Lechmere versus Richardson.

[GBinOz]

The obvious reason is that he might have thought he would have looked somewhat silly for not seeing the body, even more so when he was made aware of cadosh`s testimony which also makes him look silly but that a pure guess on my part.

My own personal opinion is that he missed the body on the same basis as the jury member who raised the same point.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Cadosch and Long were deposed a week after Richardson, but Richardson said twice that he succeeded in removing the leather from his boot. He was also rather excessive with his description of the type and length of the knife, what he used it for, where he kept it and that he didn't usually carry it, but left out the critical part that it was too blunt for the job. I think that he either opened the door just enough to check the cellar (as he told Chandler) and didn't want to look foolish in not noticing the body (which wasn't there), or he didn't want to be placed at the site at around the TOD, so he polished up his evidence with the boot trimming story. I find the testimony of Cadosch and Long unconvincing, but I agree, we are all just guessing.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

We had a long drawn out discussion about Richardson not too long ago. Trevor and Fish favoured the Doctor’s time whilst I was more in favour of the witnesses. In general I agree with Wulf in that I find it almost impossible to believe that he could have missed a mutilated corpse, part of which would have been around a foot (if I recall correctly) from his feet as he’d sat on the step. The issue of course is that Chandler said that he hadn’t mentioned sitting on the steps to mend his shoe.

So if Chandler wasn’t mistaken (and I think that it’s quite possible that he was) why the lie? Trevor’s suggestion of him being embarrassed at missing the body is possible of course but if all that he was doing there was checking the cellar all that he’d have needed to have done was to say that he’d opened the door a foot and looked toward the cellar doors making easier to have missed the corpse. But by mentioning the boot work on the steps he’d being insistent that he saw the whole of that yard. He could have denied being there at all but he might have been seen by someone. Did he make up the story because, if he’d been seen, he’d have known that he couldn’t have said that he’d just looked into the yard and left so he had to have ‘done’ something? If he had lied we would have to ask why he made up a lie invoking a knife? Why not just say “I sat on the back step and smoked my pipe for a while?” There’s nothing straightforward.

Hi Herlock
Are we are back to cherry picking the evidence to suit a theory

Most on here are to quick to suggest that the police evidence must be accepted as the truth, but you are suggesting Chandler is mistaken if he is its quite an important and relevant mistake, and supports those that belive Richardsoon was telling the truth. Richardson lied about his knife and if Chandler is to be believed lied about his movements, and thats good enough for me to question the rest of his evidence especially as we have a doctors estimated TOD which again if to be belived shows Richardsons tesitmony should not be readily accpted as being the truth.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
Are we are back to cherry picking the evidence to suit a theory

Most on here are to quick to suggest that the police evidence must be accepted as the truth, but you are suggesting Chandler is mistaken if he is its quite an important and relevant mistake, and supports those that belive Richardsoon was telling the truth. Richardson lied about his knife and if Chandler is to be believed lied about his movements, and thats good enough for me to question the rest of his evidence especially as we have a doctors estimated TOD which again if to be belived shows Richardsons tesitmony should not be readily accpted as being the truth.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

All that I’m saying is that we can’t be certain who was correct. There are a lot of perhapses but it can’t be impossible that Chandler simply misremembered what Richardson had told him (we have to remember that this wasn’t a sit down interview, it was a conversation in the passageway with people going in and out, so maybe he was distracted by things like the arrival of the Doctor for example or junior officers asking questions?) Or maybe Richardson misremembered and believed that he had mentioned the step (maybe he’d told someone else that he’d sat on the step and assumed that he’d told Chandler the same?) I’m not saying either way which had to be the case. We know about the ‘accuracy’ of TOD estimations of course though. That all said, I’m not disagreeing with you in that there are doubts and questions about Richardson’s version of events.

