John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Three possibilities are that he may have had another way to clean his hands; he may have been able to hide his hands, such as putting them in coat pockets; and something may have happened that told him that he better get out of there immediately.

Exactly Lewis. We can’t second guess a serial killer of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They're not, agreed, but Dr Phillips' estimate is more conservative, which if anything speaks of someone who new the pitfalls of estimating TOD, and so when he said: "at least two hours.......", he was confident.

And King George III’s doctors were confident that bleeding was beneficial.

[Lewis C]

Another possibility is that he did not notice it because of the dark.

Yes, the post that I responded to implied that. I was just saying that there are other possibilities besides that one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

These are some of the things that we are being asked to believe to shoe in an earlier ToD:

1. That in 1888 Dr. Phillips had more advanced ToD estimation skills than modern day Forensic experts do.
2. That when modern day forensic authorities tell us that that the methods that Dr. Phillips used were unreliable they were simply wrong and they should have taken the time to consult Fleetwood Mac or Private Investigator or Fishy first as they would have saved themselves the embarrassment of updating the standard textbook on the subject with faulty information.
3. That John Richardson and inspector Chandler were in ‘conflict’ despite us not having a clue how Richardson would have responded because he testified at the inquest before Chandler.
4. That John Richardson sat on the middle step with his feet on the steps but he somehow got into that position without going down the steps.
5. That Richardson was being untruthful when he said that he hadn’t actually gone into the yard despite the fact that he’d said that he’d sat on the steps and that his feet would have been in the same position on the flags.
6. That Richardson would have, for some inexplicable reason, been so desperate to prove that he couldn’t have missed the body he completely ignored the simple ‘I went into the yard and opened the door fully’ or other simple and more effective lies, in favour of a lie that not only introduced the suggestion the the door could have obscured his view but it also placed a knife in his hand at the scene of a knife murder!
7. That he was so lazy that he refused to walk down two steps in favour of balancing on the edge of a step and bending forward double to look beneath the canopy.
8. That he was so stupid that he wasn’t aware that a door is capable of blocking someone’s view of something.
9. That when we interpret what Cadosch said it’s preferred that we accept a clumsy, nonsensical statement rather than one that makes perfect literal sense because something has always been assumed.
10. That even if he was cautious about the ‘no’ but totally confident about the sound we should doubt what he said about the sound.
11. That despite there allegedly being a disembowelled corpse in the yard of number 29 it’s still claimed that the noise could have had an innocent explanation (despite no one making a sensible suggestion about what it could have been)
12. That a body could have been concealed behind a door that someone could have limbo danced beneath and despite the fact that there was only a three feet gap between the step and the fence and despite the fact that Annie’s feet would have been extended 2 or 3 feet past the end of the door with her knees splayed outward.
13. That just because we know that eye witnesses can be mistaken we should assume that Long was wrong.
14. That three witnesses were all conveniently mistaken or wrong.
15. That all clocks were perfectly synchronised.
16. That selected newspapers reported accurately.
17. That witnesses always estimated periods of time accurately
18. That a man who wasn’t a Cobbler couldn’t have unsuccessfully attempted to repair a boot.
19. That Coroner Baxter and the majority of posters on here can’t interpret the very obvious meaning of Phillips caveat.
20. That just because a Doctor gets some times of death correct then we should assume that he was infallible.

These are the things that have been put forward in an attempt to bolster Phillips estimation and to denigrate and dismiss witnesse

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

No one is in doubt as to your opinion, which is supported by others, but there are those that subscribe to different assessments of the testimony that feel that you, and others, are taking some liberties with the facts. It appears that we reached a Mexican stand-off many, many posts ago, and that all parties involved are now engaged only in repetitive statements of opinion. Time to say "That's all Folks"?

Cheers, George

Hi George , whether the lock was on the right or left side of the cellar door would not really matter that much , if Richardson did in fact come to the back door and look down as the evidence tells us he did, then his line of sight to either point would given him a clear view of the lock .

He obviously would have been nearer to the left side , but I would even say if it was the right then he might has gotten an better view .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would imagine that I'm not the only reader who has a feeling of déjà vu - and I'm referring to a tendency to exaggerate things - when reading the 20 examples above.

For example,

That just because we know that eye witnesses can be mistaken we should assume that Long was wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that police should have been looking for a Jewish or foreign-looking person in his 40s who was standing in front of #29 after 5.30 a.m. but somehow wasn't noticed by Cadoche?

That three witnesses were all conveniently mistaken or wrong.

Does Cadoche really need to be wrong in order to argue in favour of an earlier time of death?

That all clocks were perfectly synchronised.

No one has claimed that all the clocks were perfectly synchronised, but some people who have been arguing for a later time of death seem to have been arguing that all the clocks were badly unsynchronized.

That a man who wasn’t a Cobbler couldn’t have unsuccessfully attempted to repair a boot.

No one is questioning Richardson's incompetence.

That in 1888 Dr. Phillips had more advanced ToD estimation skills than modern day Forensic experts do.

No one has claimed that.

