John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

John Richardson, ''When I was on the ''doorstep'' I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.''

''WHEN I WAS ON THE DOORSTEP''!!!!!


Can someone show me a Doorstep at the spot where some would have us believe John Richardson was standing in the backyard at the top of the cellar entrance steps.?



Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - 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.

''HE SAID HE CAME TO THE BACK DOOR AND LOOKED DOWN TO THE CELLAR''


Chandler confirms what Richardson said he did .


Richardson confirms to the Coroner what he did .




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.''!!!!!!!!!!








Of all the different press reports regarding inquest testimony ,there is no evidence to suggest one was more accurate than another when reporting what was said at any inquest for the whitechapel murders.

The very fact that the wording from one report differs slighty from another which in turn leads some to interpret certain information in a different way , is in itself the very definition of uncertainty.


Doorstep noun [C] (STEP)

a step in front of an outside door: DOORSTEP | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

[A P Tomlinson]

None of this is specific to Dr Phillips' judgement. It is mere vague rhetoric.

Which points made by Dr Phillips does this relate to, and how and why?



This says a lot about your deduction capability.

In actual fact, Dr Phillips did not go along with received wisdom when it came to Liz Stride. He did not suggest 1 in the morning 'disturbed by Louis', nor did he suggest a quarter to one: 'BullShit man and associates'.

It is a pattern on this forum, when all else fails, simply pluck anything out of thin air to prop up a weak argument.

I'm sick of trying to explain this to apologists.
His entire methodology was flawed as was the entire practice of establishing ToD in 1888.
Once more... modern medicine cannot perform the feats these Doctors mistaknely believed themselves capable of.
If you want to follow their incorrect science that's fine but don't forget the words of Obi Wan Kenobi
"Who's the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?”

Plucking something out of thin air to prop up a weak argument?????
Please... walk me through the science they used to establiish time of death, as you understand it. I need to know just how much work needs to go into explaining this to you.

If Philips wasn;t using Police information for his ToD then he was a bigger idiot than I give him credit for. He was just plucking something from thin air, because his methodology was about as scientificly accurate as reading tea leaves.

I'll give it one more go see if it sinks in. You can't determine a ToD on site. You can, if you have enough evidence available, take a guess at a window. (you would need to test CORE temperature to do this. Not Surface temperature.
You can't reliably get near to any ToD unless you measure the decline over time. Even that is unreliable without taking into account measuring rigor over time, and also comparing both of those with lividity over time.
YOU CANNOT DETERMINE TIME OF DEATH BY PUTTING THE BACK OF YOUR HAND AGAINST SOME SKIN!!!

[A P Tomlinson]

I suppose that would be your answer to my # 5487.

I guess so, it was an answer to Herlock, but it prempted your objection.

[A P Tomlinson]

That may be so, but the weather conditions were similar, both victims had intestines over the right shoulder, and supposedly had been dead for approximately the same length of time.

Why, then, was one almost completely cold and the other still warm?

I have no idea what the specific circumstances were. There are a wide variety of possible reasons. But let me just point out that a difference in body temperature between 1 hour and 2 hours is roughly 1.5 degrees centigrade.

So if you think that Chapman was "almost completely cold" when examined by Philips and he put the time of death at 2 hours rather than 8 or more, you simply have to agree that he wasn't using accurate science, and that she died a few hours before she was seen drinking beer in the lodging house. And therefore thats another round of witnesses Fishy needs to sweep aside.

If that IS the case, that Philips said she was almost completely cold and Brown said Eddowes was still warm, then it seems more likely that Brown somehow measured core temperature within the lower area of the torso and Philips did his on a surface area close to the wounds. (maybe he owned a thermometre???)
Or maybe Philips was wearing gloves up to the point where he needed to feel her skin and took them off and then felt the skin, which would make the bodyy feel far colder than it was. THIS is the sort of junk they didn't understand NOT to do that would skew their examination.
Like I keep trying to explain... they didn't understand that their methodology was as badly flawed as it was.

