John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

It has always been speculated that the murderer escaped from Dutfield's Yard after being disturbed by Diemschutz.

We know that if he was there at the moment that Diemschutz arrived, he could not be seen by him.

If the murderer was the man seen by Mrs Long, then he knew that people were up and about and going to the market nearby, and that at that time, people must be up and about in the house nearby.

The yard had a toilet used by the 17 occupants of the house at all hours of the day and night. At any time someone could have gone into that yard and caught the killer in the act and yet the killer still killed Annie Chapman in that yard.

It appears that you and FM, now realising what thin ice you’re on are now scrambling around looking for other reasons why Annie ‘couldn’t’ have been killed at 5.30. Perhaps you could both try ‘the planets weren’t located favourably’ as your next tactic?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The yard had a toilet used by the 17 occupants of the house at all hours of the day and night.

I went to bed about half-past nine, and was very wakeful half the night. I was awake at three a.m., and only dozed after that.

On Saturday morning I called to Thompson at ten minutes to four o'clock.

At six a.m. my grandson, Thomas Richardson, aged fourteen, who lives with me, got up. I sent him down to see what was the matter, as there was so much noise in the passage.

Amelia Richardson seems to have been unwilling to use the outside lavatory at night.


I went to bed on Friday night at half-past ten. My son sleeps in the same room. I did not wake during the night. I was awakened by the trampling through the passage at about six o'clock. My son was asleep, and I told him to go to the back as I thought there was a fire.

Harriett Hardiman too.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It has always been speculated that the murderer escaped from Dutfield's Yard after being disturbed by Diemschutz.

We know that if he was there at the moment that Diemschutz arrived, he could not be seen by him.

If the murderer was the man seen by Mrs Long, then he knew that people were up and about and going to the market nearby, and that at that time, people must be up and about in the house nearby.

Our sleeping pattern is a modern day invention. In Victorian times the optimum sleeping pattern was considered to be going to bed for a few hours, getting up to do a few chores or whatever for a few hours, and then going back to bed for a few hours. Seems strange to us, but the idea of 8 hours continuous sleep being the optimum sleeping pattern, is a modern invention, an invention that the Victorians didn't know anything about.

The pubs were open at half five in the morning, people were going to work and milling about doing various things. In fact, we know that at Hanbury Street, some of those were going to the market or arriving at or going to work. It wasn't like half five in the morning these days where I sit on my step outside and there's not much chance of seeing anyone at that time in a month.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's out of the question that he could have killed in daylight, given these people operate on impulse as well as other things. But, in the event we look at serial killers, experience tells us that they kill when it's dark; or when they're inside four walls, or in the woods or somewhere similar. All away from prying eyes and/or at a time/place reducing the likelihood of detection.

It is unusual for a serial killer to murder in a location such as the back of Hanbury Street in the circumstances of that age, i.e. an age when half five in the morning was lively and daylight. That to me is more important than our theory on whether or not he would have killed in daylight. I mean by that, the experience of what serial killers do as opposed to that which we theorise.

In the event the evidence tells us it's unusual for serial killers, then the obvious conclusion is that it's unlikely Jack murdered Annie at that time of the morning in that age.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Was the yard of number 29 more risky than Dutfield’s Yard? How could it possibly have been? What was the worst that could have happened in that Yard? Someone opens the door and starts down the steps to see the ripper next to a corpse. An impossible situation? Difficult but not impossible for a madman with a big knife.b

More difficult than half a dozen men coming out of the club to see the killer attacking Stride. How confident could he have been of escaping when faced with them? How would he have coped with PC Smith passing and seeing him attacking Stride?

Dutfield’s Yard doesn’t compare in terms of risk.

I think that is wrong.

When Diemschutz arrived, he could not even see the body because it was so dark.

Although he testified that he would have seen the murderer leaving the yard at that time, it is possible that the murderer did leave the yard after Diemschutz entered the club.

The situation in the yard of #29 Hanbury St at about 5:30 AM would have been entirely different.

It is hardly possible that someone entering the yard could have failed to notice the murderer as well as the body.

As for the possibility of a policeman seeing the murderer attack Stride, if the attack occurred in the darkness of Dutfield's Yard, he would have seen nothing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I went to bed about half-past nine, and was very wakeful half the night. I was awake at three a.m., and only dozed after that.

On Saturday morning I called to Thompson at ten minutes to four o'clock.

At six a.m. my grandson, Thomas Richardson, aged fourteen, who lives with me, got up. I sent him down to see what was the matter, as there was so much noise in the passage.

Amelia Richardson seems to have been unwilling to use the outside lavatory at night.


I went to bed on Friday night at half-past ten. My son sleeps in the same room. I did not wake during the night. I was awakened by the trampling through the passage at about six o'clock. My son was asleep, and I told him to go to the back as I thought there was a fire.

Harriett Hardiman too.

