John Richardson

[Hair Bear]

Possibly, I've not seen that though. The +-3 hours is the current, modern day gold standard, so to give the benefit of the doubt I tend to use that range. However, if you recall where you got that from I would be interested in knowing. Thanks.

- Jeff

Just doubled checked, and I should have said "three or four", sorry, which I deduced from reading Dr Bond's Nov 10th reply to Anderson, who asked Bond to access the previous cases. So Bond read all the notes which we are not privy to and in regards to ToD said: "In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only, I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body. In one case, that of Berner's Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed". Perhaps I shouldn't have taken this too literally, but if we access this, Bond’s reply came weeks after all the inquests were over, so he would have surely have known Nichols and Eddowes were killed not long before being examined, yet still gave the time of death as being “three or four hours” before their discovery. So he must have stuck to a medical formula, hence his error range was 3 -4 hours. Now you are going to tell me I'm wrong lol

[JeffHamm]

Just doubled checked, and I should have said "three or four", sorry, which I deduced from reading Dr Bond's Nov 10th reply to Anderson, who asked Bond to access the previous cases. So Bond read all the notes which we are not privy to and in regards to ToD said: "In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only, I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body. In one case, that of Berner's Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed". Perhaps I shouldn't have taken this too literally, but if we access this, Bond’s reply came weeks after all the inquests were over, so he would have surely have known Nichols and Eddowes were killed not long before being examined, yet still gave the time of death as being “three or four hours” before their discovery. So he must have stuck to a medical formula, hence his error range was 3 -4 hours. Now you are going to tell me I'm wrong lol

Hi Hair Bear,

No, wasn't going to say you were wrong. I was hoping you had come across a research type of reference about error ranges in ToD estimations from the Victorian era though. I suppose, though, Dr. Bond's statement could be pointing to his knowledge of such things, and if so, he's mentioning the one side of the error window since they can rule out the error margin that includes times after the body was found. I think you are correct in that he's also not factoring in things like PC Watkin's patrol times for Mitre Square, and so forth. A "3-4" hour window prior to discovery is, interestingly, similar to the best error ranges that one should apply to estimates of the ToD though, but whether that's a coincidence or reflects specific knowledge on Dr. Bond's part is unclear. Still, it does tell us that they were aware of the imprecision associated with estimating the ToD, and I doubt Dr. Bond would be alone in that knowledge.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I want to take a bit to consider the issue of "in the yard" and "going into the yard", but from a slightly different angle than I have before. It seems to me that what is at issue is the apparent conflict between Richardson saying he checked the cellar lock, and when the coroner asked him if he went into the yard, Richardson says "no", and further states that you don't need to go into the yard to see the lock. I've already suggested, in the "orange spot theory", that what Richardson is intending by his statements is to convey the idea that he didn't go further out into the yard, but viewed the lock from where the backdoor steps are. When we view his statements with that intention of meaning, then there is no conflict in his testimony, nor is there any conflict with Chandler's description of Richardson telling him the location he viewed the lock from was at the top of the cellar stairs, because the orange spot is also at the top of the cellar stairs as well as being beside the backdoor steps.

The alternative suggestion, however, is that because Richardson is outside, he is therefore in the yard. As such, when he says he didn't go into the yard, he is contradicting himself. Being in the yard in this sense is being used to mean "outside", once you go outside you are in the yard. If that is what Richardson intends by his use of the phrase "going into the yard", then the claim is that Richardson's intended meaning is that he's gone outside.

Therefore, the conflict interpretation is claiming that Richardson, in front of the coroner, and the jury, and press, is effectively intending to convey a meaning equivalent to saying "I didn't go outside when I checked the lock." So his testimony has the intentions of "I went outside to the steps, to check the lock on the outside door to the cellar, then sat on the outside steps, fixed my boot. But no sir, I didn't go outside." Richardson would have to be a special kind of stupid to intend on conveying that sort of meaning and I suggest there isn't even a remote chance that is an accurate interpretation of what Richardson's testimony "means". But in order for there to be conflict in his testimony that is effectively the interpretation one has to impart upon Richardson's statements. Imparting that meaning, however, is untenable as I believe it goes beyond any realistic sense of what Richardson is actually trying to say.