[Aethelwulf]

All that I’m saying is that we can’t be certain who was correct. There are a lot of perhapses but it can’t be impossible that Chandler simply misremembered what Richardson had told him (we have to remember that this wasn’t a sit down interview, it was a conversation in the passageway with people going in and out,

Yes, I think this Richardson-Chandler thing is making a mountain out of molehill to be honest. It seems like he mentioned he'd been to the yard and found a body - I'm not sure why it would have been necessary for Richardson to make a full account of his movements that morning to Chandler during an informal chat. It probably wasn't an important detail in Richardson's mind. He was just just saying he'd found a body, whereas it isn't surprising that he brought out the exact detail of why he went to the yard and what he was doing in a more formal setting.

Like a lot of things with this case, vastly over-thought IMO.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I think this Richardson-Chandler thing is making a mountain out of molehill to be honest. It seems like he mentioned he'd been to the yard and found a body - I'm not sure why it would have been necessary for Richardson to make a full account of his movements that morning to Chandler during an informal chat. It probably wasn't an important detail in Richardson's mind. He was just just saying he'd found a body, whereas it isn't surprising that he brought out the exact detail of why he went to the yard and what he was doing in a more formal setting.

Like a lot of things with this case, vastly over-thought IMO.

I totally disagree, Chandler was clearly trying to establish Richardsons movements as would have been police protocol in such a case, and certainly was not an informal chat.

As I previously stated if Chandler is to be believed then Richardson told two significant lies at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I totally disagree, Chandler was clearly trying to establish Richardsons movements as would have been police protocol in such a case, and certainly was not an informal chat.

As I previously stated if Chandler is to be believed then Richardson told two significant lies at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thats the word though Trevor.

[JeffHamm]

We had a long drawn out discussion about Richardson not too long ago. Trevor and Fish favoured the Doctor’s time whilst I was more in favour of the witnesses. In general I agree with Wulf in that I find it almost impossible to believe that he could have missed a mutilated corpse, part of which would have been around a foot (if I recall correctly) from his feet as he’d sat on the step. The issue of course is that Chandler said that he hadn’t mentioned sitting on the steps to mend his shoe.

So if Chandler wasn’t mistaken (and I think that it’s quite possible that he was) why the lie? Trevor’s suggestion of him being embarrassed at missing the body is possible of course but if all that he was doing there was checking the cellar all that he’d have needed to have done was to say that he’d opened the door a foot and looked toward the cellar doors making easier to have missed the corpse. But by mentioning the boot work on the steps he’d being insistent that he saw the whole of that yard. He could have denied being there at all but he might have been seen by someone. Did he make up the story because, if he’d been seen, he’d have known that he couldn’t have said that he’d just looked into the yard and left so he had to have ‘done’ something? If he had lied we would have to ask why he made up a lie invoking a knife? Why not just say “I sat on the back step and smoked my pipe for a while?” There’s nothing straightforward.

I'm not sure Richardson "lied" when he spoke to Chandler, although he clearly omitted some details of his visit. Basically, he told Richardson he was there, his purpose for being there (to check the basement door), and that at that time there was no body. I believe he also says he didn't go down the steps into the yard. At that point he didn't mention sitting down on the step to work on his boot with a knife.

Yah, I can see someone not being comfortable mentioning they were there with a knife, even when innocent, particularly as that information was not related to his purpose for being there (he didn't go there to trim his boot, it was something he took the opportunity to do while there), and when he did trim his boot he didn't go into the yard (I think somewhere it says he sat with his feet on the flagstones, but that's not what people mean by "going into the yard" - he didn't go down and walk around in the back yard basically).

He only brings up the boot trimming because it is being suggested he might have missed the body, and he's clearly sure it wasn't there (of course his belief, no matter how strong, could still be wrong). He then provides further details, but really, his over all account hasn't changed - he still went to check the cellar door's lock, he's still sure there was no body. The inadequacy of the knife to trim his boot is neither here nor there, as it seems like it was just a spur of the moment decision to try and trim it up, possibly because it was then he realised he had it on him.

