John Richardson

[Ms Diddles]

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.

Hi F.M!

I seem to recall that you and I have discussed this before, but I personally see nothing improbable in the notion that Annie, given access to free food in the lodging house kitchen, would have squirreled away something for later consumption.

On the contrary, if you are so poor that you have no idea where your next meal is coming from, it's exactly what you would do.

Even today people will often take a couple of extra bread rolls from a soup kitchen to save for later, and the hotels and hostels which house homeless people frequently complain about food being stolen at the breakfast buffet and stockpiled in rooms for later.

I have worked in homelessness for around a decade and can absolutely confirm that this happens with great frequency.

Sad in this day and age, but it's human nature.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

I see. More argument by distraction.

Whenever you're ready to comment on the absurdity of this:

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

Feel free to explain how and why this is a perfectly ordinary statement in the English language.

Outside of that, we've pretty much gone 'round the houses and exhausted the conversation.

[Ms Diddles]

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.

Hi A.P!

Don't worry, I'm not going to go all Rubenhold here, but I do think it's possible that if Annie had failed to solicit a punter, tired and unwell, she may have found a dark corner in which to grab some kip.

This could account for the difference in body temperature between her and Kate (who we know was up and about prior to her murder).

Mere speculation of course!

[FISHY1118]

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 1based .5 degrees. Because that would be the difference in core temperature between someone dead about an hour, or someone dead for about two hours

Be that it may, the reference you have of me sweeping aside witnesses was in bad taste and unwarrented. I try to steer away from hypotheticals and im more evidence guy, so if any of the witnesses need sweeping aside, it because the evidence suggest it may be the case.

[Hair Bear]

Have you read P.I.'s post No.5575?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/788839-john-richardson/page372#post822152

He posted an opinion by the Lancet, which is what I would expect, but obviously any modern opinion struggles to grasp what Phillips meant. A medical journal of the time has no problem understanding what Dr. Phillips meant.

Hi Wick. To reiterate, my mate's opinion was based on no other fact beyond the single quote that I sent him, which was the point of giving it to him because there is too much debate about the literal content in terms of written English. I've always found it could be read either way. The Lancet quote, which yes I have read, is a different matter because it was derived after reading the full facts of the case. I would nonetheless argue that they did nothing but spinelessly reiterate what one of their own said.

[The Rookie Detective]

This thread just keeps on giving...


Whether he lied or was truthful, he stood up or sat down, he went out or stayed in, he saw the lock, checked the lock, didn't check anything, missed the body, was longsighted, fiddled with his boot, used a knife, didn't do anything, missed the body, was longsighted, was right about the time, couldn't tell the time, sat to the right, closed the door or used Chapman's head to prop the door open...

None of the above is now either provable or relevant.

Witness or no witness, the testimonies of all witnesses count for very little


The real question is...


Was John Richardson the man who murdered Chapman?

If he could have been, then he warrants continued analysis...

But if he wasn't her killer, then as a subjective witness, he is a complete waste of time and thread space.


Richardson; if anything, should be considered a potential suspect; because as a witness, he's useless.

After 5600+ posts this thread has achieved very little in the way of progress.

This thread is the "HS2" of Ripperology; initially promising and with lots of potential...but ultimately has proven to be a waste of time and effort and should have been shelved a long time ago.


So I ask again; could Richardson be considered a viable SUSPECT?

His worth as a witness is proven to be a waste of time; because when a thread becomes this long, it tells you all you need to know.


RD

[A P Tomlinson]

Be that it may, the reference you have of me sweeping aside witnesses was in bad taste and unwarrented. I try to steer away from hypotheticals and im more evidence guy, so if any of the witnesses need sweeping aside, it because the evidence suggest it may be the case.

Please Fishy, your process has been to draw on one piece of cherry picked evidence in order to remove other evidence in order to dismiss Richardson's testimony.
You trust to Philips' estimate, depiste it being known and shown that the method he used was no more accurate than a stopped clock.

You use paraphrased testimony to suggest Richardson never went further than the doorway, when the rest of the evidence shows that he sat on the steps. You ignore the laws of physics to hang on to the idea that he could have seen a padlock that he would not have been able to see from the very top of the steps, and also ignore the statement that he was able to see all over the place.

