John Richardson

[GBinOz]

Hi George

If you look at the arrow in picture 'B' you can see that grass is growing around and not over this area, which I suggest is the original flagging, which in turn is clearly BELOW the step near 'Richardson's' foot on this presentation and not level with it. Picture 'C', although a generated image (I think from CSI Whitechapel), is I believe a reasonable stab at what the yard would have looked like in 1888. Here you see the flagging is not in line with the step. Picture 'A' is next door, which appears also to have two steps. More to the point is John Davis's description of the steps. In his (Daily Telegraph) testimony he said, "There are three stone steps, unprotected, leading from the door to the yard, which is at a lower level than that of the passage". As I've said, I believe his 'third' step relates to the flooring of the passage, but whether that is right or wrong, certainly we are not talking about one step. It is either two or three.

Whilst I'm here, a few posts back you described the possibility of Richardson sitting to the right, as pictured in 'B'. I know this isn't your belief and was just a suggestion. It was a fair one, but I think from the image we can see that it's highly unlikely to be correct, especially when we factor in what would have been a cover in his face, as in 'C'.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 "Could Hairy Bear please tell us whether he knows when the picture he uploaded was taken?"

Hi P.I.1

I'm afraid not, but I would assume many years after 1888. I (now) realise I've been chucking up doctored images without giving credit (whoops, really sorry) but for the most part I've no idea where these things come from (but thank you to all you photographers and artists out there).

Hi Hair Bear,

For some reason I'm not seeing your pictures B and C. However I do have the book CSI Whitechapel, and there is a CGI of the yard, but it is not an accurate representation as you will notice that the height of the canopy would exclude entry to anyone but Herlock's dwarves. I have laid flagging myself and I can't imagine anyone having a stone step an inch or two above the level of the flagging.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

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


He came to the back door , thats as far as he went as far as Chandler was concerned, and all he did was check the lock . Which btw when the coroner asked Richardson ''Was that your sole purpose for being there'' Richardson replied ''Yes''.

You’ve just completely ignored what I said Fishy. I’ll make it as clear as I can.

At no time did John Richardson ever deny that he hadn’t told Chandler about the boot repair. AT NO POINT….EVER.

The fact that his sole purpose for going there is simply the truth. He didn’t go to number 29 to repair his boot. He went to number 29 to check the cellar. He only decided that morning to repair his boot while he was there. For all that we know he might have found the knife in his pocket as he entered the front door and decided there and then to repair his boot.

You’re just engaging in wordplay Fishy. Picking the quote that you like and interpreting it how you want to. You see everything in terms of something sinister. Too much Stephen Knight, too little Sugden or Begg or Barrat or Hamm or Wickerman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Close, but no cigar. Long's man actually sounds like the press reports.

The press reports were published 10 Sep and attributed to Scotland Yard. Long first went to the police with her story of having seen Annie in the street on the 11 Sep. She allegedly identified the body on 12 Sep and appeared at the inquest on 19 Sep.

The press can't have adapted their story from Long's description, but Long seems likely to have developed her story from the published press reports the day before, and adapted it to the time that she was in the street. You listed the similarities, and of the differences, since she said she didn't see his face, the "beard and moustache" difference is marginal.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

Yeah, good point. I forgot about when Long gave her info. Unless of course she spoke to a reporter first who persuaded her to go to the police?

[FISHY1118]

You’ve just completely ignored what I said Fishy. I’ll make it as clear as I can.

At no time did John Richardson ever deny that he hadn’t told Chandler about the boot repair. AT NO POINT….EVER.

The fact that his sole purpose for going there is simply the truth. He didn’t go to number 29 to repair his boot. He went to number 29 to check the cellar. He only decided that morning to repair his boot while he was there. For all that we know he might have found the knife in his pocket as he entered the front door and decided there and then to repair his boot.

You’re just engaging in wordplay Fishy. Picking the quote that you like and interpreting it how you want to. You see everything in terms of something sinister. Too much Stephen Knight, too little Sugden or Begg or Barrat or Hamm or Wickerman.

From the wordplay expert himself i might add .