Anyway, the overall story hasn't change, though there is a new detail. Had he started changing details he gave before (I went there to get a knife to trim my boot, rather than check the lock - or now he claims he went into the back yard itself and walked around - etc) then it's starting to look suspicious. But the reason people are interviewed a few times, or asked to go over things multiple times, is so that details that were omitted the first time can be supplied. Being reluctant to say you were there with a knife is understandable. Saying you don't normally carry a knife, when there are a series of horrific knife murders going on, is also understandable.

I just don't see any real indication that there's a big "lie" that really raises concern with Richardson. I don't doubt he left out some details, particularly anything concerning a knife, until it became clear that it was being considered possible the body was there when he was, and he's sure it was not.

Given the doctor's ToD are pretty much guesses, and even the doctor gives his with caution (noting the coolness and loss of blood could cause her to cool more quickly), the fact that he claims the body was not there well after the doctor guessed is hardly an issue.

I suppose it depends upon whether or not one believes he added the boot trimming to deceive (meaning he lied, and he didn't trim his boot) or not. As you say, if he just wanted to deceive, having a pipe might have been a better story than placing himself there with a knife. Also, saying that he finished the trimming up when he got to work just opens the possibility that he be asked if anyone can confirm that (and who knows, maybe they did and he could).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I just don't see any real indication that there's a big "lie" that really raises concern with Richardson. I don't doubt he left out some details, particularly anything concerning a knife, until it became clear that it was being considered possible the body was there when he was, and he's sure it was not.

Jeff

Big lie, or little lie, it is stiil a lie and effects the credibilty of the witness !!!!!!!!!!

I have also revisted the photograph of the back garden of Hanbury Street and i would say that it would have been possible for him to have not seen the body. The problem is that we do not know the exact position of the body. but if you look at the door and how it opens outwards there are certain position of the door that would when open restict his line of vision as to what was in that line of vision.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n782082]

Big lie, or little lie, it is stiil a lie and effects the credibilty of the witness !!!!!!!!!!

I have also revisted the photograph of the back garden of Hanbury Street and i would say that it would have been possible for him to have not seen the body. The problem is that we do not know the exact position of the body. but if you look at the door and how it opens outwards there are certain position of the door that would when open restict his line of vision as to what was in that line of vision and of course we do not know excatly how dark/light it was at that time

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem for me, and yes we’ve all been over this in the past, comes when suggesting that Richardson was simply mistaken and that the body was out of sight. By stepping onto the second step, as he must have done, he’d have pushed the door open to a considerable degree. And if he’d sat there fixing his boot he’d have pretty much have had to have sat facing toward the outside loo and with the door against his left arm to have had even a chance of missing the body. The other issue of course is that Richardson himself said that he couldn’t have missed the body had it been there. If someone said that you would assume that it was because he could see all areas where a body might have been concealed. We also have to remember that Richardson later saw the body in situ so he was fully aware of its location and the position in which she lay and how much floor space she’d taken up. So for me it seems impossible that he couldn’t have realised “well, I suppose that I could have missed her with the door being in the way.”

[Aethelwulf]

The problem for me, and yes we’ve all been over this in the past, comes when suggesting that Richardson was simply mistaken and that the body was out of sight. By stepping onto the second step, as he must have done, he’d have pushed the door open to a considerable degree. And if he’d sat there fixing his boot he’d have pretty much have had to have sat facing toward the outside loo and with the door against his left arm to have had even a chance of missing the body. The other issue of course is that Richardson himself said that he couldn’t have missed the body had it been there. If someone said that you would assume that it was because he could see all areas where a body might have been concealed. We also have to remember that Richardson later saw the body in situ so he was fully aware of its location and the position in which she lay and how much floor space she’d taken up. So for me it seems impossible that he couldn’t have realised “well, I suppose that I could have missed her with the door being in the way.”

Also remember who it is that has the biggest problems with the Richardson/5.30 time of death. 1 - The Lechers as this leaves Lech cruising the streets in his pickfords van looking for a victim. Not impossible but highly unrealistic IMO; 2 - Trevor; known for thinking outside the box (apron, body parts) - so far outside it's like the box never existed!