[FISHY1118]

This thread just keeps on giving...


Whether he lied or was truthful, he stood up or sat down, he went out or stayed in, he saw the lock, checked the lock, didn't check anything, missed the body, was longsighted, fiddled with his boot, used a knife, didn't do anything, missed the body, was longsighted, was right about the time, couldn't tell the time, sat to the right, closed the door or used Chapman's head to prop the door open...

None of the above is now either provable or relevant.

Witness or no witness, the testimonies of all witnesses count for very little


The real question is...


Was John Richardson the man who murdered Chapman?

If he could have been, then he warrants continued analysis...

But if he wasn't her killer, then as a subjective witness, he is a complete waste of time and thread space.


Richardson; if anything, should be considered a potential suspect; because as a witness, he's useless.

After 5600+ posts this thread has achieved very little in the way of progress.

This thread is the "HS2" of Ripperology; initially promising and with lots of potential...but ultimately has proven to be a waste of time and effort and should have been shelved a long time ago.


So I ask again; could Richardson be considered a viable SUSPECT?

His worth as a witness is proven to be a waste of time; because when a thread becomes this long, it tells you all you need to know.


RD

As far as trying to pin down a t.o d that some say is Overwhemlingly more likely 5.30am than earlier as Dr Phillips suggested, i agree with you 100% where the witnesses are concerned.

[FISHY1118]

Please Fishy, your process has been to draw on one piece of cherry picked evidence in order to remove other evidence in order to dismiss Richardson's testimony.
You trust to Philips' estimate, depiste it being known and shown that the method he used was no more accurate than a stopped clock.

You use paraphrased testimony to suggest Richardson never went further than the doorway, when the rest of the evidence shows that he sat on the steps. You ignore the laws of physics to hang on to the idea that he could have seen a padlock that he would not have been able to see from the very top of the steps, and also ignore the statement that he was able to see all over the place.

,
There you go herlock, oops i mean A.p

Its seems you dont know how to read and interpret information from the inquest testimony either .So here it is again just for you .

Now shoo along and stop wasting my time .

Seriously when will you people ever learn.

Wheres the ''Doorstep'' at the top of the cellar steps ? , you know the cellar steps Richardson didnt go down . !!!




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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course you don't, even tho he himself said he was .

“ but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from”

So, according to your interpretation he’s saying that he ‘cannot say’ what side it came from immediately after just saying which side he thought that it came from?

You think that makes sense?

Compared to him meaning the he thought that it came from number 29 but he couldn’t say which side of that yard.

Its strange that only one of those two interpretations makes literal sense and yet you choose to go with the one that doesn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We confess to sharing Mr. Phillips' view that the coldness of the body and commencing rigidity pointed to a far longer interval between death and discovery [than that suggested by the coroner]; but, as he remarked the almost total draining away of the blood, added to the exposure in the cold morning air, may have hastened the cooling down of the body.

(The Lancet, 29 September 1888)

Proving the point. An earlier ToD was favoured but a later one was considered possible due to the circumstances.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

He cut a piece off but couldn’t do a sufficiently good job due to the knife that he was using. The inquest accounts aren’t verbatim and so if Richardson was talking gibberish we can see that neither the coroner or the jury pulled him up on it.

[FISHY1118]

“ but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from”

So, according to your interpretation he’s saying that he ‘cannot say’ what side it came from immediately after just saying which side he thought that it came from?

You think that makes sense?

Compared to him meaning the he thought that it came from number 29 but he couldn’t say which side of that yard.

Its strange that only one of those two interpretations makes literal sense and yet you choose to go with the one that doesn’t.

Theres never been any evidence to suggest as to what side left/right of the yard cadosch meant , your speculating again.


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, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.

''I cannot say'' . = uncertainty.

[FISHY1118]

Enough for me today ,No doubt the madness will continue overnight .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not quite:

Echo Sep 19:

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.

Hello George,

Yes, ‘all over the Press’ was a poor choice of phrase by me.