Or you need to revise your opinion on whether "...one almost completely cold and the other still warm". Because then we'd be talking far more than dead for 2 hours.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The caveat therefore is an afterthought which must be viewed as applying to the ToD. Everyone understands that if someone makes a statement, and then says "but....", they are adding an alternative opinion.

Again, you are suggesting that the person you're responding to made a point that he didn't actually make.

It is what is known as argument by distraction, or cynical manipulation.

Nobody is suggesting that 'the caveat' did not apply to Dr Phillips' TOD estimate. That much should be obvious.

You seem to wish to ignore it.

And again. A wise observer would suggest that you do not have an argument that stands on its own two legs, and so you invent scenarios in an attempt to bolster that weak argument.

If Phillips chose to give the Coroner an alternative opinion

Despite your claims, it is you who is willfully ignoring that which Dr Phillips stated.

At the inquest he stated: 'at least two hours', his words as opposed to your conjecture. He went onto state: 'and probably more', his words as opposed to your conjecture. He went on to state: 'but the fairly cold morning', which in no way negates the prior two statements, it simply meant that he could not be certain on that probably more; which is why he said probably.

It flows and follows and is a perfectly ordinary statement in the English language: at least two hours and probably more but I cannot be certain on nor quantify that probably more due to....

And, what you're suggesting is this:

At least two hours, probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours.

Which is nonsensical. You reply to my posts on this subject quite a bit, but you never address the aforementioned, i.e. the sheer absurdity of claiming: at least two hours, probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours. Feel free to comment on this as opposed to go 'round the houses with the same vague rhetoric and suggestion of that which people are stating in an attempt to distract.

The Coroner, as we all know, chose to accept it as valid.

And again, because your argument doesn't stand on its own two legs, you attempt to bolster it with an appeal to authority.

Leaving aside the obvious weakness in that line of discussion, Baxter was no authority. He wasn't a medical man and nor was he an investigating officer. He wasn't sat in a police room investigating a crime with all that it entails, such as pouring over statements and conducting thorough interviews. That wasn't his remit. He simply summed up various statements, including that which he thought he heard. No questioning, no challenging, no analysis, and no response.

[A P Tomlinson]

s

Is it really?

Can you put some meat on the bones here, because I reckon this is hitherto unseen levels of bollocks?

If one doctor has good circulation the deceased's skin will feel cooler to the touch than to a doctor with poor circulation.
The back of the hand test only gives the person using it a rough gauge of the difference in temperature between their own skin and that of the deceased.
If one doctor had his gloves on and removed them to measure the temperature it would appear colder than someone who had been walking around gloveless for five or ten minutes.
If one doctor had a cold and was running even a slight, sniffly fever, their own core temperature would be raised, and the skin of the deceased would feel colder thatn to the person not running a fever.

That's why modern doctors employ the use of a thermometre. So that IT can give them a measurement that is accurate and works for everyone rather than plucking a general, subjective, opinion out of their arse.

If one of these doctors felt my wife's hands after she has been working in her office for an hour or more they would probably put her time of death at about two hours ago. And when she told Philips that she was still allive, he would probaly argue that she was wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think you need to quantify how PC Robinson describes Eddowes, with how Donavon describes Chapman.
Then explain how my post is "not quite correct".

In a previous post, you clearly stated that Chapman had not been drinking, my reply to your post clearly negates what you said and I provided the relevant evidential extracts from the witness testimony to show she had been drinking.

Phillip stated he could find no traces of strong alcohol in her system

I don't know what relevance Eddowes condition has to this issue?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

I am inclined to agree with PI, that the caveat applied to the "probably more" part of his estimate. I would think that the alternative that is being proposed would have been expressed as:

I should say at least two hours, but it could have been less because it was a fairly cold morning, and the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

I just don't think he would have added the "probably more if he meant possibly less. JMO.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

This is not what he said, but an interpretation of what he might have meant. He certainly did not offer any clear statement that could be considered as a revised ToD.