[Trevor Marriott]

Also remember who it is that has the biggest problems with the Richardson/5.30 time of death. 1 - The Lechers as this leaves Lech cruising the streets in his pickfords van looking for a victim. Not impossible but highly unrealistic IMO; 2 - Trevor; known for thinking outside the box (apron, body parts) - so far outside it's like the box never existed!

There are none so blind as those that cannot see !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has amazed me for years now as to why researchers should readily and without question accept the witness testimony when every day in courts around the world witness testimony is challenged and on many occassions is proved to be unreliable and unsafe. Why not so with regards to the Ripper witness testimony?

My answer to that is two fold firstly so many researchers are so immersed in the old accpted theories and as such are blinkered to anything that detracts away from those old accpted theories

Secondy to dismiss those old accpted theories would effect their own personal theories they have sought to rely on and they cannot and will not consider or accept change

from my own perspective having reviewed the witness statements in all of the cases in my honest and professional opinion you could drive a bus through the holes in a lot of the witness testimony, testimony that reserchers readily accpet without question

www.trevormarriott.co,uk

[StevenOwl]

There are none so blind as those that cannot see !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has amazed me for years now as to why researchers should readily and without question accept the witness testimony when every day in courts around the world witness testimony is challenged and on many occassions is proved to be unreliable and unsafe. Why not so with regards to the Ripper witness testimony?

My answer to that is two fold firstly so many researchers are so immersed in the old accpted theories and as such are blinkered to anything that detracts away from those old accpted theories

Secondy to dismiss those old accpted theories would effect their own personal theories they have sought to rely on and they cannot and will not consider or accept change

from my own perspective having reviewed the witness statements in all of the cases in my honest and professional opinion you could drive a bus through the holes in a lot of the witness testimony, testimony that reserchers readily accpet without question

www.trevormarriott.co,uk

Shame you don't apply the same thinking to Mike Barrett's affidavits.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are none so blind as those that cannot see !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has amazed me for years now as to why researchers should readily and without question accept the witness testimony when every day in courts around the world witness testimony is challenged and on many occassions is proved to be unreliable and unsafe. Why not so with regards to the Ripper witness testimony?

My answer to that is two fold firstly so many researchers are so immersed in the old accpted theories and as such are blinkered to anything that detracts away from those old accpted theories

Secondy to dismiss those old accpted theories would effect their own personal theories they have sought to rely on and they cannot and will not consider or accept change

from my own perspective having reviewed the witness statements in all of the cases in my honest and professional opinion you could drive a bus through the holes in a lot of the witness testimony, testimony that reserchers readily accpet without question

www.trevormarriott.co,uk

We’ve had this debate numerous times Trevor. I agree that we shouldn’t just accept witnesses at face value as they can certainly make mistakes or even lie but we can’t just dismiss them. There are ‘issues’ with Richardson of course but it’s by no means impossible that he might have been telling the truth. So we have to consider the possibilities. That he was right and Chandler was mistaken. That Chandler was right and Richardson’s memory was faulty. That Chandler was correct and that Richardson lied. We have no way of knowing.

[Trevor Marriott]

We’ve had this debate numerous times Trevor. I agree that we shouldn’t just accept witnesses at face value as they can certainly make mistakes or even lie but we can’t just dismiss them. There are ‘issues’ with Richardson of course but it’s by no means impossible that he might have been telling the truth. So we have to consider the possibilities. That he was right and Chandler was mistaken. That Chandler was right and Richardson’s memory was faulty. That Chandler was correct and that Richardson lied. We have no way of knowing.

You are correct what you say, but when there is other evidence to support the fact that he may be lying or just simply mistaken its a whole new ball game, amd you are also correct that this has been discussed many times so I do not intend to labour it anymore. We have no definitive way of knowing but you can stack the cards and play percentages in favour of a particular scenario.

Sadly thats how casebook has become and has been so for many years. Someone new comes on and asks a question and off everyone goes bringing up and posting the same old same with the same posters arguing with each other for bragging rights Its become tiresome and we have the same of handful of posters keeping the pot boiling day after day

www.trevormarriott