John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

The whole saga is littered with ambiguous, conflicting, uncertain accounts of what happened.

And so we have to apply reason and common sense and ap;ly cloak and dagger thinking. John Richardson simply had no reason to lie. It gained him no advantage…..indeed it put him at a disadvantage. So why is this assumed?

[Hair Bear]

Part 1: Richardson did what Chandler said he was told. Richardson went to the back door, opened it just enough to put his left foot on the middle step and bend/crouch down to check the lock, and then left to go to work. I rate this as the most likely possibility, and join Chandler and the Jury Foreman in questioning if, in this instance, he could have missed the body.

Hello George. "Richardson did what Chandler said he was told." Where does Chandler say Richardson opened the back door "just enough to put his left foot on the middle step and bend/crouch down to check the lock" or indeed anything like that? Is this merely your theory? Because it reads as though you are attributing it to Chandler.

Below are some comparisons of Chandler's testimony. I see that Chandler said he "might" not "would" have missed the body, but (it reads to me) only after being asked if it was possible. It wasn't something he thought to bring up. On the contrary, there's a nod from Chandler that he accepted Richardson had sat down to cut his boot in the Daily News ("from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable") and from the same passage we have "it was allowed that in this position he must inevitably have seen the murdered woman". There's was an even bigger nod from the police in a later of edition of the Echo that Richardson did sit down... "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...". I'm unsure how anyone can refute this. Here they are clearly saying they accept his boot story. All the same, as I've said below I have cobbled together Chandler's initial testimony. There is stuff to support your theory, of course, but I don't see anything specific in any of them about opening the back door "just enough to" or crouching/bending.

[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. Telegraph
Did you see young Richardson? - I saw him later on - about seven o'clock - in the passage. Echo
Did you see young Richardson? - I saw him later on in the morning, about a quarter to seven o'clock. His name is John. He was in the passage of 29 Hanbury street at the time. He told me he had been at the house at five o'clock. Evening Standard
Witness saw young John Richardson a little before 7 o'clock in the passage of the house. He told witness he had been to the house about a quarter to 5 that morning, Times
Did you see John Richardson? - Later on in the morning, a little before seven o'clock. It was in the passage of 29, Hanbury-street. He told me he had been in the house that morning, about a quarter to five. Daily news

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. Telegraph
Did he tell you he had been to the house that morning? - Yes, at about a quarter to five. He told me he went to the back door, and looked down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market. Echo
Did he say what he went there for? - He said he went to the back door and looked round to see that all was right [interesting], and then went away to his work at the market. Evening Standard
he went to the back door and looked down at the cellar to see that all was right. He then went away to his work in the market. Times
Did he say what for? - He said he went into the back yard and down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market. Daily News

[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No. Telegraph
Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - Not then. Echo
Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No. Evening Standard
He did not say anything to witness about cutting his boot Times
Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No. Daily News

[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes. Telegraph
Did he say he was sure the woman was not there when he went? - Yes. Echo
Did he say he was sure the woman was not there at the time? - Yes. Evening Standard
, but said he was sure the woman was not there at the time. Times
Did he say he was sure the woman was not there? - Yes. Daily News

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. He told me he did not go down the steps. Telegraph
By the Jury - The back door opens outwards, into the yard on the left hand. Probably, Richardson might not have seen the body on account of the door. Echo
In answer to the Foreman, the witness said the back door opened so that young Richardson might not have seen the body at the time, even if it was there, as the door might cover the sight of it. Evening Standard
By the Foreman. -The back door opened outwards into the yard, on the left-hand side. That was the side on which the body was lying. Richardson might not have seen the body if he did not go into the yard. If he went down the steps and the body was there at the time he was bound to see it. Richardson told witness he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boots. Times
By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down. Daily News

Back to me. I would love to know how far into the building the cellar door was, but I don't see anything in anyone's testimony to support there being a canopy. I have probably missed this, so would be grateful if someone could let me know where. If there was a canopy this would surely make it impossible to see the lock without walking to the bottom of the yard steps to the top of the cellar steps. If there was no canopy and the door wasn't too far indented, I can buy your glimpse from the top of the yard steps, George. I do believe, however, that Richardson sat on the steps, particularly since the police allowed for this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Richardson went to the back door. He opened it. He went down the steps and stood on the flags. He sat down on the middle step. He checked the lock. He attended to his boot. He left for work.

