John Richardson

[Wickerman]

Inspector Chandler see it differently .

Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - [Inspector Chandler] I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said ''he came to the back door'' and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work

This surely means '' The back door''of the house not the cellar.

Hi Fishy.
Sorry to point out, you have fallen into the same trap of not comparing the press reports.
Your example has been edited, it is not correct.
I'm not sure which paper you got it from, but here is the Daily News version of Chandler's testimony that contains more detail.

Did you see John Richardson? - Later on in the morning, a little before seven o'clock. It was in the passage of 29, Hanbury-street. He told me he had been in the house that morning, about a quarter to five.
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.

We have to compare press accounts to get the complete story.
The above being a more detailed account demonstrates why Richardson was so sure the body had not been there. It would have been pretty impossible to have missed it when he was standing at the top of the cellar steps.

[Wickerman]

Excellent post which sums it up nicely yet again, but some are still not getting it and choosing to argue against what Richardon's account was to Chandler on his return to No29. It cant be any clearer, Chander was asked if Richardson mentioned his boot account Chandler replied no.

That rules out the possibility that he told Chandler and Chandler forgot to record it as some have suggested.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh dear, still a day late & a dollar short, as always Trevor?
Research your sources my friend.

[The Rookie Detective]

Thats great, now prove it , oh that right you can't.

That applies to virtually everything in this case though.

The only thing that we CAN prove is that an unknown number of women were murdered by a person or persons unknown.

Outside of knowing that the women must have been murdered, ergo, not suicide or death by misadventure; then nothing else can be proven after all this time.


Unless the bodies are ever exhumed, then that's the only way to have any chance of getting any definitive answers, and even then that's unlikely after all this time.

The truth is that NOTHING on any of these threads can be PROVEN and so your point about me not being able to prove something, works both ways.

The murders will NEVER be solved and we can NEVER PROVE WHO murdered those women...but the closest we can get; is to make sense of what we think we know and apply logic, math, science, probability, statistical probability and common sense.

If you believe that a man can miss a mutilated body lying inches away from him
If you can believe that a woman heard saying "NO" shortly followed by the sound of something hitting the fence, on the other side of which is later found a mutilated body.
If you can believe that a woman who sees the victim standing talking to a man outside the address at the back of which she is murdered

Then that's okay by me. Your logic and belief is no reflection of right or wrong because like all of us, it's just your opinion, which is as equally valid as anyone's of course.

The only thing I would add, is that IF you believe that the above 3 points are less logical or probable than the earlier murder time and "rats" being the cause of the sound hitting the fence, then I'd suggest that your application of logic, probability and common sense is at a different gradient to mine.

Equally valid, but statistically less likely in comparison.

The truth is that we will never know when she was murdered, we just have to use our own subjective levels of logic and common sense and then apply them to the very little that is truly known about the circumstances of her murder and that of all the other victims.


But i take you point as I acknowledge that I cannot PROVE the later time of death...on the fundamental basis that you can't PROVE the earlier time of death either.


RD

[GBinOz]

George, if you posted that suggestion earlier then I assume that it was, at least partially aimed at me? My apologies for not responding. I genuinely missed it. It was only when I saw your response to AP that I became aware of it.

Its about likelihood isn’t it George and not just things that aren’t physically impossible. How many people would have considered for a second approaching and interfering with a corpse that her abdomen ripped open and her entrails strewn around? Let alone staying there for 4 minutes? Then we have to add the possibility of being caught at the scene and suspected. I’d have put this into the ‘extreme unlikeliness category’ knocking on the door of the impossible category but being refused entry.

Hi Herlock,

No need for an apology. When I said earlier, I was talking about perhaps a year ago. I don't recall my scenario back then being aimed at you, just for general consumption.

How many people would have considered robbing a body? I'll quote you from your reply to Fishy: "A woman absolutely desperate for cash".

I found your "unlikeliness category" to be quite humorous. In fact that is where I would place the suggestion that Jack would have carried out the murder in daylight with an amphitheatre of potential witnesses arising for the new day.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

You will remember the movie "12 Angry Men", and the overwhelming evidence against the young defendant, and the 11-1 vote to convict with no further discussion. Remember the absolutely unique knife found at the scene and alleged to belong to the defendant to the exclusion of all others, subsequently being bought by the Fonda character from a street vendor. Remember the incontrovertible evidence from the man awakened by a passing train who swore he saw the defendant kill the victim through the train windows, until it was discovered that he was short sighted and not wearing his glasses at the time. Had you been part of that jury, would you have been the Fonda character, or one of the 11 in possession of the 100% incontrovertible overwhelming evidence?

Cheers, George

Remember that "12 Angry Men" is a work of fiction, carefully crafted so that everything about the case is not just wrong, but wrong on a level that the witnesses are probably committing perjury. Real witnesses can be mistaken, but virtually never on that level. Real witnesses may commit perjury, but normally only to protect themselves or because the police pressure them into supporting the official solution. Real police can jump to conclusions in a desire to solve the case, but in the Chapman case, the witness testimony neither helps nor hurts the police in finding the killer.