When Richardson says he didn't have to go into the yard to see the lock, Richardson is not denying "being outside", nor is he denying being "in the yard" per se, he is denying having to go "into the yard", which can only mean he's denying walking further from the steps and house and entering the interior area of the yard. From looking at both Richardson's inquest statements, and the description given by Chandler, then it would appear the orange spot is the location Richardson is describing. And that orange spot location, combined with a realistic interpretation of not "going into the yard", means there is nothing conflicting in Richardson's testimony. Disregarding Richardson on the grounds that his testimony conflicts requires that one insist Richardson is more or less saying "When I went outside I didn't go outside", which is not even worth considering. But without that underlying gist, there is no conflict.

Now, I have no problem if, at the end of the day, anyone remains sceptical of my orange spot theory. I've presented it as clearly as I think I can, I've tried to fully outline my reasoning, how it ties to the information we have to work with, and why I think other locations for Richardson's lock viewing do not correspond to the information we have. If you are still unconvinced, then that is fine, as I don't think there's anything else I can add. And to be clear, I remain open to other ideas, of course, but ideas that create conflict with the information we have (such as ignoring Chandler's information and place Richardson somewhere other than a location that can be described as at the top of the cellar steps), or require Richardson to be saying "When I went outside I didn't go outside" in order to view his testimony as self contradictory, will not be viewed by me at least to be suitable alternatives. If, however, one can come up with a location other than the orange spot that fits all of the information we have, then I will concede that perhaps there are two (or more) locations we have to consider.

- Jeff

But Jeff, your selecting one newspaper report of what Chandler said Richardson told him over another to show a particular theory , now if you chose what Chandler said Richardson told him about, "coming to the back door to check the lock from the back steps then leaving to go to work, youd have a different series of events from then on in .

[FISHY1118]

But Jeff, your selecting one newspaper report of what Chandler said Richardson told him over another to show a particular theory , now if you chose what Chandler said Richardson told him about, "coming to the back door to check the lock from the back steps then leaving to go to work, youd have a different series of events from then on in .

There was a lot more to this post that didnt get uploaded that wasnt saved .I dont know whether i could be bothered now .

[Hair Bear]

But Jeff, your selecting one newspaper report of what Chandler said Richardson told him over another to show a particular theory , now if you chose what Chandler said Richardson told him about, "coming to the back door to check the lock from the back steps then leaving to go to work, youd have a different series of events from then on in .

Hi Fishy. You have a fair point but don't forget there is also the Echo's...

"Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy."

This tells us that whilst the cops believed the door hid Chapman from Richardson, they accepted that he DID sit on the steps. My contention is that to sit on the steps you would walk down them, then sit backwards, as any other way is not natural. Whilst I agree that it is possible Richardson might not have seen the body from his sitting position, he would have been in a standing position prior to and after having sat down, which takes his view beyond the edge of the door.

[JeffHamm]

But Jeff, your selecting one newspaper report of what Chandler said Richardson told him over another to show a particular theory , now if you chose what Chandler said Richardson told him about, "coming to the back door to check the lock from the back steps then leaving to go to work, youd have a different series of events from then on in .

The orange spot is checking from the backdoor steps. It also is the top of the cellar steps. I'm accounting for all of the reports, not leaving any of them out. When you suggest the theory that Richadrson is on the top door step, you are leaving out that report, and you also put him in a far more unnatural location from which to check the lock, particularly with the awning.

It's not "to show" a particular theory, rather, it is the theory that emerges when one considers all of the information and tries to make sense of all of it combined.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

No wick , the problem lies with you and others that won't accept what the coroner ask Richardson. Did you go into the yard? ," Not At All "was his reply.

You can twist it any way you want. Richardson did not go into the yard, he ought to know, thats what he told the coroner

If you and others want to misrepresent that piece of evidence to suit your theory go ahead just dont tell me I'm wrong when my interpretation tell me differently.

Ah, you agree he was not "in the yard"?
Maybe, we are getting somewhere.

You obviously believe Richardson, unlike some others.
So, tell me where did he sit?

Coroner - Did you sit on the top step?
Witness - No, the second step.

He sat on the second step - right?
Where were his feet?

Coroner - Where were your feet?
Witness - On the flags of the yard.

Tell me, in your own words - "where were his feet?"

Take your time, ....I'm going to bed.

