the pair was the original slide containing the stop sign; the other was a replacement slide containing a yield sign. Subjects were asked which of the pair they had previously seen. Subjects who had been asked about the yield sign were likely to pick the slide showing the yield sign, even though they had originally seen the slide with the stop sign. In other words, the misinformation in the leading question led to inaccurate memory.

This phenomenon is called the misinformation effect, because the misinformation that subjects were exposed to after the event (here in the form of a misleading question) apparently contaminates subjects’ memories of what they witnessed. Hundreds of subsequent studies have demonstrated that memory can be contaminated by erroneous information that people are exposed to after they witness an event (see Frenda, Nichols, & Loftus, 2011; Loftus, 2005). The misinformation in these studies has led people to incorrectly remember everything from small but crucial details of a perpetrator’s appearance to objects as large as a barn that wasn’t there at all.

These studies have demonstrated that young adults (the typical research subjects in psychology) are often susceptible to misinformation, but that children and older adults can be even more susceptible (Bartlett & Memon, 2007; Ceci & Bruck, 1995). In addition, misinformation effects can occur easily, and without any intention to deceive (Allan & Gabbert, 2008). Even slight differences in the wording of a question can lead to misinformation effects. Subjects in one study were more likely to say yes when asked “Did you see the broken headlight?” than when asked “Did you see a broken headlight?” (Loftus, 1975).

Other studies have shown that misinformation can corrupt memory even more easily when it is encountered in social situations (Gabbert, Memon, Allan, & Wright, 2004). This is a problem particularly in cases where more than one person witnesses a crime. In these cases, witnesses tend to talk to one another in the immediate aftermath of the crime, including as they wait for police to arrive. But because different witnesses are different people with different perspectives, they are likely to see or notice different things, and thus remember different things, even when they witness the same event. So when they communicate about the crime later, they not only reinforce common memories for the event, they also contaminate each other’s memories for the event (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Paterson & Kemp, 2006; Takarangi, Parker, & Garry, 2006).

I just read through the article and it’s not relevant in the slightest to Cadosch and Richardson.

[GBinOz]

One thing that I have always wondered about Victorian doctors and their estimated ToDs, is that because we know nowadays just how approximate an estimated ToD can be, how accurate did Dr Phillips believe he could be? As a very experienced police surgeon, did he believe that he was merely helping the police by expressing a reasonably accurate opinion which might be of some guidance for them, or did he really believe he could be especially accurate? His inquest caveat may suggest that he was aware of the potential flaws in the method.

Some contributors here seem to believe that he was almost totally reliable, and that he was absolutely convinced of this himself. Personally, I think a thoroughly experienced police surgeon may well have been aware that he could only give a reasonable guide in many instances. In the cases of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes they could be fairly confident because they had fresh blood, not yet congealed, to take into account, so minutes rather than hours. When presented with a later ToD, as in the case of Kelly, they were very vague, and admitted they couldn't be sure.

Do you know the difference between a surgeon and God? God doesn’t think he’s a surgeon.

Hi Doc,

I think that doctors in 1888 were confident in their profession, but were also cognisant that they were providing an estimate. The profession had an established routine to formulate that estimate - body temperature and rigor onset at the crime scene, with the addition of an analysis of stomach content at the autopsy. I note that the "Caveat" included only a consideration of the effect of a cold morning and blood loss on the body's temperature. I believe that Phillips must have also had in mind that rigor usually commenced after two hours, and was retarded by cold temperature , and that "Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.". As I have said, IMO he was confident about the "at least two hours" but felt that under the circumstances, the "probably more" fell into the category of uncharted territory.

