John Richardson

[Hair Bear]

But the thing about trimming boots - as someone above says, it could just be (pardon the pun) a load of cobblers!

Hi Paul. Indeed it could, but then again we have this from the Daily Mail:

The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable.

Four days later we have this from the Echo:

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...

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul. Indeed it could, but then again we have this from the Daily Mail:

The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable.

Four days later we have this from the Echo:

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...

Hi Hairy Bear,

Suits me! It's another inadvertently funny aspect - this bleary-eyed bloke trimming his boots, with a corpse alongside him. On a less flippant note, the detail is too specific and pointless, to be invented.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. By this am I to assume that you also mean it is pointless comparing Eddowes and Chapman?

With Eddowes estimating a TOD was simple, the police knew what time she left the police station and what time she was found, that time gap was about 44 mins so there can be no dispute as to what time she was killed.

As to Chapman I believe I have created enough doubt and shown corroborative facts and evidence which point to an earlier TOD.

I know where you are coming from with regards to how both bodies were found with no signs of rigor being found on Eddowes and the onset of Rigor being found in Chapman and the weather conditions for both very similar and a similar time frame. I think these facts point to an earlier TOD.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Nothing wrong with the witness testimony. Unless you make it up of course.

No one is making anything up the witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on I fail to see why you cant grasp that or perhaps you have your head buried in the sand

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, identify flaws….not invent flaws.

Are you so deluded that you cannot see the flaws in the witness testimony along with the conflicting evidence they give

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

In that regard I'm still intrigued by the gate that's shown in the James Mason film.
It makes a brief appearance, but doesn't look like any work had been done to create a gap and retrofit the ironwork. I have no idea where it leads. I did mention it, (what feels like 8000 pages ago), but I don't think it got picked up.
I was hoping some of the researchers with a better grasp of the geography of the time could have explained it.
If it was a later addition, then great... at least I know.
If not, it could probably tolerate a litle scrutiny.

On that subject, yes there was a fence with a gate across the back end of the yard. The original property line fence was still there some 5-6 ft further back.
I have seen a sketch somewhere, but nothing of importance was drawn in that fenced off piece of yard.
Some houses kept poultry; chickens or pigs in their back yards, possibly an old pig-pen?
It's anyone's guess I think.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m struggling here Trevor. You post a quote from Dr. Biggs and for some inexplicable reason you see it as corroborating an earlier ToD. How have you managed to do this?

“…rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death,”

So Dr. Biggs tells us that rigor can sometimes be detected after an hour or less - like Chapman.

“….but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours.”

So in most cases it would occur later…..so cases unlike Chapman.

“In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion before death) this might be even quicker.”

Cases like a woman who has had her throat cut and then horrifically mutilated…….like Chapman.

“The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty.”

What a surprise Trevor….exactly as I and others have told you a thousand times.

“…if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female, then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, [U]so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time since death.”

And as I’ve pointed out to you Dr. Biggs not only uses the word ‘may,’ he uses it twice.

So Trevor, unless you can produce a quote from Dr. Biggs where he says ‘Victorian Doctors had sufficient knowledge to make unerringly accurate, totally ahead of their time and totally infallible ToD estimations or that Annie Chapman was more likely to have been killed at 4.30 rather than 5.30, I’ll hold back on the applause if you don’t mind.

There you go again making it up as you go along I fully accept that we are never going to be able to conclusively show an exact time of death but in an unbiased fashion, we should be able to weigh up the evidence from the inquest and come to a TOD which we in our own minds believe to be correct. But as we have seen that is proving difficult for both sides.

So in order to explore the two possibilities we must also consider all other facts both past and present and the input from modern medical experts like Dr Biggs who has no horse in this race he is a modern-day forensic pathologist and his expert knowledge and opinion have to be respected but as normal you choose to manipulate the evidence to suit your own TOD. He is basing his opinion on how Chapmans body was described by Phillips and even you cannot dispute that, and that for me firmly tips the scales in favour of an earlier TOD

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

This is a map of No.29 showing a single storey structure at the back end of the yard - dated 1890.

[Lewis C]

There you go again making it up as you go along I fully accept that we are never going to be able to conclusively show an exact time of death but in an unbiased fashion, we should be able to weigh up the evidence from the inquest and come to a TOD which we in our own minds believe to be correct. But as we have seen that is proving difficult for both sides.

So in order to explore the two possibilities we must also consider all other facts both past and present and the input from modern medical experts like Dr Biggs who has no horse in this race he is a modern-day forensic pathologist and his expert knowledge and opinion have to be respected but as normal you choose to manipulate the evidence to suit your own TOD. He is basing his opinion on how Chapmans body was described by Phillips and even you cannot dispute that, and that for me firmly tips the scales in favour of an earlier TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The point is that what Dr. Biggs said doesn't point toward an earlier TOD.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

[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.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
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.
The Foreman of the Jury: Reference has been made to the Sussex Regiment and the pensioner. Are you going to produce the man Stanley? Witness: We have not been able to find him as yet.
The Foreman: He is a very important witness. There is evidence that he has associated with the woman week after week. It is important that he should be found. Witness: There is nobody that can give us the least idea where he is. The parties were requested to communicate with the police if he came back. Every inquiry has been made, but nobody seems to know anything about him.