That when modern day forensic authorities tell us that that the methods that Dr. Phillips used were unreliable they were simply wrong and they should have taken the time to consult Fleetwood Mac or Private Investigator or Fishy first as they would have saved themselves the embarrassment of updating the standard textbook on the subject with faulty information.

No one has denied that medical science has advanced since 1888.
What we have been questioning is whether Doctor Phillips could have been so far out in his estimation of the time of death as to accommodate a murderer committing the crime within an hour of Phillips' arrival on the scene.

[FISHY1118]

This has to be the most unbelievable question of the year Fishy (if not ever)

He got from the top of some steps to the bottom of some steps so how could he have achieved this without going down the steps?

It truly scary the way you think herlock , seriously you really need to evaluate the situation and be more careful befor you post .

What part of " he told me he did not go down the step " don't you understand?

Either Richardson is lying or Chandler is.! .

Now what part of conflict of testimony do you also not understand?

Would you like me to spoon feed you more " conflicting testimony "?

Because I've got lots if you like .

I Notice your nasty belittling post to me again .

Well as you see you'll get what you give.

[FISHY1118]

He meant the cellar steps. It’s impossible that he could have meant anything else because he’d already told them that he’d sat on the middle step with his feet on the flags! Therefore he had to have gone down those steps. So why are you claiming that he’d basically said ‘I went down the steps but I didn’t go down the steps!!!?’

Keep up Fishy.

No ,what he said was he came to the back door , thats the house door ok , just in case you don't know which door it was

Then as Chandler states he then turn and went back to work , no mention of the boot cutting story

Chandler also stated ",he told me "he didn't go down the steps"

Richardson when ask told the coroner when asked ,"did you go down the steps" , Richardson replied "not at all"

More conflicting ambiguous testimony that can't determine an accurate t.o.d

Oh I will keep it up alright.

[FISHY1118]

Hi fishy, thank you for replying. According to Chandler the top of her head is 6 inches beyond the plain of the bottom step, which is roughly where I placed her (the blue line is about six inches). According to Phillips she was between 6 and 9 inches, so I would have to move her another three inches away from the house. If you want to discard their measurements and just move her closer to the house anyway, I think diagram two is what you are suggesting? Wherever she is, his foot would be swimming in the viscera over her right shoulder, and all he has to do is stand up to leave and he sees her.

Thanks hair , I just remember reading somewhere once her head was level with the bottom step, not forward of it , ill check tho and get back to you ok?

[Trevor Marriott]

I would imagine that I'm not the only reader who has a feeling of déjà vu - and I'm referring to a tendency to exaggerate things - when reading the 20 examples above.

For example,

That just because we know that eye witnesses can be mistaken we should assume that Long was wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that police should have been looking for a Jewish or foreign-looking person in his 40s who was standing in front of #29 after 5.30 a.m. but somehow wasn't noticed by Cadoche?

That three witnesses were all conveniently mistaken or wrong.

Does Cadoche really need to be wrong in order to argue in favour of an earlier time of death?

That all clocks were perfectly synchronised.

No one has claimed that all the clocks were perfectly synchronised, but some people who have been arguing for a later time of death seem to have been arguing that all the clocks were badly unsynchronized.

That a man who wasn’t a Cobbler couldn’t have unsuccessfully attempted to repair a boot.

No one is questioning Richardson's incompetence.

That in 1888 Dr. Phillips had more advanced ToD estimation skills than modern day Forensic experts do.

No one has claimed that.

That when modern day forensic authorities tell us that that the methods that Dr. Phillips used were unreliable they were simply wrong and they should have taken the time to consult Fleetwood Mac or Private Investigator or Fishy first as they would have saved themselves the embarrassment of updating the standard textbook on the subject with faulty information.

No one has denied that medical science has advanced since 1888.
What we have been questioning is whether Doctor Phillips could have been so far out in his estimation of the time of death as to accommodate a murderer committing the crime within an hour of Phillips' arrival on the scene.

Here is an extract from Dr Biggs input into the murders on the subject of Rigor

"As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death"

Fits Chapman to a tee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would imagine that I'm not the only reader who has a feeling of déjà vu - and I'm referring to a tendency to exaggerate things - when reading the 20 examples above.

For example,

That just because we know that eye witnesses can be mistaken we should assume that Long was wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that police should have been looking for a Jewish or foreign-looking person in his 40s who was standing in front of #29 after 5.30 a.m. but somehow wasn't noticed by Cadoche?

Im not interested in what the police should or shouldn’t have been doing. You’re opinion is clearly coloured by you’re very obvious aversion to any suggestion that the ripper might have been Jewish. I don’t have that preconception because I don’t know who the killer was. That fact that Cadosch didn’t see them outside is clearly irrelevant if they were in the yard of number 29 when he was in his own yard.

That three witnesses were all conveniently mistaken or wrong.

Does Cadoche really need to be wrong in order to argue in favour of an earlier time of death?

Yes. Because if he was right then there was someone alive and moving around in the yard at a time when it’s being stated that there was a mutilated corpse there. This is clearly nonsense. If Cadosch was right, and the evidence very clearly points to him being right, then Annie wasn’t killed at 4.30 or before.