Modern theory is that the 1888 methods were unreliable, and I do not dispute that assertion. I do wonder, how unreliable. As you stated, they seemed to be less unreliable with the shorter times involved with Nicols, Stride and Eddowes, and more unreliable, with a larger difference between doctor's estimates, in the case of Kelly, which was even further into uncharted territory. IMO, the one hour since death in the case of Chapman is too little by comparison to Nicols, Stride and Eddowes given the warmth of their bodies, and the coldness of Chapman. The additional rigor and stomach content analysis persuade me that, overall, there is a likelyhood that she had been dead longer than one hour.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

And decided that it was to his advantage to put a knife into his own hand at the scene of a knife murder. What a stroke of genius! What would he have replied to the question “do you have a hobby Mr. Richardson?”

Probably “yes, female anatomy and dissection.”

Hi Herlock,

Had he, in response to the coroner's request, produced a razor sharp knife that had some sort of application to the removal of leather from the inside toe of a lace-up boot, he would indeed have propelled himself into a maelstrom. But the potential of the "knife" that he produced, as a weapon, equated more to a severe beating with a limp lettuce leaf. Too suggest that it had the potential for use in "female anatomy and dissection" would have had the coroner and the jury ROTFLTAO.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Excuse me for mentioning this, but it seems there has been much debate on whether Richardson went down the steps, or simply sat on the steps.

Maybe I missed this, but I couldn't find anyone raising the fact we are dealing with two sets of steps here.
The first set is from the house to the yard, the second set from the yard to the cellar.

I've just scanned through five sources; Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, and the Times, and due to editing it is not always clear which set of steps is being referred to.
In fact the Daily News is one source that is not ambiguous, we read:

Did he say what for? - He said he went into the back yard and down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market.

Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.

Did he say he was sure the woman was not there? - Yes.

By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down.

From the top of the cellar steps he could see quite clearly whether the lock on the door was intact. It is also obvious that had the body been there, from the top of the cellar steps he couldn't have missed it. And when asked if he went into the yard, it is quite possible Richardson took the question to mean out into the open space away from the house, which he didn't. He kept close to the house, by the steps. So in his mind he did not go (out) into the yard. I can understand that point of view.

All of the press versions had some editing, what I was never clear on was to what degree a press editor had selectively taken out various questions & replies, the end result being the reader cannot decide which set of steps 'he did not go down'. Was it the cellar steps, or was it the house steps?
It would seem in this thread that posts have been occupied with the house steps, but no-one (that I could see) has raised the fact there were cellar steps to consider.
It is necessary to read as many press versions as we can find to evaluate the correct meaning of the exchange.

[Lewis C]

Hi AP,

I did post this before, but the response was a deafening silence (for good reason I'm sure you will suggest). But, on the basis that it is pure speculation:

The couple seen by Long in the street were not Jack and Annie, but they did enter into #29 for immoral purposes. They open the back door at the moment when Cadosch is in the doorway returning from his first trip to the Loo, and the woman exclaims a shocked "No". The couple is unaware that Cadosch has just disappeared into his house. The woman is in dire financial straits and during the 4 minutes that Cadosch is inside, the couple discuss robbing the body, and the chances of getting caught at a murder site (they are, after all, already there). The man wants no part of it and leaves, but the woman proceeds with her plan. When Cadosch appears at the door she hides behind the fence. When he returns from the loo, this time her attempt to hide results in her bumping the fence. Cadosch ignores the noise, returns inside and the woman scarpers.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I appreciate you attempting an alternative explanation, and also that you have the noise against the fence being made by a human and the humans seeing the body, both of which I think are near-certainties. I think your scenario is possible but unlikely, and I mostly agree with AP's response to this. I would add that I even think it's unlikely that the woman would want to steal from the corpse, she'd want to get out of there immediately too.

Here's another scenario, one that I think is like yours in that it's possible but unlikely. A very drunk man went into the yard either because he was so drunk that he was confused about where he was, or he thought it might be an OK place to sleep. He staggers around and runs into the fence, but seeing the body, doesn't want to stick around and leaves. He soon passes out/goes to sleep, and when he awakens, forgets that he saw the body. Or remembers, but doesn't want to take the risk of being implicated in the murder, so he doesn't report it.