AC and TOD

[Cogidubnus]

I rather get the impression Richardson might've made it up somewhat as he went along...firstly in his statement as quoted by Chandler at the Inquest, he visited the yard to see if his mothers cellar door was still locked...no mention of boot...

Later at the Inquest he introduces the fact that he sat on the step (not the top one) with his feet on the flags of the yard, and trimmed some leather from his boot.

When the Coroner quite rightly picks up on the fact that here's a chap with a knife at the murder scene,he's sent to fetch the knife.

The knife he subsequently produces is a broken and blunt table knife...and apparently the story is now that he sat down, found the knife wasn't sharp enough to cut the leather, and so went to work where he found a knife that would do the trick.

Looks to me as if either Chandler's been incredibly slack taking the witness statement or the witness is embroidering

All the best

Dave

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Cogi, all.

So a complete fabrication then? ie he was never there?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Richardson.

If he poked his head in I can see him missing the body. Anything more invading more than likely would've resulted in its discovery. That and he would've been basically on top of Chapman. I wonder if he would've not noticed the smell? Of course it may have been overpowered by other smells.

[curious4]

The knife

I rather get the impression Richardson might've made it up somewhat as he went along...firstly in his statement as quoted by Chandler at the Inquest, he visited the yard to see if his mothers cellar door was still locked...no mention of boot...

Later at the Inquest he introduces the fact that he sat on the step (not the top one) with his feet on the flags of the yard, and trimmed some leather from his boot.

When the Coroner quite rightly picks up on the fact that here's a chap with a knife at the murder scene,he's sent to fetch the knife.

The knife he subsequently produces is a broken and blunt table knife...and apparently the story is now that he sat down, found the knife wasn't sharp enough to cut the leather, and so went to work where he found a knife that would do the trick.

Looks to me as if either Chandler's been incredibly slack taking the witness statement or the witness is embroidering

All the best

Dave

Hello again,

Yes, I've always thought the knife business very fishy. And very trusting to send him home for it - he could have produced any knife - and probably did, innocent or not. No-one was going to admit to having a very sharp knife in the yard on that particular night.

I wonder why he mentioned it at all, unless he was afraid someone had seen him put a knife in his pocket. Presumably the rabbit (for whom he was chopping up carrots) was at his home, strange that he should put the knife in his pocket at all.

Best wishes,
C4

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Just saw this.

Yes Christer, the article has been suggested to contain an assumption with respect to Richardson.
Apparently, it was Insp. Chandler who assumed the door would have obstructed Richardson's view because Chandler was not aware that Richardson had sat down on the steps, just that he had looked into the yard after opening the door. This was deemed to be the source of the confusion.

This might be the exchange (Witness is Insp. 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.

I think this might just be what occured. So, how far did he open the door and how easily could the body have been seen at a quarter till five? Why the embelishment then? So he didn't appear like a dolt who wouldn't notice a dead body right under his nose? Who admits to being in a spot with a knife where a body is when they weren't? Seems insane.

[Wickerman]

Swanson makes a point of the fact Richardson was intensely questioned, and rightly so. The police would much rather proceed with the evidence given by Dr Phillips, but as Richardson appeared to be unwavering then they were stuck.

If Richardson did check the cellar entrance every morning, then we can't expect him to take an inventory of the yard, he just opened the door a crack & glanced to his right. Perhaps missing the body at his left?

He might have been wary of mentioning the fact to Chandler that he was in possession of a knife in a yard where a body has just been found, so chose not to mention it at first?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Wickerman.

Swanson makes a point of the fact Richardson was intensely questioned, and rightly so. The police would much rather proceed with the evidence given by Dr Phillips, but as Richardson appeared to be unwavering then they were stuck.

If Richardson did check the cellar entrance every morning, then we can't expect him to take an inventory of the yard, he just opened the door a crack & glanced to his right. Perhaps missing the body at his left?

He might have been wary of mentioning the fact to Chandler that he was in possession of a knife in a yard where a body has just been found, so chose not to mention it at first?

Then why mention it all? Unless the boot cutting WAS true and he was worried about someone who had seen him telling the bobbies? I'm hard pressed at the moment to think of anything else that isn't fanciful so to speak. And if true he couldn't have missed the body.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo all.

