Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Doctored Whatsit]

There is no doubt that Richardson's story is somewhat strange, and being suspicious of it is quite understandable. However, if Richardson was JtR, why on earth would he take a prostitute to that address, then murder and disembowel her at a time when residents were starting to wake up, in a place where he would be certain to be recognised by every single occupant?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no doubt that Richardson's story is somewhat strange, and being suspicious of it is quite understandable. However, if Richardson was JtR, why on earth would he take a prostitute to that address, then murder and disembowel her at a time when residents were starting to wake up, in a place where he would be certain to be recognised by every single occupant?

That’s the big objection Dr W.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n782083]

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

Again, I'm not sure we have sufficient evidence to refer to Richardson's omission as a lie. People omit things if they believe them to be irrelevant, which isn't a lie. If he's innocent (which we have no real reason to doubt), describing how he took a moment to work on his boot would, to him, appear irrelevant as including that doesn't change the information about why he went there in the first place, the fact that looked outside, and the fact that he didn't see a body at that time. It only becomes relevant when it becomes clear that people are suggesting he may have missed the body. Given the boot detail is likely to be viewed by him as irrelevant combined with the natural discomfort of having to the tell the police you were at the crime scene with a knife, omitting that detail from his story is entirely understandable human behaviour. And while he might have had some intention to leave that out, that motivation does not necessarily mean it was a motivation based upon misdirecting or impeding the investigation.

And of course, all eye-witness testimony is suspect, and will contain some errors, big or small. Maybe it was possible to sit on the steps, with one's feet on the flagstones, and still not see the body, but that seems rather improbable to me as it requires a very specific combinations of the details that we do not have. The only suggestion that the body was there was the Doctor's estimated ToD, and as we both agree, the doctor's estimate being based upon touch is nothing more than guesswork, so that gets set aside because we know that is not useful to us.

At that point, we're left with Richardson sitting on a step where it is far more probable that he would see a body next to the steps than not, and nothing to suggest the body must have been there. Sure, it might be possible for him to have not seen it if the conditions were just so, but we do not have evidence that things were "just so", rather we have him insisting he would have seen it.

Given the type of information we have, we can never avoid the "but what if someone was wrong and things were the opposite of what they claimed?", but in this case we have to A) presume that the doctor happened to guess correctly B) presume the body was positioned in a very specific way such that Richardson couldn't see it despite sitting on the steps with his feet on the flagstones C) Long misidentified Chapman as the woman she saw outside D) the sounds Cadosch heard came from elsewhere.

It seems to me, to go with the body is already there as the preferred option is to bet on the far more improbable combination and so is the far more unsafe bet.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

There is no doubt that Richardson's story is somewhat strange, and being suspicious of it is quite understandable. However, if Richardson was JtR, why on earth would he take a prostitute to that address, then murder and disembowel her at a time when residents were starting to wake up, in a place where he would be certain to be recognised by every single occupant?

And then, to bolster his assertion the body was not there, concoct a story where he has a knife and include a detail about further trimming his boot at work which would open the possibility of the police seeking confirmation of that and being unable to (if it's a lie). Simply sticking with his original story of looking outside to check the lock and insisting he could see where the body was and it wasn't there would have been far more reasonable (or, if he felt the need to bolster that, to simply say he had to remove a stone from his boot, or as Herlock suggested earlier, that he had smoked a pipe on the steps, etc).

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

There is no doubt that Richardson's story is somewhat strange, and being suspicious of it is quite understandable. However, if Richardson was JtR, why on earth would he take a prostitute to that address, then murder and disembowel her at a time when residents were starting to wake up, in a place where he would be certain to be recognised by every single occupant?

Hello Dr W,

While I can appreciate your skepticism, how is this objection in line with the spirit of this thread: Lechmere v Richardson?

After all, we have been constantly told that murderers of this sort are risk takers who commit "crimes of opportunity."

Richardson goes to his mother's house, finds Chapman in the passage or in the outhouse, drags her outside and strangles her to death.

Is it really all that different from a man finding a woman on his route to work and having a sudden impulse to kill her?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hello Dr W,

While I can appreciate your skepticism, how is this objection in line with the spirit of this thread: Lechmere v Richardson?

After all, we have been constantly told that murderers of this sort are risk takers who commit "crimes of opportunity."

Richardson goes to his mother's house, finds Chapman in the passage or in the outhouse, drags her outside and strangles her to death.

