John Richardson

[Paul Sutton]

What’s strange Paul is that you’ve made strong comments about the attitudes or tone of certain posters. Wickerman has responded in a friendly manner (even attaching a welcome) and yet you’ve responded with this frankly stand-offish and quite rude response. Does the requirement of a better attitude apply only to others?

These sort of exchanges are prone to such misinterpretations - half of your comments seem to be on this. The best policy is to ignore what's annoying - I suggest you follow it. I'll do the same!

[Ms Diddles]

Unbelievable!

Annie Chapman was permanently poor. Not just on certain days and she wasn’t just ‘a bit skint.’ She was grindingly, desperately poor. If she had slept somewhere until the early hours and then was presented with the opportunity to earn a few pennies do you really think that she would have turned it down. She would have needed a bed for the next night, and food and gin. She was permanently in need of money.

Agree!

Or she went out intending to solicit, but no punters were forthcoming, so weary and unwell she popped somewhere quiet for a sit down.

I'm not sure if I'm being obtuse here, but I'm just not getting this perceived mystery.

[Wickerman]

Nichols was sighted four times during the five and a half hours preceding her death, Eddowes was sighted about half an hour after her release from the police station, and Stride was sighted twice during the 25 minutes or so preceding her death.

Yes, but Stride was seen by Brown on the corner by the Board School at 12:45, but also Schwartz saw Stride in the gateway by herself being assaulted at 12:45, they can't both be correct.

The same with Packer who claimed he saw Stride about 11:00pm, standing outside his window buying grapes, yet Best & Gardner saw her at the Bricklayers Arms about 11:00, they can't both be right.

What about Maxwell who swore she saw Kelly outside, several hours after she was confirmed dead?

Your argument works both ways.
Witnesses can be mistaken.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

All that I’m saying PI as that we can’t read anything into the fact that no one came forward to say that they had seen her. It’s not an exception. You are constant trying to invest more meaning into things that don’t merit it. Come on PI. Just for once stop trying to shape everything to fit.

I do not think I am doing either thing.

The Chapman murder case is the only one in which all trace of the victim is lost for several hours (assuming she was murdered at about 5.30 a.m.).

It is the only one in which it is suggested that it took place as it was getting light.

In every other case in the series in which death had occurred as recently as suggested in this case, rigor mortis had not yet commenced.

In the light of these facts, Phillips' estimate seems quite reasonable.

His medical opinion, as well as the other indications listed above, are being downplayed and more importance attached to Richardson's boot-cutting story than it merits.

[Paul Sutton]

Why is the Chapman ToD important now?

I can see it's interesting for endless discussion, but can someone explain its importance - ultimately in indicating who JtR could be? It was key for them then, but we can't use it now - or if we can, how?

Early or late, the site is extraordinary. Late more so, but interruption was highly possible whenever. The fact she was beyond any doubt killed there is the salient thing.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Agree!

Or she went out intending to solicit, but no punters were forthcoming, so weary and unwell she popped somewhere quiet for a sit down.

I'm not sure if I'm being obtuse here, but I'm just not getting this perceived mystery.

And no-one could see her when she was sitting quietly?

It is not as though in all the sightings of the victims, they were always moving or noisy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

These sort of exchanges are prone to such misinterpretations - half of your comments seem to be on this. The best policy is to ignore what's annoying - I suggest you follow it. I'll do the same!

You’re the one who made the original comments. You began friendly, but it appears that true colours are now showing through.

Keep your sulky comments to yourself then.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, but Stride was seen by Brown on the corner by the Board School at 12:45, but also Schwartz saw Stride in the gateway by herself being assaulted at 12:45, they can't both be correct.

That is not correct.

But, in any case, I did not include Brown's sighting of her in my count.

I included Pc Smith's earlier sighting instead.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why is the Chapman ToD important now?

I can see it's interesting for endless discussion, but can someone explain its importance - ultimately in indicating who JtR could be? It was key for them then, but we can't use it now - or if we can, how?

Early or late, the site is extraordinary. Late more so, but interruption was highly possible whenever. The fact she was beyond any doubt killed there is the salient thing.

I myself am at a loss to understand what heresy I have committed by putting the case for an earlier time of death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do not think I am doing either thing.

The Chapman murder case is the only one in which all trace of the victim is lost for several hours (assuming she was murdered at about 5.30 a.m.).