Ill make it just as clear as i can too you , The evidence that Richarsdson gave contradicts , itself , is ambiguious , uncertain , unsafe to rely on for any accurate t.o.d !!!! You really need to stop seeing it through rose colored glasses.

To much believing one form of evidence and avoiding all others at any cost .

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

You won’t be surprised that I completely agree with what you’ve said. Language can be deceptive and so we have to consider all possibilities. For me with the language that Cadosch uses it makes more sense that he meant that he wasn’t sure what side of number 29 the ‘no’ came from that it does for him to have said, in effect, ‘I think it came from number 29 but I can’t say where it came from.’

Even from a position sitting on the steps some would say that he was actually ‘in the yard,’ where as some would say that he wasn’t. But from a sitting on the steps position he certainly wasn’t still in the house. As you say, Richardson was saying that he didn’t go out into the yard. He didn’t walk into the yard. He stood on the flags at the bottom of the back door steps from which position he looked down the cellar steps. So it could be said that he’d checked the lock from the top of the (cellar) steps without having gone out into the yard.

Hi Herlock,

He's "in the yard" if he sits on the doorstep, but he has not gone "into the yard". "Into the yard" is a different concept from just being "in the yard". The problem is that the way language works, there are subtle changes in concepts about an individual word tied to the phrase in which the word is used, so the concept of the "the yard" cannot be separated from the phrase in which it is used. When used in the phrase "are you in the yard?", then on the steps would get a "yes" response. But if asked "did you go into the yard?", if you never moved further from the flags (at the bottom of the doorsteps/top of the cellar steps), then you would say "no". The concept in the latter is not defining "the yard" but has to do with the concept of "going into the yard", which entails entering some distance beyond the edges of it (not that the "yard" gets smaller, only that the area of space that you have to be in to consider yourself as having gone "into" the yard, as opposed to simply being "in" it, changes; there's a certain, undefined, amount of "travel", or distance from the "edge" maybe).

The weird thing is, that I know I'm making it sound very complicated. And that's another annoying thing about language. The simplest way to put it is that Richardson, standing where I'm suggesting, has not gone into the yard. Because, he hasn't. But when faced with the rebuttal, "but he's in the yard", one has to then go into the complexities of language because yes, he's "in" the yard, so at some point he's entered it, but that's not what "going into the yard" means. Richardson, of course, would not be thinking along these academic lines, he would just repeat, as he did, that he didn't have to go "into" the yard. He's using the phrase to indicate that he's not denying being "in the yard", he's not denying he's "entered the yard", he's only pointing out you can see the lock without "going into the yard" - you don't have to go beyond the edges of it (in vs into - they change the entire meaning).

There's no way to discuss this in terms more simple than Richardson himself used. It sounds complex only because language and human thought is complex, and we're (well, I am), delving deep into the subtilties of the English language. Richardson himself is being very straight forward and using very common and simple language. His idea is simple. Explaining why language works that way isn't, because language is how we explain things and language is, in the end, a really bad tool for explaining things! (But, it is the best we have).

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Apparently this report, and other fairly similar ones with slight variations, also appeared in The Times and The Telegraph. Sugden dealt with this in some depth, although the outcome is not as clear as we would like. According to The News, the prostitute was not Chapman but Emily Walter, or possibly Walton. Other reports of the Walters incident do not even confirm that it was no. 29. There is no record of Walters or Walton in police files, and she wasn't called as a witness, so some think that the story is another journalistic invention, or at best genuine confusion.

Sugden believed that Mrs Richardson and Thompson had given a description to the police of a trespasser they had found on a previous occasion. He believed that the police were enquiring about suspicious activities after 2 am - i.e. shortly after Chapman left the doss house - and that the police info was a description of a man who was seen at no. 29, where the murder itself was committed some time after 2 am (2. 30 am in some reports) on the 8th. It was the murder that was committed after 2 am, and not the sighting of the man, was his suggestion.

It is all rather vague and confusing, as are so many press reports, and I don't think we can be certain of what exactly happened. We can, I think, be sure that it was a mistake of some sort, because, important as it seems, it doesn't get mentioned in Swanson's report of the 19th October.