I believe that the key here is where did he pause - did he pause after "at least two hours", suggesting that the caveat was being applied specifically to what he said next, or did he pause after "probably more", so that it was this complete statement to which the caveat applied. The punctuation of the journalist suggests that he gave his complete estimate, and then applied his caveat to that. This is probably accurate because the Coroner reached the same conclusion.

I think we have covered this previously, and I admit that I am basing my opinion entirely on the journalist's punctuation and the Coroner's reaction to Phillips' statement. The two things suggest to me that the caveat must apply to the whole of Phillips' estimate, not part of it.

I guess you had to be there .....

[FISHY1118]

I have no idea what the specific circumstances were. There are a wide variety of possible reasons. But let me just point out that a difference in body temperature between 1 hour and 2 hours is roughly 1.5 degrees centigrade.

So if you think that Chapman was "almost completely cold" when examined by Philips and he put the time of death at 2 hours rather than 8 or more, you simply have to agree that he wasn't using accurate science, and that she died a few hours before she was seen drinking beer in the lodging house. And therefore thats another round of witnesses Fishy needs to sweep aside.

If that IS the case, that Philips said she was almost completely cold and Brown said Eddowes was still warm, then it seems more likely that Brown somehow measured core temperature within the lower area of the torso and Philips did his on a surface area close to the wounds. (maybe he owned a thermometre???)
Or maybe Philips was wearing gloves up to the point where he needed to feel her skin and took them off and then felt the skin, which would make the bodyy feel far colder than it was. THIS is the sort of junk they didn't understand NOT to do that would skew their examination.
Like I keep trying to explain... they didn't understand that their methodology was as badly flawed as it was.

Or you need to revise your opinion on whether "...one almost completely cold and the other still warm". Because then we'd be talking far more than dead for 2 hours.

Any reports of Annie Chapman seen drinking in a pub in the hours leading to her death are unsubstantiated and unproven, there would be no need to sweep aside any witness ,for such witnesse/s in your senario only exhisted in the world of heresay and speculation .

There was no Sighting of Chapman after 1.50am as this piece of inquest testimony shows the last person to see her alive was Timothy Donavan.


[.Coroner] How much was it? - [Timothy Donavan] Eightpence for the night. The bed she occupied, No. 29, was the one that she usually occupied. Deceased was then eating potatoes, and went out. She stood in the door two or three minutes, and then repeated, "Never mind, Tim; I shall soon be back. Don't let the bed." It was then about ten minutes to two a.m. She left the house, going in the direction of Brushfield-street. John Evans, the watchman, saw her leave the house. I did not see her again.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Talking of conflicting accounts: how could John Richardson have sat on the middle step and cut a piece of leather off his boot when the knife was evidently not sharp enough for that purpose and he had to borrow a sharper one?

Simple!, they say.

It was sharp enough to cut one part of his boot but not all of it.

There you have it. That's the argument.

Sounds ludicrous?

Because it is.

One of the adherents will be along soon to shout: "we just don't know".

It's a strange phenomenon. They invent scenarios that are implausible and when challenged they fall back on: "we just don't know".

A bit like poor Annie stealing food from a kitchen at quarter two in the morning and then wandering 'round with said food in her stockings. But, "we just don't know".

It's always worth pointing out that we're dealing with the probable and the improbable here.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

Just a few comments.

Chandler didn't seek out Richardson, Richardson sought out Chandler while the latter was engaged in investigating the crime scene and arranging the removal of the body.
Daily Telegraph Sep 14:
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - 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.
Apparently Chandler considered Richardson's story to be of insufficient significance to warrant a follow up interview, as by the time of Richardson's testimony Chandler still knew nothing of the boot cutting story and Richardson was still in possession of the knife.

Richardson became a person of interest when he testified that he had a knife at the scene, but exonerated himself by producing to Baxter a knife obviously inadequate for the task of Annie's murder, or shoe repair. Whatever suspicions the police had about Richardson, they had no proof, because they had only Richardson's word for what happened.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Richardson must have made a statement at the time, because he appeared at the inquest following this. He simply didn't make his statement to Chandler.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm reasonably sure we know more about the case than Biggs, that is evident from his vague comment, if it was actually written by Biggs.

