Chapman's Death

[Chava]

He probably didn't want to admit to being around # 29 with a sharp knife in hand! So he showed the inquest a butter knife and claimed to have tried to use that. Which was patently a lie IMO. I believe just about every working man carried some kind of clasp-knife in those days.

I agree with Jon Guy, the smell would have alerted him to something nasty in the back yard even if he didn't notice the body at first. And, with respect, I think it's unlikely that he approaches the steps, possibly sits down on one and trims his boot, with his head constantly turned to the right. All he needs to do is bring his head round for one nano-second and he sees that body!

[Chris]

No, I refer to his tale about cutting off the leather and binding his boot up. He was (obviously) then questioned about the knife and declared he did NOT cut off the leather as the knife was too dull.

Haven't we already been through this?

He didn't say that he hadn't cut off the leather, only that the knife wasn't sharp enough.

[lynn cates]

odours

Hello Chava. Whilst perusing Begg's history of Whitechapel and Spitalfields, I noted aaht the general area was supposedly filled with noxious odours.

I wonder if there's anything to that?

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

rabbit food

Hello Chris.

"He didn't say that he hadn't cut off the leather, only that the knife wasn't sharp enough."

Very well. Then the question becomes, "Not sharp enough for what?"

If he cut off the leather with it, then he referred to something else. Perhaps it was not sharp enough for cutting up the rabbit food which was its primary use?

One might also ask why he borrowed another knife at work? Perhaps that, too, involved his rabbit?

The best.
LC

[Chava]

Hello Chava. Whilst perusing Begg's history of Whitechapel and Spitalfields, I noted aaht the general area was supposedly filled with noxious odours.

I wonder if there's anything to that?

The best.
LC

I'm sure the East End stank to high heaven, but its inhabitants would hardly have noticed that. If you're around a smell long enough, you'd lose your ability to sense it. That having been said, the smell of blood--sharp, pungent and coppery--is unmistakeable and would not have formed part of the general dogshit and rotting veg smells around the Spitalfield Market. I would be amazed if that smell would elide with the ambient smells of the area.

[Chris]

"He didn't say that he hadn't cut off the leather, only that the knife wasn't sharp enough."

Very well. Then the question becomes, "Not sharp enough for what?"

Not sharp enough to do a satisfactory job on the boot, presumably - which was why he had to borrow another later.

Anyway, my point is that whatever he may have meant, he didn't say that he hadn't cut off the leather, and that it's important to make a clear distinction between what was actually said (or was reported to have been said) and our own ideas about what the implications are.

[lynn cates]

waht they say, what they mean

Hello Chris. Then:

"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."

merely implies that he hadn't succeeded in cutting off the piece of leather?

Very well. I can live with that. So then his "implication" is not quite harmonious with his statement about cutting off the piece of leather?

Very well. I can live with that too.

The best.
LC

[Archaic]

I have a minor point to make re: the boot-trimming and the question of how light it was at that time.

Richardson said that it was the toe of the boot that was bothering him, so it was probably something in the nature of a bumpy internal seam where a leather edge hadn't been trimmed properly. He was most likely wearing cheap leather work-boots, the sort that lace up to the ankle. The toe area would have been made of hard tanned leather in order to offer protection from getting one's toe crushed on the job, dampness seeping in, etc.

In this kind of boot it might be difficult to actually see down into the toe in order to visually assess the problem. I expect that he did it by feel, and that he checked his progress -or lack therof- by feel as well.
So I don't know how much light he really required; I think he mostly just needed a place to sit down where he could take it off.

Best regards, Archaic

If only these people had known what a headache their testimony would cause us 120 years later...sigh.

[lynn cates]

have a seat

Hello Archaic. Well, if he really sat down as he said, then of course Annie had not been killed. My point is to impugn his testimony as generally unreliable.

In my puny mind, I think he hurriedly glanced out and saw all was well, never bothering to look left. Afterward, however, I think he embellished his story to become important.

The best.
LC

[Archaic]

Why I Don't Think Richardson Made It All Up

Hi, Lynn. I was mulling over what you just wrote.

It seems to me that if Richardson merely glanced into the yard to visually check on the locked shed, and subsequently invented a longer story because he wished to interject himself into the case, then he must be the world's biggest FOOL to have made up a story involving a both a KNIFE and a claim to have sat USING that knife within a few feet of where the mutilated body was found!

This is primarily why I think he was telling the truth. The things he describes doing are perfectly routine and mundane- nothing exciting or heroic- yet they could easily incriminate or even endanger him.
If he wanted to make up a lie, why not say he went out to check the lock & use the privy or something?

Why risk getting himself jailed or even lynched by mentioning a knife and placing himself beside the crime scene?

Best regards, Archaic

[lynn cates]

incrimination

Hello Archaic. Your suggestion that his story:

"could easily incriminate or even endanger him"

is dead on. In fact, it DID. That's why he was asked to produce the knife. When he did, his story came unraveled and so he introduced the "sharper knife at work" story.

The best.
LC

[Chris]

Lynn

I really can't understand what you seem to find so difficult about this.

Richardson said in his testimony that he cut a piece of leather off his boot with his knife. He doesn't say anywhere in his testimony that he didn't cut a piece of leather off his boot.

If you think his statement about the knife not being sharp enough implies otherwise, you are free to believe that. I don't agree, and I've suggested - several times now - an alternative explanation that I think is quite natural and consistent with the rest of his evidence.

Anyway, all I'm asking is that you don't keep saying he "declared he did NOT cut off the leather". Because he didn't.

[Archaic]

Hi, Lynn.

But if the story that Richardson told the police incriminated him, why did he choose it? He could have chosen any story in the whole wide world, so why pick one so blatantly incriminating that it could possibly get him killed?

Richardson could have made himself much more interesting to the newspapers by claiming to have seen or heard something suspicious- a noise, a figure, etc. He could have lied and claimed to recall a strange man he had previously seen lurking in the area, maybe trying to break into his mother's shed.

He'd have to be an utter fool, not even in his right senses to choose the story of "trimming his boot with a knife while sitting on the steps" if it wasn't true. He would have to have realized that he could have gotten himself hung or beaten to death by the crowd.
As it is, I don't recall a single instance of a neighbor or anyone coming forward and impugning his reputation or describing him as a liar desperate for attention.

If Richardson "fibbed" at all in describing his actions to the police I think it might have been regarding the type of knife he used. He may actually have had an ordinary clasp-knife in his pocket, the type typically carried by men at that time, and out of fear of incriminating himself in the retelling changed it to some duller knife, but that is merely a guess. It does take a very sharp knife blade to cut tanned leather.

Do you suspect Richardson of being the killer? That would certainly give him a strong motive to lie, but again I think the last thing he would mention would be a knife.

I really can't see any good reason to not believe him. Personally, I find that virtually all of the witness statements contain some element which is problematic, confusing or contradictory, but I think that's just the nature of the beast.

Best regards, Archaic

[lynn cates]

explicit/implicit

Hello Chris. I thought I had semi-agreed with you that it was not an explicit statement? If that's what you want, I give it with all my heart. I did point out that he later introduced a story about a sharper knife at the market or at work. Is that incorrect?

Nothing difficult here, merely suspect.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

think fast

Hello Archaic. Some are good at "thinking on their feet." Others not. I don't think Richardson was very good at it.

"Do you suspect Richardson of being the killer?"

Not a bit of it. I just see a good deal of Matthew Packer and George Hutchinson here--testimony wise.

The best.
LC