Lechmere versus Richardson.

[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

[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!

[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.”

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Abby Normal]

Shall we just review the testimony from the inquest:

John Richardson:
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.

Mrs. Richardson, recalled, said she had never missed anything, and had such confidence in her neighbours that she had left the doors of some rooms unlocked. A saw and a hammer had been taken from the cellar a long time ago. The padlock was broken open.

John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.
The Coroner: I think we will detain this knife for the present.

Joseph Chandler:
[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.

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
he Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

Richardson initially tells Chandler that he just opened the door to check on the cellar that had been broken into, according to his mother, "a long time ago". At the inquest he augments his testimony adding that he sat on the step and succeeded in removing the leather from his boot with a knife that he did not normally carry. When ordered by the coroner to produce the knife he presents a knife that was obviously not fit for the purpose of trimming leather or carving up Chapman, and he changes his story about when he succeeded at trimming the leather. Seems like a poorly thought out attempt to provide himself with an alibi by discrediting the TOD provided by the doctor. He is coincidentally supported by Cadosch, who was unsure where the "no" originated and considered the paling thump not unusual, and by Long who answered the coroner's question "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking?" with "Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning".

I think that there is ample evidence to put both Lechmere and Richardson in the category of Persons of Interest. Whether there was enough to obtain a conviction is an entirely different matter.

Cheers, George

bingo. good post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Trevor,

I agree. If Richardson just opened the left swinging door to check the cellar, as he originally told Chandler, then he could have missed the body in the yard.
Cheers, George

If you look at the well known photo of 29 Hanbury you can see the door opens to the left but also because of the steps there is a good foot/foot and a half clearance. If the body was there I don't see how the door would obscure anything. There looks to be a gap behind left side of the steps (between the steps and the fence), and even if Chapman's head lay up in that corner, and feet alongside the fence, she still would have been obvious, surely?

Also, if Richardson is trimming his boot, does that not suggest some source of light to enable the task, and make it more likely he would have seen something?

I think if you take the couple standing by 29 Hanbury Street, the 'no' and sound of a fall by the fence, the most logical conclusion is those noises were Chapman (IMO).

I think this is a bit like the Kelly ~4 am scream of murder. I can imagine screams of murder around pub closing time were common, but at 4 am were they that common, and a murder was committed that night? In both cases, I think the simplest explanation is probably the better option.