Hi Doc,

Thanks for the information and your opinion.

When it was just the report in the Star I was prepared to allocate it to journalistic invention. But add the same reports in the Daily Telegraph and The Times and I feel some reluctance to dismiss them.

The trespasser incident was mentioned at the inquest, but it was a month before and between 3:30 and 4:00 am:
[Coroner] Did you ever see anyone in the passage? - Yes, about a month ago I heard a man on the stairs. I called Thompson, and the man said he was waiting for market.
[Coroner] At what time was this? - Between half-past three and four o'clock.

While I am exercising caution in assessing the importance of these reports, I find myself unable to discard them.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

From the wordplay expert himself i might add .

Ill make it just as clear as i can too you , The evidence that Richarsdson gave contradicts , itself , is ambiguious , uncertain , unsafe to rely on for any accurate t.o.d !!!! You really need to stop seeing it through rose colored glasses.

To much believing one form of evidence and avoiding all others at any cost .

You can’t understand and the simplest of things Fishy. To say that there was a conflict is a lie. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless the person making the claim can’t read of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Doc,

Thanks for the information and your opinion.

When it was just the report in the Star I was prepared to allocate it to journalistic invention. But add the same reports in the Daily Telegraph and The Times and I feel some reluctance to dismiss them.

The trespasser incident was mentioned at the inquest, but it was a month before and between 3:30 and 4:00 am:
[Coroner] Did you ever see anyone in the passage? - Yes, about a month ago I heard a man on the stairs. I called Thompson, and the man said he was waiting for market.
[Coroner] At what time was this? - Between half-past three and four o'clock.

While I am exercising caution in assessing the importance of these reports, I find myself unable to discard them.

Cheers, George

George, this is what Sugden says. (I know that you’re probably aware of this but you might not have your copy to hand and as I have the Kindle version too it was no bother to cut and paste):



This description of a suspect seen entering the passage of No. 29 at 2.00 a.m. cannot be reconciled with the evidence of Mrs Long, which places the murderer and his victim outside the house at 5.30, and Leonard Matters, the first important author on the murders, was frankly baffled by it. His successors have fared no better. ‘I am inclined to believe that this description was entirely made up out of some policeman’s head,’ wrote a mystified Tom Cullen, ‘for there is no record of any man’s having been seen entering the passage of No. 29 Hanbury Street at 2.00 a.m. on the morning of the murder. Certainly no witness ever testified to this effect.’20 Most writers on the case have quoted the description without understanding to whom it referred. A few have opted to avoid any reference to it at all. No one has satisfactorily explained it. At the time the News speculated that the prostitute referred to in the police telegram was not Annie Chapman but one Emily Walter or Walton: ‘That description applies, as well as can be gathered, to the man who gave the woman Emily Walton two brass medals, or bright farthings, as half-sovereigns when in a yard of one of the houses in Hanbury Street at 2 a.m. on Saturday morning, and who then began to ill-use the woman. The police attach importance to finding the man . . .’21 Emily’s adventure is known to us only from newspaper reports. She told the police that early on the morning of the murder she had been accosted by a man in Spitalfields. Although he had presented her with two half-sovereigns, as she had supposed at the time, his manner had been violent and threatening. Eventually her screams had scared him off. Later Emily discovered that the ‘half-sovereigns’ were but brass medals. She evidently gave a description of the man to the police and conceivably this was the one circulated in the telegram. The earliest report of the Emily Walter affair, however, tends to cast doubt upon this explanation for it gives the time of her encounter as 2.30 not 2.00, and does not positively identify the house in which it allegedly took place as No. 29: ‘It is said that this woman [Walter] did accompany the man, who seemed as if he would kill her, to a house in Hanbury Street, possibly No. 29, at 2.30 a.m.’22 One also wonders whether the whole story of Emily Walter was a newspaper fiction. She was not called as a witness before the inquest and there is no official record of her in the police or Home Office files.