For me the key is Richardson. Could he be mistaken? Unless he had Mr Magoo levels of eyesight, no. He would have seen the body if it had been there. Could his timing have been off? That's certainly possible, humans are not great at time estimating, And it would have been a mundane, ordinary day for Richardson, who wouldn't be precisely timing himself even if he had a pocket watch.

Could he have been lying? Some witnesses do in order for a bit of fame, but they are rare and their stories tend to be dramatic. Richardson's story is a story of doing some mundane things and seeing nothing. It also put him near the body with a knife in his hand, which would be a stunningly stupid thing to lie about. It doesn't protect himself. If anything, it does the opposite. It doesn't support an official solution.

Which to me says there is no reasonable doubt to Richardson's story. The timing could be off a bit, but when he was in the yard, Chapman's body was not. And police and medical testimony strongly indicate Chapman was killed in the yard, not killed at an earlier time and dumped there later.

Which makes a few suspects less likely or possibly even impossible. That's a problem for some who are heavily invested in a theory. It isn't for me.

[GBinOz]

Ill give you my version George , seeings how A.P seems to lack any real imagination as to what the noise could have been . Here goes.


We already know the ''NO'' Cadosch heard was undeterminable as to which side it came from , he only ''Thinks'' [ by shear definition this equates to uncertainty] it came from 29, but cant be sure . Therefor its entirely possible there is no person and or couple in the back yard of number 29 at 5.22am when Cadosch returns from the loo.[ two minutes to take a leak] He returns 4 minutes later ,its now 5.26 am and he hears the ''Noise'' as ''something touched the fence suddenly'' .

So at this point as some have suggested that the ''No'' was the start of the attack. For it to have been Chapmans body to have made the noise against the fence, the killer has spent the best part of 4 minutes killing her while in an upright position befor laying her down to start the mutilations . Very unlikely .

Or perhaps they engaged in conversation for the 4 minutes and the kill was at 5.26am and the Killer lays chapmans body down and it brushes up against the fence and Cadosch hears it then.

This senario borders on the extremely unlikely and would be in my opinion a desperate act by anyone trying to cling to a later t.o.d arguement .


Heres the problem as i see it .

Now the killer has to take to his mutilations on Chapman ,which as has been reported to have taken at least 15 minutes .So by the time the killer leaves the scene of the crime its close to 5.45 in the morning , if Richardson claims he could see all around at 4.45 its more than likely its full light between 5.30 and 5.45 .

So, for a full 15 mins his has exposed himself to the dozen or more occupants of 29 Hanbury st who no doubt are ready to get up for work , all the while mutilating a dead body with no escape route if spotted !! ,As Trevor has suggested ,not his M.O and a very unlikely occurance . Enter DR Phillipps at 6.30am ''two hours probably more '' for a body thats been left mutilated 45 minutes earlier , how was it he could not be more accurate ?. After all it surely was an easier task to determind more accurate t.o.d only 45 minutes befor under those circumstances, Baxter and Brown did it ! .

Which brings us to the all elusive Noise against the fence as Cacosch returned from the yard a second time.

Chapmans body has been there around 90 min earlier, as we know there are packing cases/ crates up against the fence where a gap may have existed between the pailing and the crates . Given the deplorable health conditions in the whitchapel are at the time ,it would not be out of the realms of possiblity that rats were a problem, it also quite resonable to assume that one or even a pair of rats were scurrying along the fence pailings between the crates when cadosch heard them brush up against the fence competing for food scrapes . They may well have been approaching the smell of the mutilated coropes to feast on when Cadoschs sudden presents scares them back in the opposite direction whence they came from.


There you go George, see what you think JMO

Hi Fishy,

I think you have defined a major problem with Cadosch's testimony, that being the gap between the "No" and the bump against the fence. The gap would actually be more than four minutes as that is how long Cadosch testified he was in the house, and the unknown time he spent in the Loo the second time has to be added. To me, his initial story to the press involving a single visit to the Loo, with a conversation, the "no", a scuffle and the sound of a fall against the fence occurring consecutively was more credible. But of course there is the possibility that the "No" was unrelated.

The other major problem that you mentioned is the daylight murder (sunrise was 5.23) not being the M.O. of Jack, with its exposure to an audience of potential witnesses, and on that I am in full agreement with yourself and Trevor. The time taken to visit the injuries upon the body is disputed, but the only person that I know with actual experience of surgical procedures (my daughter) considers that 15 minutes could be considered reasonable, even for a slash and grab.

While Cadosch did mention crates in #29, I think the evidence points to the fact that there were none there that morning. While there is a definite possibility that animals such as rats or a cat may have been attracted to the body, I'm not sure that they would have been deterred by someone next door, and I think their activity would have been noticed by Phillips.

I have experienced the bump noise that occurs in a building or structure, such as a fence, when the sun goes behind, or emerges from behind a cloud, and at sunrise and sunset, so I don't dismiss that possibility either. But it also has to be considered that it could have been related to the murder, and that is why, IMO, "the bump" only forms part of the jigsaw that needs to be examined when forming an opinion.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

No need for an apology. When I said earlier, I was talking about perhaps a year ago. I don't recall my scenario back then being aimed at you, just for general consumption.

