Richardson's View

[Fisherman]

Kettle ..... black!

You are welcome to expand on this.

[DJA]

Kettle ..... black!

[Fisherman]

How would Cadoche know anything about police interrogating Richardson as the possible killer,for him to back peddal.It was not known then,and it is not known now,that Richardson was interrogated in that respect.He was treated as a witness,not anything else.Why do you pedall such lies,Fisherman.

Harry, you know that I donīt want to talk to you, so Iīd appreciate if youīd keep away from posts like this one.

John Richardson testified on the 12:th.

Albert Cadosch testified on the 19:th.

On the 14:th - which, if you tale a look, is BETWEEN the 12:th and the 19:th -, the Star wrote that "Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and no signs of the murder were then apparent. It is now beginning to be believed that the woman was brought to the backyard in Hanbury-street some time earlier."

As you will see if you look at my post, I am saying that "it was known that John Richardsons testimony had suffered a lot of distrust from the police", and I add that it caused the police to suspect Richardson. To which degree Cadosch knew about how the thumbscrews were applied on Richardson I cannot say, but I CAN say that his veracity was doubted, seemingly on account of his failure to meet the demands posed by Phillipsī verdict on the TOD.

Three pieces of advice:

1. Itīs peddle, not pedal.

2. Rinse you mouth with soap.

3. Try not to derail every thread you participate in. Stick with the topic instead of insane accusations.

Now please disappear.

[DJA]

Using bricks as measuring devices,which is also handy re Millers Court and GSG,the step is at least 36" wide and 12" ( to 16") deep.

[Curious Cat]

Funnily, it's the steps.

The middle step--which he says he sat on--is shallow and quite low. It's possible I'm sure to balance on it and then bring one leg over the other to cut the leather off the boot. But I doubt anyone would do it if they just sat down naturally rather than trying to prove a point. You'd have to balance & it wouldn't be comfortable even for me--and I'm 5'2". If he sat on that step he would certainly see the body. If he sat on the step above--and was cutting leather off his right boot--he may not because of the location of the door and the angle of his body. I pointed this out when I began the thread. Richardson may of course have been there and the body wasn't. But I think it's possible either he wasn't there at all or that he just waltzed in, opened the door, looked down to his right at the cellar door and waltzed out. There is something else I never noticed before. But that I think is another thread...

It doesn't look so narrow that it couldn't be sat on. It seems the width of the step is about a length of a typical brick, certainly wider than a bench at a London bus stop and I've sat on plenty of those. Richardson was only there a couple of minutes so not even sat on the step for very long.

[harry]

How would Cadoche know anything about police interrogating Richardson as the possible killer,for him to back peddal.It was not known then,and it is not known now,that Richardson was interrogated in that respect.He was treated as a witness,not anything else.Why do you pedall such lies,Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

Although it causes issues with TOD etc, I have always felt that Richardson's story is likely to be (at least mostly) true, simply because of its implications.

There has been a gruesome murder. It doesn't seem very logical that Richardson would tell police he had sat on the back steps, pootling about with a knife of all things, unless it was true. If he had never been in the yard that morning, surely it would have been far better to say as much.

But instead he admits he was right next to where the body was found, with a knife.

The bit about the knife not being sharp enough may have been an embellishment to his account, to try to stop the whole "in the yard, with a knife" bit sounding so potentially damning.

I can't think of a good reason he would want to tell the police he had been there, knife and all, if he hadn't, when he must have known how suspicious such an admission was probably going to sound.

You are perfectly correct - Richardson really had no business at all to do anything but tell the truth. That is the kind of world we want.