Is it really all that different from a man finding a woman on his route to work and having a sudden impulse to kill her?

Hi RJ,

I felt than a simple statement of doubt about the likelihood weakened the case against Richardson, just as others have been stating strengths and weaknesses on both sides.

Whether Richardson, if JtR, found a prostitute elsewhere, and brought her to the house, or found her already there, the objection about being so readily identified stands. He took some time, and was trapped with no means of escape without being recognised if anyone appeared. Yes, to risk-taker, but this was close to foolhardy. As I asked, "why on earth would he...?"

[Abby Normal]

imho long and cadoshe pretty much exonerate richardson. unless of course richardson ran into chapman at a later time and killed her at 5:30ish.

but does he fit the description of long and or does he have an alibi for 5:30ish?

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n782105]Hi Trevor,

And of course, all eye-witness testimony is suspect, and will contain some errors, big or small. Maybe it was possible to sit on the steps, with one's feet on the flagstones, and still not see the body, but that seems rather improbable to me as it requires a very specific combinations of the details that we do not have. The only suggestion that the body was there was the Doctor's estimated ToD, and as we both agree, the doctor's estimate being based upon touch is nothing more than guesswork, so that gets set aside because we know that is not useful to us.- Jeff

But the doctors estimated TOD was not just based on touch alone he was able to establish that rigor mortis had started to occur, and that the blood which had flowed from the neck was well clotted, could all that have occurred in approx 60 mins ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n782113]

Hi Trevor,



But the doctors estimated TOD was not just based on touch alone he was able to establish that rigor mortis had started to occur, and that the blood which had flowed from the neck was well clotted, could all that have occurred in approx 60 mins ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The doctor's estimated ToD was 4. 30am or earlier, and Richardson's evidence requires a slight stretch to some time after 4. 45 am. I believe the doctor later expressed some minor reservations about his estimate. It is the evidence of Cadosch and Long that is the more problematic, putting the ToD at about 5. 30 am. We don't have to also accept Cadosch and Long's version if we accept Richardson's account.

[GBinOz]

And then, to bolster his assertion the body was not there, concoct a story where he has a knife and include a detail about further trimming his boot at work which would open the possibility of the police seeking confirmation of that and being unable to (if it's a lie). Simply sticking with his original story of looking outside to check the lock and insisting he could see where the body was and it wasn't there would have been far more reasonable (or, if he felt the need to bolster that, to simply say he had to remove a stone from his boot, or as Herlock suggested earlier, that he had smoked a pipe on the steps, etc).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I don't think there is any doubt that if Richardson had sat on the steps he would have seen the body. Bit the sitting was an addition to what he told Chandler. He testified, twice, that he finished the trimming job on the steps, with a knife totally unsuited for purpose. The successful trimming took place afterwards, but shifting it forward in time required no bolstering with made up stories of stones or pipes, just a time adjustment. When telling a lie, include as much of the truth as possible.

Cadosch made it clear that he did not consider he had heard anything unusual that morning. Long walking through the street, not knowing in advance she was in a murder zone, but particularly noting one couple, neither of whom she knew, amongst "lots of them standing there in the morning" sounds to me a lot like someone seeking their moment in the sun. JMO.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n782113]

Hi Trevor,

But the doctors estimated TOD was not just based on touch alone he was able to establish that rigor mortis had started to occur, and that the blood which had flowed from the neck was well clotted, could all that have occurred in approx 60 mins ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, blood clots very quickly (we can see there's clotted blood by Eddowes as well; and Stride, etc), so that's meaningless. Temperature touch is bogus. And yes, rigor mortis onset can start within an hour and there are a lot of factors that influence the onset time. It's also highly variable, similar to ToD by temperature touch. Basically, nothing at the time, alone or combined, would allow the doctor's to make an estimate of ToD to the degree of precision we would require to make use of it, meaning, we have no reliable forensic based estimate for the ToD, and all we have are the witness statements, which themselves are of course shakey grounds but tend to corroborate each other (Long, Cadosche, and Richardson tend to suggest she was killed after Richardson's visit; with the exact time a bit muddled due to the usual factors that make working out the time difficult).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I don't think there is any doubt that if Richardson had sat on the steps he would have seen the body. Bit the sitting was an addition to what he told Chandler. He testified, twice, that he finished the trimming job on the steps, with a knife totally unsuited for purpose. The successful trimming took place afterwards, but shifting it forward in time required no bolstering with made up stories of stones or pipes, just a time adjustment. When telling a lie, include as much of the truth as possible.