How can you possibly deduce an unwillingness to use the lavatory at night from that? She doesn’t mention or imply anything of the sort. And just because on that particular night she might not have used the loo that doesn’t mean or even imply that she never did.

I can’t believe that you even considered for a second making that ‘point.’

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How can you possibly deduce an unwillingness to use the lavatory at night from that? She doesn’t mention or imply anything of the sort. And just because on that particular night she might not have used the loo that doesn’t mean or even imply that she never did.

I can’t believe that you even considered for a second making that ‘point.’

Maybe she and her grandson and Hardiman and her son all had unusually strong bladders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that is wrong.

When Diemschutz arrived, he could not even see the body because it was so dark.

Although he testified that he would have seen the murderer leaving the yard at that time, it is possible that the murderer did leave the yard after Diemschutz entered the club.

The situation in the yard of #29 Hanbury St at about 5:30 AM would have been entirely different.

It is hardly possible that someone entering the yard could have failed to notice the murderer as well as the body.

As for the possibility of a policeman seeing the murderer attack Stride, if the attack occurred in the darkness of Dutfield's Yard, he would have seen nothing.

You’re really piling up the poor reasoning here PI. How can a location be less risky?

1. You have a club door with the sound of singing being heard at a time around closing time where at any moment more than one person could have gone into the yard.
2. There’s was the printing office at the back of the yard where anyone could have exited toward the club.
3. There was the street we]here anyone could have walked through the gates.
4. The gates were open and anyone could have passed and heard the struggle (including a Constable)

I can’t lay my hands on the quote but I think it was Sarah Diemschitz who said that the side door was open.

How could anyone call this location more risky than a secluded back yard? I really have heard it all now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe she and her grandson and Hardiman and her son all had unusually strong bladders.

Are you being serious PI?

It cannot, under any circumstances, be suggested or implied that Amelia Richardson avoided using the outside loo at night and you know it. You just invented that piece of weirdness just to try and bolster your position.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re really piling up the poor reasoning here PI.

It is not poor reasoning.

It is simply that I acknowledge the fact that the murderer had a preference for committing his murders and mutilations in dark places.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not poor reasoning.

It is simply that I acknowledge the fact that the murderer had a preference for committing his murders and mutilations in dark places.

But you can’t say that it’s less risky than a back yard.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Are you being serious PI?

It cannot, under any circumstances, be suggested or implied that Amelia Richardson avoided using the outside loo at night and you know it. You just invented that piece of weirdness just to try and bolster your position.

More accusations of invention!

It is natural that the two women would have preferred to visit the yard when it was light.

Amelia Richardson did not go into the yard for at least eight and a half hours, and even then it was only because she learned that a murder had been committed there.

We do not know whether she took the opportunity to relieve herself at the same time.

[JeffHamm]

Broadly:

I suggested: "at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours", is nonsensical.

Yes, you did.

You replied by saying: he did mean that but his meaning appears nonsensical due to my 'sophistry'.

Yes. Basically your conclusion that the meaning is nonsensical is false because it is not the meaning that is nonsensical, but your awkward construction of the sentence is an attempt to make it appear to be (sophistry)

You gave a more appropriate way of putting it in your view, which goes: "at least two hours and probably more, but I cannot be firm on that".

Not entirely correct. I haven't give "a" more appropriate way, rather I have given many different examples of how qualified statements can be constructed, and tried to use fairly common phrases (like "I cannot be firm on that").

I replied: how much firmer can you be than "at least", which means the minimum time possible in the English language. There is nothing more firm than: 'the minimum time possible', in terms of assessing time. It is at one end of the spectrum.

Here's a second chance: how much firmer could he have been than 'the minimum time possible'?

You're suggesting he wasn't firm when he stated: "at least". It's a contradiction in terms.

And you've lost the point yet again.

You're focusing on one particular example that I used as an illustration because you've found a way to focus on one word (firm), and then you choose to pretend that word is used in the sentence as contradicting a specific bit of the initial portion (the "the minimum time possible" statement). The specific example you're using was just that, one example among many. I presented various forms because you seem to have a problem understanding qualified sentences so I thought if I threw out many different examples perhaps one of them would be familiar to you and the penny would drop. Sadly, it seems I have failed to achieve what I thought was a very modest goal.

See, that isn't how language works, nor how people speak. The qualifier portion of the statement (the various forms of "I cannot be firm on that" that I've used) doesn't qualify "the minimum time possible", specifically, it is a qualifier of the entire initial statement. Basically, the initial portion (call it "C"), is a claim of some sort. The qualifier (call that Q), qualifies the entire concept being conveyed by C. So the "I cannot be firm on that" isn't qualifying "the minimum time possible" as that is only a sub-portion of C. It is qualifying the entire statement C, indicating that "what I said in C might be incorrect".