A possible explanation might be that after Richardson left, Chandler re-enacted what Richardson had told him that he did, and decided that the door would have hidden the body. Phillips had departed #29 before Richardson spoke to Chandler, and Chandler left the mortuary before Phillips arrived. Chandler was involved in trying to find the pensioner Stanley, who was considered to be of some significance, so it is possible that Chandler relegated Richardson's story to being of less significance. Richardson did not start telling his boot story until two days after the murder.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

We don't know what Richardson said in his statement to the police, so the continuing claim that he added to his story is pure speculation. Swanson didn't understand how he could have missed the body, so he got that info from Chandler or someone else who had been to the scene. The idea that the door obscured a body sprawled along the fence seems virtually beyond belief. We are guessing, I think, but I do not see how the police, investigating a murder, could avoid going back to Phillips, and telling him that a witness contradicted his information. We know that Swanson more or less gave Richardson's story the OK, but we don't know when that finally happened. I am very reluctant to accept the Richardson changed his story theory, because Swanson reckons there wasn't a shred of evidence against him. Changing his story would have been suspicious.

[Lewis C]

I guess it strongly suggests he was taken there by Chapman and thought 'this is perfect, provided I don't get blocked in.' He felt secure there, which to me (not having followed the timing argument) means it was dark and quiet, not with people getting up for a slash. If it was dark, he may not even have realised how much of a trap it was.

I'm not up to speed on what the rigor mortis argument says, but I think the murder was as early as possible, just from the location.

Hi Paul,

On rigor mortis, the gist is that its onset is so variable that it won't help us much in determining the TOD.

At one time, I believed in the earlier TOD, largely because of what you said here, that it would have been safer to for him to have done it earlier, and the earlier time is more consistent with when the other murders were committed. I've converted to the later view, because I now think that the testimony from Richardson and Cadosch outweighs my reasons for formerly favoring the earlier time. I don't see any way Richardson could have failed to see Chapman's body if it were there when he sat on the step, and I see no reason to think that he was lying. Then we have Cadosch hearing a bump against the fence at around 5:25, for which by far the most likely explanation is either the killer or Chapman bumping the fence.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doctored Whatsit,

When Phillips basically says "I estimated 2+ hours, but I could have overestimated the interval", he is basically conveying the same semantic information as contained in FM's rather idiosyncratic presentation of "at least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than two hours." - He's saying "At least 2 hours, probably more, but given I could have overestimated it, it is possible that the interval was shorter than 2 hours."

FM's peculiar phrasing is what makes it sound odd, but the underlying gist of what he's put is the same as saying "I think it was at least 2 hours, but I wouldn't bet on it", which is also to say the interval could possibly be less than 2 hours. Because FM's phrasing is not reflective of how people speak, it makes the sentence sound bizarre despite than the meaning underlying it being common.

- Jeff

Ye, Jeff, I fully understand your version ....

[Lewis C]

Hi George,

We don't know what Richardson said in his statement to the police, so the continuing claim that he added to his story is pure speculation. Swanson didn't understand how he could have missed the body, so he got that info from Chandler or someone else who had been to the scene. The idea that the door obscured a body sprawled along the fence seems virtually beyond belief. We are guessing, I think, but I do not see how the police, investigating a murder, could avoid going back to Phillips, and telling him that a witness contradicted his information. We know that Swanson more or less gave Richardson's story the OK, but we don't know when that finally happened. I am very reluctant to accept the Richardson changed his story theory, because Swanson reckons there wasn't a shred of evidence against him. Changing his story would have been suspicious.

Hi Doctor,

I would add that there's nothing to suggest that Richardson really changed his story anyway. He seems to have given more details in later versions of the story, but he didn't contradict himself. When a person tells a story more than once, they might give a more detailed version in one case than in another. Especially if they are asked questions; some details may be given in response to questions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There you go again making it up as you go along I fully accept that we are never going to be able to conclusively show an exact time of death but in an unbiased fashion, we should be able to weigh up the evidence from the inquest and come to a TOD which we in our own minds believe to be correct. But as we have seen that is proving difficult for both sides.

So in order to explore the two possibilities we must also consider all other facts both past and present and the input from modern medical experts like Dr Biggs who has no horse in this race he is a modern-day forensic pathologist and his expert knowledge and opinion have to be respected but as normal you choose to manipulate the evidence to suit your own TOD. He is basing his opinion on how Chapmans body was described by Phillips and even you cannot dispute that, and that for me firmly tips the scales in favour of an earlier TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You simply can’t read.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point is that what Dr. Biggs said doesn't point toward an earlier TOD.

Unbelievable isn’t it?