[FISHY1118]

Ah, you agree he was not "in the yard"?
Maybe, we are getting somewhere.

You obviously believe Richardson, unlike some others.
So, tell me where did he sit?

Coroner - Did you sit on the top step?
Witness - No, the second step.

He sat on the second step - right?
Where were his feet?

Coroner - Where were your feet?
Witness - On the flags of the yard.

Tell me, in your own words - "where were his feet?"

Take your time, ....I'm going to bed.

Let me get this right, are you suggesting that because Richardson sat on the step and his feet were dangling touching the ground that somehow this constitutes him going into the yard ?

[FISHY1118]

The orange spot is checking from the backdoor steps. It also is the top of the cellar steps. I'm accounting for all of the reports, not leaving any of them out. When you suggest the theory that Richadrson is on the top door step, you are leaving out that report, and you also put him in a far more unnatural location from which to check the lock, particularly with the awning.

It's not "to show" a particular theory, rather, it is the theory that emerges when one considers all of the information and tries to make sense of all of it combined.

- Jeff

Exactly my point Jeff


''Rather, it is the theory that emerges when one considers all of the information and tries to make sense of all of it combined''.



Your theory of a later time of death is no more plausable under this statment than mine for an earlier time of death .

[GBinOz]

Yes, sorry I should have reiterated my earlier comments, which were that George suggested the possibility that Richardson might sit facing to the right (that's not his opinion, merely a suggestion), but as we can see from my doctored attempt this would be nonsensical.

Hi Hair Bear,

Thanks Hair Bear. I am now seeing the graphics.

My opinion is that Richardson did what he told Chandler. However, if the boot cutting story is to be promulgated, I would adjust Tricky Dicky's position a little in an anti-clockwise direction (from his perspective) and have the door resting on his left arm.

I should again emphasis that we are looking at an inquest, the brief have been to determine the circumstances of the death. In a trial the witnesses would have been more thoroughly questioned. We are virtually the jury, and as such each person has to assess the credibility of each witness, the relevance of the medical opinion and the circumstances surrounding the timeline.

I will not repeat my opinions on Long and Richardson, but cite an example on Cadosch. Many years ago when my wife and I were running a small business, our neighbour was returning a borrowed wheelbarrow to our home. We suddenly got a call from him saying that there was someone in our house. He positioned himself where he could see both entrances and I called the police and jumped in the car to drive home. I arrived the same time as the police and we went inside. There was no one there, and there was no sign that anyone had been there. When the police questioned my neighbour he said that he had heard sounds of someone walking around inside the house. Enough said.

As well as each juror making a personal assessment of the evidence of each witness, there is the medical testimony and the surrounding circumstances to consider. Phillips "caveat" refers to the effect of temperature and blood loss on the formula for body temperature loss. There is also the rigor and stomach content to consider. One can say that the techniques of the time were inaccurate but (given the comparison with Eddowes), how inaccurate? That is for each juror to consider.

What about the circumstances? How probable is it that Annie wandered about in a neighbourhood where she was well known for 3 1/2 hours without any report that she had been seen by anybody. There was a report that she was seen drinking in a pub at 5am, but that was investigated and could not be substantiated. How likely is it that Annie could not find a client in 3 1/2 hours of darkness, but picked up a client in the daylight of early morning? How likely is it that Annie would have taken that client into the yard (was she found in the yard?) in daylight when she could have used the landing where Richardson said he found many couples engaged in such activity. How likely is it that Jack would risk a daylight murder with a witness only feet away on two occasions, and an amphitheatre of potential witness arising to begin their new day? He had succeeded previously in finding a victim in the hours of darkness. Why did his fail on this occasion?

These are some of the factors to be considered by we, the jurors, in each person's formulation of the preponderance of evidence. It seems obvious that we have a hung jury. It would ill behove us each as individuals to adopt the position of the Lee. J. Cobb character in Twelve Angry Men.

Cheers, George

[A P Tomlinson]

Read the evidence herlock ,"coroner" Did you go into the yard"" .... Richardson "NO"

To be standing at the top of the cellar steps looking at the cellar door , your in the yard buddy . Its as simple as that .

That's what the evidence tells us its right there in black and white .

Fishy, how do you reconcile that with all the words that came out of his mouth before and after the word "No" at the inquest? What do you think it was about his testimony that gave all the people in the room cause to believe that he sat on the steps?