Your focusing on a sub-portion of C, and trying to create an issue, is just more sophistry. It's avoiding the issue, and trying to make it look like my statement is the problem while in fact it is your misinterpretation of a very basic language structure that is at fault. You are approaching the discussion with the goal of finding something wrong, even if you have to create the error, rather than approaching a discussion with the goal of understanding the other person's point of view. By no means do I think you have to agree with my view (or anybody else's for that matter), but you are obliged to understand it.

This is the underlying problem with many of the discussions going on here. Our goal is to try and understand the testimony, but many people seem to approach it as if the goal is to try and find some obscure way to attach a different meaning to fairly straight forward sentences.

Dr. Phillips statement is just such an example. He gave an estimate, he then goes on to indicate that his estimate could be wrong. It's not rocket science, he's not speaking in code, it is simply a common thing that people do; give qualified statements.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But you can’t say that it’s less risky than a back yard.

I do.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yes, you did.

Yes. Basically your conclusion that the meaning is nonsensical is false because it is not the meaning that is nonsensical, but your awkward construction of the sentence is an attempt to make it appear to be (sophistry)

Not entirely correct. I haven't give "a" more appropriate way, rather I have given many different examples of how qualified statements can be constructed, and tried to use fairly common phrases (like "I cannot be firm on that").

And you've lost the point yet again.

You're focusing on one particular example that I used as an illustration because you've found a way to focus on one word (firm), and then you choose to pretend that word is used in the sentence as contradicting a specific bit of the initial portion (the "the minimum time possible" statement). The specific example you're using was just that, one example among many. I presented various forms because you seem to have a problem understanding qualified sentences so I thought if I threw out many different examples perhaps one of them would be familiar to you and the penny would drop. Sadly, it seems I have failed to achieve what I thought was a very modest goal.

See, that isn't how language works, nor how people speak. The qualifier portion of the statement (the various forms of "I cannot be firm on that" that I've used) doesn't qualify "the minimum time possible", specifically, it is a qualifier of the entire initial statement. Basically, the initial portion (call it "C"), is a claim of some sort. The qualifier (call that Q), qualifies the entire concept being conveyed by C. So the "I cannot be firm on that" isn't qualifying "the minimum time possible" as that is only a sub-portion of C. It is qualifying the entire statement C, indicating that "what I said in C might be incorrect".

Your focusing on a sub-portion of C, and trying to create an issue, is just more sophistry. It's avoiding the issue, and trying to make it look like my statement is the problem while in fact it is your misinterpretation of a very basic language structure that is at fault. You are approaching the discussion with the goal of finding something wrong, even if you have to create the error, rather than approaching a discussion with the goal of understanding the other person's point of view. By no means do I think you have to agree with my view (or anybody else's for that matter), but you are obliged to understand it.

This is the underlying problem with many of the discussions going on here. Our goal is to try and understand the testimony, but many people seem to approach it as if the goal is to try and find some obscure way to attach a different meaning to fairly straight forward sentences.

Dr. Phillips statement is just such an example. He gave an estimate, he then goes on to indicate that his estimate could be wrong. It's not rocket science, he's not speaking in code, it is simply a common thing that people do; give qualified statements.

- Jeff

No bother, Jeff. Let's agree to disagree.

[A P Tomlinson]

Our sleeping pattern is a modern day invention. In Victorian times the optimum sleeping pattern was considered to be going to bed for a few hours, getting up to do a few chores or whatever for a few hours, and then going back to bed for a few hours. Seems strange to us, but the idea of 8 hours continuous sleep being the optimum sleeping pattern, is a modern invention, an invention that the Victorians didn't know anything about.

The pubs were open at half five in the morning, people were going to work and milling about doing various things. In fact, we know that at Hanbury Street, some of those were going to the market or arriving at or going to work. It wasn't like half five in the morning these days where I sit on my step outside and there's not much chance of seeing anyone at that time in a month.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's out of the question that he could have killed in daylight, given these people operate on impulse as well as other things. But, in the event we look at serial killers, experience tells us that they kill when it's dark; or when they're inside four walls, or in the woods or somewhere similar. All away from prying eyes and/or at a time/place reducing the likelihood of detection.

It is unusual for a serial killer to murder in a location such as the back of Hanbury Street in the circumstances of that age, i.e. an age when half five in the morning was lively and daylight. That to me is more important than our theory on whether or not he would have killed in daylight. I mean by that, the experience of what serial killers do as opposed to that which we theorise.

In the event the evidence tells us it's unusual for serial killers, then the obvious conclusion is that it's unlikely Jack murdered Annie at that time of the morning in that age.

Now.... which step are you sitting on at five in the morning? And are you sure its five? Seems very specific... not "around five"?
Are you on the "THE step" or at the TOP of the steps? Because the doorway can also count as being "on the step" you know...
And most importantly are you "In the yard" when you are "ON THE STEPS!"
Oh, and if you are on the steps, is that a generalised singular or a literal plural? (Did I get the comma in the right place for informed context and grammatical clarity?)


And where are your feet? (And it would be really useful to know... can you see what's on the floor to your left?)


(Sorry... couldn't resist.)