He said this on oath at the inquest. The exact same story was reported in the Press less than 48 hours later. He had no reason to lie.

All else is nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!!!

Welcome to my world AP.

It’s like you or I going up to Stephen Hawking and saying “the problem with you Stevie boy is that you don’t know what you’re talking about when you blather on about those Black Hole things!”

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

And he supposed uttered this piece of obvious gibberish in from of an experienced coroner and a jury and not one of them said “err hold on Mr Richardson…”

Clearly this is simply down to the way that his testimony was written down.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Exactly Ms D.

Common sense and reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

The Lancet clearly understood it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

5.30 is overwhelming likely time that she was killed despite the resort to the most deliberate and wilful attempt to denigrate witnesses that I’ve ever heard. Added to this the unbelievably arrogant belief that some on here feel that their opinions trump those of the worlds experts. Those are the depths that have been sunk to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[A P Tomlinson]

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!

It would be a lucky find for Jack, but plausible. Maybe she bumped into him as she left the passage just outside number 29 (which was known to some people to be quiet place for a kip) and he was thanking Santa Claus as she told him she knew of a quiet little place just back where she'd been where business could be conducted?
As theories go it's not the weirdest, or even slightly verifiable...

If Chapman had been out in the cold for hours compared to someone who had been inside most of the previous few hours, even without bunking down, there would likely be difference in skin temp between the two. There's no point discussing core temp, as the doctors had no idea what they were doing with skin temp... so internal stuff was even more of a mystery.

The problem remains, that without any of the good doctors actually recording the temperatures of the bodies, (apart from that fact undeniably showing their absolute lack of understanding of the method) it's impossible to actually compare the two beyond the observation that it was, different standards by different doctors.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, and that is what some of us have been at pains to get across to you.

I quote a writer in The Lancet, who shared Phillips' opinion about

a far longer interval between death and discovery

than allowed for by the coroner

and yet YOU are the one who has been trying to get that point across to ME?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

A bit rich coming from a man who spends most of his time on here cheerleading for other posters…..or saying ‘x has answered this but I won’t tell you where,’ or simply parroting the same phrases.

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 .

From the man who is always whining about rudeness.

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 . !!!

Yes, the steps that he said that he hadn’t gone 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.?

Can you tell us why ‘on the doorstep’ must mean ‘standing on the doorstep’ and not ‘sitting on the doorstep?’ Considering that’s what he said in the newspaper and at the inquest….under oath.

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''

Yes, he went to the back door as he would have had to do that he could sit on the step. As he did.

Chandler confirms what Richardson said he did .


Richardson confirms to the Coroner what he did .

And Richardson in the newspapers and under oath at the inquest tells us that he’d sat in the back step and why.


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

And that’s what he did. He went to the back door. Went down the steps, stood on the flags and then sat on the steps. When he said that he didn’t go down the steps he was talking about the cellar steps. The confusion arises from the clearly inexact reporting of what was said. And the suggestion that he’d have said that he hadn’t gone down the cellar steps whilst, in the same statement, saying that he’d sat on the steps (meaning that he had to have gone down the steps) is obvious nonsense.

Time to drop the cherrypicking Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I quote a writer in The Lancet, who shared Phillips' opinion about

a far longer interval between death and discovery

than allowed for by the coroner

and yet YOU are the one who has been trying to get that point across to ME?

Their comment is also a perfect example of the Doctors inaccurate knowledge at the time. Rigor can occur after 30 minutes. In Chapman’s case it was just commencing. How does that favour an earlier ToD?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mr. George Baxter-Phillips:

“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.”


Inspector Chandler:

“After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman. A portion of an envelope was found near her head, which contained two pills.”


So which one of these two was lying?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

Why did the writer confess to sharing Mr. Phillips' view about a


far longer interval between death and discovery


than that conceded by the coroner,

unless he meant that it conflicted with the coroner's findings?