It will be noted that there are significant differences between the two published texts of the police telegram. The Times version suggests a much more likely solution to the mystery. It begins: ‘Description of a man who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed of a prostitute at 2 a.m. on the 8th.’ Now, since Annie was killed at about 5.30 most students of the case have taken the time of two o’clock to relate to the man’s entry into the passage. But two was an important time in the Chapman case. Abberline and Swanson both record it as the time at which Annie was turned out of the lodging house. Mrs Long did not volunteer her evidence until three days after the date of the telegram so when the police drafted it two o’clock was the last time at which Annie had been seen alive. It was for precisely this reason that detectives, visiting common lodging houses on the day of the murder, made inquiries about men who had entered after two. The first sentence of the telegram should therefore probably be amended thus: ‘Description of a man who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed of a prostitute after 2 a.m. on the 8th.’ The whole sense of the sentence is now altered. The time and date are correct for the murder itself and no time or date is specified for the man’s entry into the passage. The telegram simply records the description of a man seen (date and time not given) in the passage of the same house in which a prostitute was murdered after two on the morning of 8 September. Having clarified the text of the telegram, we are in a position to solve the mystery. We know from police records that on the day of the murder they interviewed every occupant of No. 29. On that occasion Mrs Richardson surely told them about the trespasser Mr Thompson and herself had encountered on the premises about four weeks back. She referred to him again at the inquest: CORONER: ‘Did you ever see anyone in the passage?’ MRS RICHARDSON: ‘Yes, about a month ago I heard a man on the stairs. I called Thompson, and the man said he was waiting for [the] market.’ CORONER: ‘At what time was this?’ MRS RICHARDSON: ‘Between half-past three and four o’clock.’23 The police would not have regarded this man as a serious suspect but they would have been anxious to trace him in order to eliminate him from their inquiries. And this was apparently the purpose of the telegram. The identification of the man in the passage with Mrs Richardson’s trespasser would seem to be clinched by a statement which she gave to the Daily Telegraph as early as 8 or 9 September:

‘The only possible clue that I can think of,’ she said, ‘is that Mr Thompson’s wife met a man about a month ago lying on the stairs, about four o’clock in the morning. He spoke with a foreign accent. When asked what he was doing there he replied he was waiting to do a “doss” before the market opened. He slept on the stairs that night, and I believe on other nights also.’24 The police telegram, then, did not describe a man seen with Annie Chapman but one found skulking about No. 29 a month before the murder. As such it cannot seriously be advanced as a clue to Annie’s killer. The detectives knew this perfectly well. Which is why Chief Inspector Swanson, reviewing the Chapman investigation on 19 October, recorded only one description of a suspect in connection with the murder – that of Mrs Long.

[FISHY1118]

You can’t understand and the simplest of things Fishy. To say that there was a conflict is a lie. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless the person making the claim can’t read of course.

Theres your problem Herlock, you cant see the conflicting arguements in regards to the inquest testimony!! , to say theres isnt any is a Lie .Your juggling the facts of the evidence to suit a theory as Trevor rightly pointed out . Specifically that Richardson stood at the top of the cellar steps when he looked at the cellar door lock . Pure invention and minipulation of the evidence where none exist . Shame Shame

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

Thanks for the information and your opinion.

When it was just the report in the Star I was prepared to allocate it to journalistic invention. But add the same reports in the Daily Telegraph and The Times and I feel some reluctance to dismiss them.

The trespasser incident was mentioned at the inquest, but it was a month before and between 3:30 and 4:00 am:
[Coroner] Did you ever see anyone in the passage? - Yes, about a month ago I heard a man on the stairs. I called Thompson, and the man said he was waiting for market.
[Coroner] At what time was this? - Between half-past three and four o'clock.

While I am exercising caution in assessing the importance of these reports, I find myself unable to discard them.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

This was really all Sugden's research, and not my opinion, other than that I agreed with him about it probably being a mistake of some sort, because it wasn't considered of any relevance by Swanson.

I suspect that this was another News Agency report originally, which was taken up by some papers.

As for the trespasser, he didn't become important and therefore worth mentioning to the police until after the murder, of course.