Sadly, though, the kind of world we have is one where high profile murder cases attract enormous amounts of people who want to inject themselves into the picture. Some say they are the killer (heaps of people did so in the Ripper case), while others find alternative ways to get their share of the buzz, one such way being to offer fake evidence in order to establish a role in the drama. The by far most likely witness to have done so in this particuylar business is Albert Cadosch, who more or less said that he overheard the murder at the exact spot where it took place, scuffle, the word "No" being thrown out by a woman, heavy fall against the fence, thud against the ground and all. Then he backpedalled totally at the inquest once it was known that John Richardsons testimony had suffered a lot of distrust from the police, causing the police to interrogate Richardson as the possible killer. Suddenly he did not know where he had heard the word "No" from, and he certainly never heard any scuffle or heavy fall, he just heard a sound as if somebody had "suddeny touched the fence". And he had definitely not heard any ensuing thud or anything else after that sudden touching, no Sir!

That is exactly how these things work. Not how they SHOULD work, how we would want them to work, mind you - but instead how they DO work. I cannot say that Richardson lied, but I can say that the fact that he really shouldnīt have does not reassure me that he didnīt.

[Abby Normal]

Cadosch (fictional): Mmm, I wonder if that sound of a scuffle and fall against the fence three feet from where I was when I went out the door, was due to the Whitechapel Murderer, killing another woman? Maybe I should take a look? Nah, it's probably just the neighbors...

LOL

LOL yourself. why would he think it was the whitechapel murderer? he said he often heard neighbors back there and assumed it was them. even people who heard far more suspicious things during this case ignored them.
seriously Not your crackpot theories and stupid reasoning is really getting tiresome.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Cadosch (fictional): Mmm, I wonder if that sound of a scuffle and fall against the fence three feet from where I was when I went out the door, was due to the Whitechapel Murderer, killing another woman? Maybe I should take a look? Nah, it's probably just the neighbors...

LOL

[Abby Normal]

Considering all the gaps in the fence palings, it's a shame Cadosch didn't do that

why would he? he thought it was neighbors in the yard and took no notice

[NotBlamedForNothing]

i dont know, bending over and turning his head to look?

Considering all the gaps in the fence palings, it's a shame Cadosch didn't do that

[Abby Normal]

You will notice from this photograph that the door to the basement workshop of 29 Hanbury Street was recessed. Also that most illustrations show a canopy over the stairs leading down to it. So from Richardson's point of view sitting on the middle step the basement door was covered over, on his right, below and behind him.

How did he check the lock on the basement door without going into the yard?

i dont know, bending over and turning his head to look?

[Abby Normal]

Although it causes issues with TOD etc, I have always felt that Richardson's story is likely to be (at least mostly) true, simply because of its implications.

There has been a gruesome murder. It doesn't seem very logical that Richardson would tell police he had sat on the back steps, pootling about with a knife of all things, unless it was true. If he had never been in the yard that morning, surely it would have been far better to say as much.

But instead he admits he was right next to where the body was found, with a knife.

The bit about the knife not being sharp enough may have been an embellishment to his account, to try to stop the whole "in the yard, with a knife" bit sounding so potentially damning.

I can't think of a good reason he would want to tell the police he had been there, knife and all, if he hadn't, when he must have known how suspicious such an admission was probably going to sound.

bingo Az
he wouldnt. and he certainly wouldnt lie and say he was there with a knife no less, if he wasnt.

[Abby Normal]

The Telegraph report (13-Sep) of the inquest says that when Richardson returned with the dessert knife he said "as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market".

This appears to contradict what he said earlier about cutting the shoe on the step. Or should it be interpreted to mean that he did some cutting on the step and completed it with another knife later?

yup thats another explanation

[Azarna]

Although it causes issues with TOD etc, I have always felt that Richardson's story is likely to be (at least mostly) true, simply because of its implications.

There has been a gruesome murder. It doesn't seem very logical that Richardson would tell police he had sat on the back steps, pootling about with a knife of all things, unless it was true. If he had never been in the yard that morning, surely it would have been far better to say as much.

But instead he admits he was right next to where the body was found, with a knife.

The bit about the knife not being sharp enough may have been an embellishment to his account, to try to stop the whole "in the yard, with a knife" bit sounding so potentially damning.

I can't think of a good reason he would want to tell the police he had been there, knife and all, if he hadn't, when he must have known how suspicious such an admission was probably going to sound.