It is the only one in which it is suggested that it took place as it was getting light.

In every other case in the series in which death had occurred as recently as suggested in this case, rigor mortis had not yet commenced.

In the light of these facts, Phillips' estimate seems quite reasonable.

His medical opinion, as well as the other indications listed above, are being downplayed and more importance attached to Richardson's boot-cutting story than it merits.

Here we go again. Yet another person who simply thinks that he knows more than the authorities on the subject. His opinion isn’t being downplayed in any way. It’s being described exactly as it was. It’s irrelevant how you or I or anyone sees Phillips estimate. He could have been right; he could have been wrong. You cannot skew it one way purely because of wish-thinking.

So you say…in light of….no one saw came forward and said that they’d seen Annie…Phillips estimate looks reasonable. Brilliant.

What about….. in light of…..a witness who was 100% confident that she wasn’t in the yard at 4.45…..a witness. Who heard a noise and a voice coming from the yard…….a witness who said that she saw Annie at 5.30.

Three witnesses that you spend ages trying to demonise and denigrate. John Richardson alone is enough to kick Phillips guess into touch.

Later ToD overwhelmingly likely now, overwhelmingly likely tomorrow. Desperate attempts to prove otherwise are noticeably getting more and more embarrassing.

[Paul Sutton]

I myself am at a loss to understand what heresy I have committed by putting the case for an earlier time of death.

Me too; it seems that there's a modern version of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee!

Let's face it, it's not about the issue at all. It's about turf-protection and petty vanity. Yes, everyone is prone to this, but this one must take the digestive!

Wildly annoying no doubt my statement will be!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I myself am at a loss to understand what heresy I have committed by putting the case for an earlier time of death.

There’s nothing wrong with putting the case for an earlier ToD but there is if you use certain tactics.

The first and main point is that no opinion can be taken seriously unless you accept, 100% and with no equivocations or maybe’s or what if’s that Dr Phillips was using unreliable methods to estimate the ToD. That has to be the starting position of any discussion.

[Paul Sutton]

Here we go again. Yet another person who simply thinks that he knows more than the authorities on the subject. His opinion isn’t being downplayed in any way. It’s being described exactly as it was. It’s irrelevant how you or I or anyone sees Phillips estimate. He could have been right; he could have been wrong. You cannot skew it one way purely because of wish-thinking.

So you say…in light of….no one saw came forward and said that they’d seen Annie…Phillips estimate looks reasonable. Brilliant.

What about….. in light of…..a witness who was 100% confident that she wasn’t in the yard at 4.45…..a witness. Who heard a noise and a voice coming from the yard…….a witness who said that she saw Annie at 5.30.

Three witnesses that you spend ages trying to demonise and denigrate. John Richardson alone is enough to kick Phillips guess into touch.

Later ToD overwhelmingly likely now, overwhelmingly likely tomorrow. Desperate attempts to prove otherwise are noticeably getting more and more embarrassing.

Have you tried those tablets Stride used? Can't recall the name, but they are good apparently.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s nothing to do with turf protection. I have no theory to protect. Although two people who have commented heavily on ToD do have theories that heavily rely on an earlier ToD.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.)

When I said 5, I meant the minimum time possible was 5, but I'd taken my watch off the night before and left it somewhere and so I can't be certain. Fortunately, I'm a qualified time quantifier according to the position of the moon and I've never been wrong before, to my knowledge at least, but then again I've never bothered to check whether or not I was right.

Anyway, this is all semantics, or maybe a philosophical illusion: what is 5? does it even exist? and if it does exist then who owns 5 and in the event 5 has an owner how do we know the owner is benevolent? He or she could be informing us it's 5 when in fact it's 3, when it suits I suppose; every despot has a time, a place and a reason.

Top step, I'm certain. Like a mistle thrush sat in the tallest tree surveying his property on the look out for intruders. 'No use in sitting in a position that suggests to any passing competitor that you're willing to give up your position without much of a fight. I'd passed through the yard, and so I was no longer in the yard, I was on the steps at the top with my feet suspended in the air in the knowledge that I may be questioned 150 years later on where exactly my feet were. 'Thought it would save a bit of trouble.

It's just come to my mind and I don't think anyone's asked this: where did John Richardson's piece of cut-off leather go to? It wasn't recorded on a search of the yard and it seems a stretch to say John put it in his pocket in case he had occasion to need a piece of annoying leather in the future.