That all clocks were perfectly synchronised.

No one has claimed that all the clocks were perfectly synchronised, but some people who have been arguing for a later time of death seem to have been arguing that all the clocks were badly unsynchronised.

Wrong. Fleetwood for example is opposed to the suggestion of poor synchronisation. And you are grossly exaggerating when you say that it’s being suggested that the clocks were ‘badly unsynchronised.’ The suggestion is around 5 minutes or so.

That a man who wasn’t a Cobbler couldn’t have unsuccessfully attempted to repair a boot.

No one is questioning Richardson's competence.

Im not talking about him being competent. People have tried to cast doubt on his story of a previous attempt at repair. There is nothing remotely unbelievable about him doing this.

That in 1888 Dr. Phillips had more advanced ToD estimation skills than modern day Forensic experts do.

No one has claimed that.

Yes they are. Doctors today can’t accurately predict a ToD from temperature or rigor. So how could a Doctor in 1888 have been able to?

That when modern day forensic authorities tell us that that the methods that Dr. Phillips used were unreliable they were simply wrong and they should have taken the time to consult Fleetwood Mac or Private Investigator or Fishy first as they would have saved themselves the embarrassment of updating the standard textbook on the subject with faulty information.

No one has denied that medical science has advanced since 1888.
What we have been questioning is whether Doctor Phillips could have been so far out in his estimation of the time of death as to accommodate a murderer committing the crime within an hour of Phillips' arrival on the scene.

Why is an hour tops ‘so far out?’ And it was probably less. Phillips arrived at 6.30. When we read his inquest testimony, according to him, the first thing that he did was:

“I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there. I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police.”

So he arrives at number 29……is it unlikely that he spoke to Chandler on arrival however briefly? It could have been for a minute or two, who knows…….he goes into the yard and looks over the body…….he looks around the yard making a note of the items that he found before handing them to the Chandler…..then he checks the body and arrives at an estimation at some point.

So who is to say that by the time that he made his estimation 10 or 15 minutes hadn’t passed? So two hours previous to 6.45 is 4.45. If Annie actually died at around 5.25/5.30 then we’re only talking about a matter of 40 or 45 minutes.

And Phillips said that the body could have cooled more rapidly than he’d allowed for. Meaning a shorter gap between ToD and examination/estimation.

[FISHY1118]

There are a small band of posters who appear to think that their opinions on forensic medicine trumps that of the worlds authorities PI. Why would anyone take that position? We are all laymen on this subject (although we do have posters with a medical background) so what qualifies any of us to second guess the experts?

The authorities don’t tell us that ToD estimation by these methods were sometimes unreliable. They were unreliable methods full stop. Even in the modern era we have numerous examples of ToD estimates being proven inaccurate and sometimes massively inaccurate so why would anyone, in the face of what the authorities tell us, assume that Dr. Phillips had a level of estimating skills that he just couldn’t possibly have had. Why? And before you say it, yes of course they sometimes got it right, but 135 years later we can’t get a modern day expert to re-examine her and give his/her opinion.

And of course we can’t just compare two different bodies. The experts tell us this. So I’ll ask again, and I’m tired of asking it, we do you or others feel that you are qualified to say “yes but….” There are no “yes buts.” It should be accepted without question……because the experts tell us without a single exception, that these methods were not reliable.

And as we can’t check Phillips work using modern methods his estimation his estimate doesn’t help us. And he himself admitted that the ToD could have been later when he added his caveat…..which was understood perfectly well by Baxter who said it in black and white.

Later ToD overwhelmingly the most likely. This isn’t my opinion. I’m stating a fact.

All your stating is your opinion about stating your opinion is a fact..

[Herlock Sholmes]

It truly scary the way you think herlock , seriously you really need to evaluate the situation and be more careful befor you post .

What part of " he told me he did not go down the step " don't you understand?

This clearly meant the cellar steps. John Richardson said that he’d sat on the middle step with his feet on the flags remember? So can you please explain to everyone how he could have got his feet onto the flags without going down the steps? Your explanation, if there is one, should at least be a comic interlude in this discussion.

Either Richardson is lying or Chandler is.! .

Or….you can’t interpret evidence. Let me think.

Now what part of conflict of testimony do you also not understand?

Would you like me to spoon feed you more " conflicting testimony "?

Yes please….I could do with a laugh.

Because I've got lots if you like .

Goody.

I Notice your nasty belittling post to me again .

Stop posting biased drivel then.

Well as you see you'll get what you give.

Fishy, the day that I’m stumped by one of your posts is the day that I stop posting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All your stating is your opinion about stating your opinion is a fact..

[FISHY1118]

It’s not MY point of view PI. It’s the point of view of every single Forensic authority in the world. Without exception.

But hey, what do they know, perhaps we should all ignore them and listen to you and Fishy?

You've been told the same thing about the witnesses and their testimony by modern day expert ,so don't go there .

Your all one side, and not the other.