But you don't know more about forensic pathology than Dr Biggs do you?

Oh dear, you now resort to making a serious allegation which I strongly refute, I think you should apologise for making that allegation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Simple!, they say.

It was sharp enough to cut one part of his boot but not all of it.

There you have it. That's the argument.

Sounds ludicrous?

Because it is.

One of the adherents will be along soon to shout: "we just don't know".

It's a strange phenomenon. They invent scenarios that are implausible and when challenged they fall back on: "we just don't know".

A bit like poor Annie stealing food from a kitchen at quarter two in the morning and then wandering 'round with said food in her stockings. But, "we just don't know".

It's always worth pointing out that we're dealing with the probable and the improbable here.

Gee Mac ,suddenly something sound very familiar



''There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.''

Donald Rumsfeld

[Doctored Whatsit]

Again, you are suggesting that the person you're responding to made a point that he didn't actually make.

It is what is known as argument by distraction, or cynical manipulation.

Nobody is suggesting that 'the caveat' did not apply to Dr Phillips' TOD estimate. That much should be obvious.



And again. A wise observer would suggest that you do not have an argument that stands on its own two legs, and so you invent scenarios in an attempt to bolster that weak argument.



Despite your claims, it is you who is willfully ignoring that which Dr Phillips stated.

At the inquest he stated: 'at least two hours', his words as opposed to your conjecture. He went onto state: 'and probably more', his words as opposed to your conjecture. He went on to state: 'but the fairly cold morning', which in no way negates the prior two statements, it simply meant that he could not be certain on that probably more; which is why he said probably.

It flows and follows and is a perfectly ordinary statement in the English language: at least two hours and probably more but I cannot be certain on nor quantify that probably more due to....

And, what you're suggesting is this:

At least two hours, probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours.

Which is nonsensical. You reply to my posts on this subject quite a bit, but you never address the aforementioned, i.e. the sheer absurdity of claiming: at least two hours, probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours. Feel free to comment on this as opposed to go 'round the houses with the same vague rhetoric and suggestion of that which people are stating in an attempt to distract.



And again, because your argument doesn't stand on its own two legs, you attempt to bolster it with an appeal to authority.

Leaving aside the obvious weakness in that line of discussion, Baxter was no authority. He wasn't a medical man and nor was he an investigating officer. He wasn't sat in a police room investigating a crime with all that it entails, such as pouring over statements and conducting thorough interviews. That wasn't his remit. He simply summed up various statements, including that which he thought he heard. No questioning, no challenging, no analysis, and no response.

Please read #5603 for my comments and explanation.

I have never suggested anything other than the caveat applies to the entire statement and not part of it. Your continuing argument is based on something I don't believe and never said.

[A P Tomlinson]

Any reports of Annie Chapman seen drinking in a pub in the hours leading to her death are unsubstantiated and unproven, there would be no need to sweep aside any witness ,for such witnesse/s in your senario only exhisted in the world of heresay and speculation .

There was no Sighting of Chapman after 1.50am as this piece of inquest testimony shows the last person to see her alive was Timothy Donavan.


[.Coroner] How much was it? - [Timothy Donavan] Eightpence for the night. The bed she occupied, No. 29, was the one that she usually occupied. Deceased was then eating potatoes, and went out. She stood in the door two or three minutes, and then repeated, "Never mind, Tim; I shall soon be back. Don't let the bed." It was then about ten minutes to two a.m. She left the house, going in the direction of Brushfield-street. John Evans, the watchman, saw her leave the house. I did not see her again.

Read it again Fishy. If she were "almost completely cold" as PI claims, that would put her ToD back about six to eight hours. If she's discovered at 6.00am, that would put her ToD back at around or before midnight.
I never mentioned a pub.
She'd have been dead before she left the lodging house. Before the 1.50 you say is the marker.

Or... she wasn't "almost completely cold", and someone was exaggerating to increase a difference of about 1.5 degrees. Because that would be the difference in core temperature between someone dead about an hour, or someone dead for about two hours