Anyone else ever notice how nothing ever makes any sense about anything to do with this case?

[Cogidubnus]

Curious

Oh yes Dig...in a way it's what keeps us all here!

Dave

[Wickerman]

Then why mention it all? Unless the boot cutting WAS true and he was worried about someone who had seen him telling the bobbies? I'm hard pressed at the moment to think of anything else that isn't fanciful so to speak. And if true he couldn't have missed the body.

It doesn't make sense to introduce an element that makes you the focus of attention, unless that element just happens to be true.

At the time Richardson gave his testimony, neither Chandler nor Phillips had given theirs.

Richardson's testimony is not taken in isolation though, along with it, and not in contention with it, is that of Cadosch & Mrs Long.

The conclusion of Dr Phillips is in contention with all three.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

Richardson's testimony is not taken in isolation though, along with it, and not in contention with it, is that of Cadosch & Mrs Long.

The conclusion of Dr Phillips is in contention with all three.

Well one could argue (and others have before) that Cadosche was preoccupied and not paying that much attention. He wasn't even sure where the "No" he heard came from...

Similarly Mrs Long was either completely wrong about the time or completely wrong about the couple she saw...She admits she often saw folk about on her morning journeys so didn't pay them any attention...this is a woman she doesn't know, and catches a fleeting glimpse of on the way to work, and she can go into a mortuary and identify her later?

FWIW I've argued these three (including Richardson) both ways on here, as I tend to do to help me mentally sift the wheat from the chaff, and the more I do, the more sceptical of these two I become...I can't dismiss them, but especially bearing in mind the medical testimony I hae me doots - I seem to recall there was a very good dissertation on this...will have to check

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon



Well one could argue (and others have before) that Cadosche was preoccupied and not paying that much attention. He wasn't even sure where the "No" he heard came from...

Similarly Mrs Long was either completely wrong about the time or completely wrong about the couple she saw...She admits she often saw folk about on her morning journeys so didn't pay them any attention...this is a woman she doesn't know, and catches a fleeting glimpse of on the way to work, and she can go into a mortuary and identify her later?

FWIW I've argued these three (including Richardson) both ways on here, as I tend to do to help me mentally sift the wheat from the chaff, and the more I do, the more sceptical of these two I become...I can't dismiss them, but especially bearing in mind the medical testimony I hae me doots - I seem to recall there was a very good dissertation on this...will have to check

All the best

Dave

Indeed Dave.
Which only goes to show we can take a witness statement in isolation and suggest the cause of a fault, but even assuming all three witnesses were wrong, it is strange how none of their claims are in direct conflict with each other.

On the other hand, Dr. Phillips in this case declared his uncertainty quite openly.

The natural inclination of the police is to side with the evidence given by a professional, but in this case they were confounded by the certainty of the amateur & the uncertainty of the professional.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

Yes but if taken purely literally Mrs Longs and Cadosches evidence ARE mutually contradictory...you can only make them work if one of them (or both) are out timewise...

I guess what makes me more and more veer this way with Chapman (and the opposite way with Stride) is the medical evidence...roughly two hours (before 6.30am) for rigor to start setting in - and that time period probably extended by the cold conditions...

I wonder if (in the light of various discoveries....Debs re Richardson and Colin re Cadosche) maybe we have the worlds worst trio of witnesses in Long, Cadosche and Richardson...

All the best

Dave

[Damaso Marte]

Who admits to being in a spot with a knife where a body is when they weren't? Seems insane.

Perhaps somebody who would prefer to see the crime spree in their neighborhood solved, and who therefore wants to ensure the police have the most accurate information they can get?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Damaso Marte.

Perhaps somebody who would prefer to see the crime spree in their neighborhood solved, and who therefore wants to ensure the police have the most accurate information they can get?

At possibly their own expense? Gallows potentially looming. Show me a person who would claim that and I'll show you a liar 9 out of 10 times. Sounds closer to stupidity. Whatever the motivation, what could be gained by the admission of having a knife there? All he need do is say, 'No, the body was not there. I looked at the very spot.' Or, 'I walked there.' I guess I'm just pessimistic this night. Only this one. Heh ha.