[A P Tomlinson]

Let me get this right, are you suggesting that because Richardson sat on the step and his feet were dangling touching the ground that somehow this constitutes him going into the yard ?

He's just asking where you think Richardsons feet were when he sat on the steps.

You ARE using ALL the evidence right? Not ignoring the bit where he sat down? (A statemen that everyone at the inquest was perfectly fine with because they understood that when he said he didn't go into the yard, that sitting on the steps allowed for that to be an accurate statement.)

''Rather, it is the theory that emerges when one considers all of the information and tries to make sense of all of it combined''.

[FISHY1118]

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.Joseph Chandler, ''He told me he did not go down the steps.''


Richardson lied or Chandler lied . Period.





Daily News
United Kingdom
13 September 1888


[Coroner,] Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?- [Richardson] Yes; ''but you don't need to go into the yard'' to see that. You can ''see the padlock'' of the cellar door ''from the back door steps.''!!!!!!!!!!



1. Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir

2.[Richardson] Yes; ''but you don't need to go into the yard''

3.You can ''see the padlock'' of the cellar door ''from the back door steps.''!!!!!!!!!!

[A P Tomlinson]

Virtually every aspect of this case can be interpreted in more than one way Fishy. So I don’t know why you keep making a big deal of the word ‘ambiguous’ as if it’s somehow proof of anything. It’s no better than repeating ‘people make errors,’ or ‘witnesses can be mistaken’ or ‘Doctors can sometimes estimate a ToD correctly.’ These are simply general points and so unworthy of a repeat mention.

What you need to provide evidence for is that John Richardson ever said that he’d told Inspector Chandler about the boot repair on the morning of the murder. Without this you have absolutely no evidence of any conflict between the two (and this imagined conflict is your only point that implies might imply ambiguity) All that we have is Richardson mentioning the boot repair in the Press less than 48 hours after the murder and then, under oath, at the inquest. He never once mentions that he told Chandler about the boot repair that morning and yet you, and others, assume this as if it’s a fact. It’s not.

So to create ambiguity you have to invent a conflict. Why do you feel the need to do that?

It's a base method used to to try and establish a false equivalence.
If you can claim something as being ambiguous, it puts it on exactly the same level of probability, and evidential quality as anything else that falls into the ambiguous column whether vaguelly ambiguous or mired in a fog unlikelihood.
It ignores likelihood along with quality and volume of evidence and the application of adverbs... if its ambiguous that's all the same thing, right? Look the here's the dictionary!
Some ambiguity is cleared up by taking it in context with the supporting evidence.
Fishy wants Richardsons statements to be "ambiguous" so that Richardson can be dismissed, to create this ambiguity the insistence that the value of his evidence begins and ends with him answering "no" to the question did he go into the yard, but ignores that everyone in the room understood that this statement did NOt disqualify him from sitting on the steps.

Applying modern grammatical pedantry to quantify the words that were perfectly easy to understand at the time is just demonstrative of an inability to understand the fluidity of the English language over a period of 135 years.

The people who asked Richardson the questions were happy with his answers because THEY understood what he mean when he gave them, ignoring THAT is part of Fishy's avoidance of his credo of:
''Rather, it is the theory that emerges when one considers all of the information and tries to make sense of all of it combined''.
The behaviour of the jury and coroner is now part of the evidence. And while we may not have the exact detials of exactly what was spoken, we DO have the unambiguous fact that Richardson was believed to have sat on the steps. And had he done so, he could not have missed the body and the intestines above the rioght shoulder that his left foot would quite possibly have stepped in.

[GBinOz]

Fishy has quoted the testimony at the inquest indicating that Richardson swore that he did not go into the yard, and that the lock could be seen from the back door steps.

The clairvoyants amongst us assure us that this was not possible due to the position of the canopy, thereby implying that both John and his mother were unreliable witnesses.

Jeff and Jon have come up with an alternative definition of the yard and the back door steps. They are both aware of the esteem in which I hold their opinions, but are prepared to accept my disparate view without resort to insult or disparaging remark. We are all here voluntarily to discuss these issues, preferably without a flame war, and determine a likely scenario. That said, I think I would be overly optimistic to expect a resolution in the foreseeable future.

Cheers, George