How many people would have considered robbing a body? I'll quote you from your reply to Fishy: "A woman absolutely desperate for cash".

I found your "unlikeliness category" to be quite humorous. In fact that is where I would place the suggestion that Jack would have carried out the murder in daylight with an amphitheatre of potential witnesses arising for the new day.

Cheers, George

No problem George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again your speculating on my post that it wasn't possible , the evidence suggests otherwise , So you wasted your time didnt you .

It just goes to show what we've known all along Herlock ,that is you completely ignor the evidence when you can't disprove it lead to an earlier t.od .

You can't disprove my post, , you've offer your opinion which counts for nothing when the evidence trumps you at every turn .

So disprove my theory with some facts, not your usual ifs ,buts and maybe, and opinions .

I wait right here .

My apologies for making you wait for 2 hours but I had to go out. Here we go:

There were no packing cases in the yard of number 29. This is a fact. You made that up. Why do you feel the need to invent things Fishy?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, (we note that he says ‘about’ so he’s estimating a time which implies that he either didn’t own a clock or that he didn’t consult one so his accuracy clearly can’t be relied on) and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. (So he’s estimating a gap of time from the starting point of an estimated time) As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. (No mention of how long he was in the loo which adds further doubts on timing) It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. (He obviously wouldn’t have said that if he hadn’t a clue) I, however, cannot say on which side it came from (And yet he says here that he doesn’t know which side it came from!?). (It’s fairly obvious therefore that his previous sentence only makes sense if he was saying that he didn’t know which side of number 29 the ‘no’ came from. Therefore he had no doubt that the ‘no’ came from the yard of number 29) I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly. (As George said, we don’t know how long he was in the loo.)


So is the gap (of whatever duration) in anyway suspicious? Only if we make two unfounded assumptions. First, that the ‘no’ was the beginning of the attack. It might have been but it might not have been. And two, that the noise against the fence had to have been Chapman’s body. This might be ‘convenient’ but it’s not a fact. The killer wouldn’t have been stationary. The noise against the fence was without a shadow of a doubt Chapman’s killer.

Everything points to a later ToD. It’s as clear as crystal. The effort to refute it is back-breaking. Why bother? It was game over on this issue long, long ago. If this was in front of a Jury observers in the court wouldn’t have reached the coffee machines before being called back to hear the verdict…….ToD around 5.30….unanimous.

[Hair Bear]

Thankyou Hair Bear.

Odd that current posters ignored that detail, or had everyone forgot?

I'm pretty sure they forgot. This thread has been going for nearly 5000 posts and everything gets repeated every x-months. lol

[Trevor Marriott]

Thankyou Hair Bear.

Odd that current posters ignored that detail, or had everyone forgot?

So what is the evidence referred to? I would suggest it was the evidence relating to Richardson's first account to Chandler and we know that newspaper reports are unreliable. I think that statement referred to is being used by those who prop up a later TOD. There was no challenge to Chandlers account.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So what is the evidence referred to? I would suggest it was the evidence relating to Richardson's first account to Chandler and we know that newspaper reports are unreliable. I think that statement referred to is being used by those who prop up a later TOD. There was no challenge to Chandlers account.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The only ‘propping up’ being done Trevor is your rather sad and unreasoning ‘propping up’ of a clearly unreasonable earlier ToD. Anyone who admits that Phillips ToD was unreliable and yet still prefers it over three witnesses forfeits any right to call themselves reasonable.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I found your "unlikeliness category" to be quite humorous. In fact that is where I would place the suggestion that Jack would have carried out the murder in daylight with an amphitheatre of potential witnesses arising for the new day.

It would be interesting to know of any serial killer who murdered in broad daylight in a residential area, outdoors, knowing people are up and about going about their business.

Are there any?

They strike at night or in somebody's home or in the woods or somewhere because it's away from prying eyes and avoids the problem of somebody turning a corner, which the murderer has no control over.

And then of course, we know the other murders in the series took place when it was dark or in someone's home (which in my opinion was nighttime also).

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

That's an astonishing inability to read an article and consider that which is presented to you. By the way, not the only article, hundreds of them on the same subject at the click of a google button, on the first page, and the second page, and so on.

[Wickerman]

For me the key is Richardson. Could he be mistaken? Unless he had Mr Magoo levels of eyesight, no. He would have seen the body if it had been there. Could his timing have been off? That's certainly possible, humans are not great at time estimating, And it would have been a mundane, ordinary day for Richardson, who wouldn't be precisely timing himself even if he had a pocket watch.

The more I go over the different press versions of Chandler's testimony, the more it becomes apparent there was even confusion in the courtroom between the two sets of steps. One phrase has Richardson sitting on the top step, whereas another has him stood on the top step. Most journalists who recorded the testimony have confused the two sets of steps, most but not all.
While sat on the house steps, it has been debated whether the swing of the door could have obscured the body. Though when he stood at the top of the cellar steps he had an unobscured view of the body to his side, up against the fence.
The body, had it been there, would be in full view.