Cadosch made it clear that he did not consider he had heard anything unusual that morning. Long walking through the street, not knowing in advance she was in a murder zone, but particularly noting one couple, neither of whom she knew, amongst "lots of them standing there in the morning" sounds to me a lot like someone seeking their moment in the sun. JMO.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Yes, the sitting and bootwork was not mentioned when he spoke to Chandler at the scene itself. I'm pretty sure it's not all that unusual for additional details to be supplied over and above what someone reports to the first police officer they speak to at the scene of the crime itself. And again, being a bit reluctant to mention you were carrying a knife that day when the crime is a horrific knife murder might not be all that incriminating, or even unexpected. What I think would be unexpected is for the murderer, in order to deflect suspicion away from themself tells a story that involves them in possession of a knife that otherwise is unknown. Staying close to the truth is one thing, but staying so close that you include being in possession of a potential murder weapon seems to be sailing a bit close to the wind. If he's willing to shift away from the truth by saying he sat on the steps rather than mutilated a woman, then I don't think he would be reluctant to provide an explanation for that sitting that doesn't entail him being in possession of a knife. Also, adding the potential difficulty of being unable to verify the additional boot repair when he does get to work just adds more unnecessary complications. The police would realise that he had to get a different knife while at work from somewhere since he claims his was too blunt. So there's a good chance he was seen, and so if nobody can verify his story he's going to start looking suspicious. Even if the police didn't check up on that aspect of his testimony, there's no way for him to know they won't at the time he tells his story. The whole point of lying is to reduce the reason for the police to investigate you and to minimize the opportunities for them to catch you in a lie. What Richardson does is the opposite on both of those.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Yes, the sitting and bootwork was not mentioned when he spoke to Chandler at the scene itself. I'm pretty sure it's not all that unusual for additional details to be supplied over and above what someone reports to the first police officer they speak to at the scene of the crime itself.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

In this case the additional details directly contradict his original statement. Chandler testified that Richardson told him:
1. 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.
2. He was sure the woman was not there at that time.
3. He did not go down the steps.

It was immediately apparent to the jury that if points 1 and 3 were correct that he was looking in the wrong direction, with the door blocking his view of the right direction, and could well have failed to see the body. He then needed the boot cutting addition to prove his point 2. He also needed to explain why he had borrowed a knife that morning.

I'm not advocating that he was the killer, although I can't rule it out. I think he polished up his testimony to vindicate his point 2 and in the process made some foolish additions which he in turn contradicted with more foolish additions.

I am not persuaded that Richardson, Cadosch or Long provide sufficient reason to dismiss the doctor's TOD estimate.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not persuaded that Richardson, Cadosch or Long provide sufficient reason to dismiss the doctor's TOD estimate. Cheers, George

I agree, it is a fact that Richardson told lies whether deliberate or by mistake. Either way his testimony does not stand up to close scrutiny

As to Cadosh and Long there statements are totally unsafe and also do not stand up to close scrutiny.

Another factor to be considered is the TOD, and the question asked is if were there any other killings as late as 5am

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

In this case the additional details directly contradict his original statement. Chandler testified that Richardson told him:
1. 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.
2. He was sure the woman was not there at that time.
3. He did not go down the steps.

It was immediately apparent to the jury that if points 1 and 3 were correct that he was looking in the wrong direction, with the door blocking his view of the right direction, and could well have failed to see the body. He then needed the boot cutting addition to prove his point 2. He also needed to explain why he had borrowed a knife that morning.

I'm not advocating that he was the killer, although I can't rule it out. I think he polished up his testimony to vindicate his point 2 and in the process made some foolish additions which he in turn contradicted with more foolish additions.

I am not persuaded that Richardson, Cadosch or Long provide sufficient reason to dismiss the doctor's TOD estimate.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I guess I don't see his adding in the boot repair as contradicting his original statement. He's added an event he didn't mention before, but I see it as him originally focusing in the pertinent details and fixing his boot a trivial aside. It later becomes important, of course, but at the time it wouldn't have been apparent to him. And I think what he says is that he didn't go down into the yard, or maybe down the steps into the yard, and sitting on the top or 2nd step and placing his feet on the flag stones isnt going into the yard and doesn't require going down the steps, so there's no contradiction there as far as I can see. But, if you see things as him contradicting himself then yes, i can see how it makes him suspect. I guess it's a difference of how that appears to us.

- Jeff