I think that considering all information, and not discarding it unless it is disproved, is perfectly correct. On the other hand, when it comes to the level of priority it gets, I tend, as I believe you know, to give more credibility to what the police report to the Home Office, than to newspaper articles that don't even get a mention in police reports.

[JeffHamm]

The evidence that also supports an earlier t.o. d couldnt be more simple to understand than this .

Fishy,

Very little evidence supports an earlier ToD. The only evidence that allows for it is Dr. Phillips' estimation of around 4:30, because that has an error of estimate of +- 3 hours, so it allows for a death as early as 1:30 (but we know, of course, that she was still alive then as she was eating potatoes at that time, and left to find money around 1:45 I think it is? - or do we not limit the Dr.'s time window by witness testimony? Do we have to consider the possibility she was killed before she finished eating her potatoes?)

Also, of course, given the error goes both ways, she might have been killed as late as 7:30, well after Dr. Phillips has examined her. Are you going to insist we evaluate things based upon Dr. Phillips' estimate, and it's known margin of error, or are you going to use other sources of information, from witnesses, to narrow down the reasonable times?

And if you're willing to look at the evidence, to narrow down the time window that Dr. Phillip's testimony creates, then Richardson, Long, and Cadosche, all tend to point to a later ToD. You have to dismiss all of that evidence, and even if you do, you're still left with a time window that really doesn't favour earlier over later.

So I don't understand why you say the evidence favours an ealier ToD. It doesn't. The evidence favours a later ToD. If you think the witnesses are unsafe, it favours neither. Basically, the evidence, no matter how you slice it, never "favours" an earlier ToD, the best you can do is say "it is just as likely" - which is hardly favourable.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

George, this is what Sugden says. (I know that you’re probably aware of this but you might not have your copy to hand and as I have the Kindle version too it was no bother to cut and paste):

Thanks Herlock.

[FISHY1118]

Fishy,

Very little evidence supports an earlier ToD. The only evidence that allows for it is Dr. Phillips' estimation of around 4:30, because that has an error of estimate of +- 3 hours, so it allows for a death as early as 1:30 (but we know, of course, that she was still alive then as she was eating potatoes at that time, and left to find money around 1:45 I think it is? - or do we not limit the Dr.'s time window by witness testimony? Do we have to consider the possibility she was killed before she finished eating her potatoes?)

Also, of course, given the error goes both ways, she might have been killed as late as 7:30, well after Dr. Phillips has examined her. Are you going to insist we evaluate things based upon Dr. Phillips' estimate, and it's known margin of error, or are you going to use other sources of information, from witnesses, to narrow down the reasonable times?

And if you're willing to look at the evidence, to narrow down the time window that Dr. Phillip's testimony creates, then Richardson, Long, and Cadosche, all tend to point to a later ToD. You have to dismiss all of that evidence, and even if you do, you're still left with a time window that really doesn't favour earlier over later.

So I don't understand why you say the evidence favours an ealier ToD. It doesn't. The evidence favours a later ToD. If you think the witnesses are unsafe, it favours neither. Basically, the evidence, no matter how you slice it, never "favours" an earlier ToD, the best you can do is say "it is just as likely" - which is hardly favourable.

- Jeff

No jeff, Thats not the case its your opinion based on the same evidence available to us all and ill respect that, but there is more than enough evidence to suggest that has been shown that easily supports an earlier t.o.d .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Theres your problem Herlock, you cant see the conflicting arguements in regards to the inquest testimony!! , to say theres isnt any is a Lie .Your juggling the facts of the evidence to suit a theory as Trevor rightly pointed out . Specifically that Richardson stood at the top of the cellar steps when he looked at the cellar door lock . Pure invention and minipulation of the evidence where none exist . Shame Shame

READ the text Fishy. READ IT.

How can you say that x is in conflict with y if we don’t know what x said!!!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

No jeff, Thats not the case its your opinion based on the same evidence available to us all and ill respect that, but there is more than enough evidence to suggest that has been shown that easily supports an earlier t.o.d .

Utter rubbish! You ignore huge chunks of evidence to cling on to pointless trivialities. Try reading the evidence Fishy. Read the actual lines and don’t simply imagine what you think you can read between them.