Richardson's View

[Abby Normal]

But it doesn't look like that in real life does it?

There's a top step and a middle step. But the lower step isn't a step at all. It's about 2" high. So not quite as comfy as it looks is it?

according to that pic, the middle step would be the most reasonable place to sit. the top step, his knees would have been to his chin.
its a moot point though because either step he sat on he would have more than likely seen a dead body at his feet.

[Abby Normal]

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...

If "he just waltzed in, opened the door, looked down to his right at the cellar door and waltzed out. " why on gods green earth didnt he just say that? no harm, no foul.

[DJA]

That photo was taken over 60 years after the murder.

Soil and grass had built up.

[Chava]

But it doesn't look like that in real life does it?

There's a top step and a middle step. But the lower step isn't a step at all. It's about 2" high. So not quite as comfy as it looks is it?

[DJA]

Sitting on the middle step,his feet [plural] on the flags of the yard.

[Chava]

There are possibilities based on what's there to draw information from and take a logical step, but where is the logical step that his mother would be so reactionary to learn he hadn't been in the yard that the elaboration was needed?

What do you see in the photos of the yard that impacts on what you feel is credible?

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...

[Curious Cat]

No. I'm not sure. I'm not sure about anything in this case. But I am questioning Richardson's testimony. Because having looked at pix of the business end of the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street I don't think its particularly credible. And one possible reason for him making up an elaborate story is that he didn't want to tell his ma that he hadn't been there.

I don't deal in absolutes in the Whitechapel Murders. I deal in possibilities. And I think we should question everything.

There are possibilities based on what's there to draw information from and take a logical step, but where is the logical step that his mother would be so reactionary to learn he hadn't been in the yard that the elaboration was needed?

What do you see in the photos of the yard that impacts on what you feel is credible?

[Chava]

And yet you're sure that Mrs Richardson's reaction to her son possibly not checking the padlock that morning would've been to the extent that he felt compelled to lie about not seeing a dead body near his feet.

No. I'm not sure. I'm not sure about anything in this case. But I am questioning Richardson's testimony. Because having looked at pix of the business end of the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street I don't think its particularly credible. And one possible reason for him making up an elaborate story is that he didn't want to tell his ma that he hadn't been there.

I don't deal in absolutes in the Whitechapel Murders. I deal in possibilities. And I think we should question everything.

[Curious Cat]

I can't argue about this. Because I am in no position to know what Mrs Richardson's thoughts are on the issue.
And neither are you.

And yet you're sure that Mrs Richardson's reaction to her son possibly not checking the padlock that morning would've been to the extent that he felt compelled to lie about not seeing a dead body near his feet.

[Curious Cat]

bingo. I like the way your analytical mind works curious. again you are correct. as i posted earlier, if anything she probably would have been releived if her son had skipped checking the cellar that day.

I just go where the logic points to.

Each murder has its own elements that don't appear to make sense but the best we can do is join the dots that are there. Sometimes the dots may be joined in the wrong order but adding dots without substance is what screws with the logic.

[Fisherman]

This could be someone who is highly organized & prepared. His actions appear chaotic. But his thought-process isn't.

Bullīs eye, Chava!

[Chava]

You will be aware that Phillips said that he was convinced that Chapman had not had any strong alcohol for some hours before her death.

OK. At roughly 2.00 am she's last seen leaving the dosshouse to get her bed rent. She's described as having had enough but could walk straight so she wasn't roaring drunk at that point. She had been to the pub on the corner earlier and was eating a potato. If Philips is correct that likely means she'd had nothing since the pub. Because otherwise it would definitely show up in her system even if she were killed right at Cadoche-Time of 5.20 am which is still only 3 hours out from her last sighting.
I find this really interesting. However she met her killer, Chapmen didn't meet him in a pub. He didn't ply her with drink & then waltz her out of there. She might have led him though that hallway to the back yard. However it's possible that he suggested that location, strangled her as soon as he got across the threshold and then dragged her or carried her into the back. It's also possible that he scopes locations out and then chooses victims close to there rather than finding victims and allowing them to choose the location. I still think the physical appearance of those locations are very important to him. But I wonder if he makes the choice rather than killing women who make that choice for him. This could be someone who is highly organized & prepared. His actions appear chaotic. But his thought-process isn't.

[Chava]

bingo. I like the way your analytical mind works curious. again you are correct. as i posted earlier, if anything she probably would have been releived if her son had skipped checking the cellar that day.

I can't argue about this. Because I am in no position to know what Mrs Richardson's thoughts are on the issue.
And neither are you.

[Chava]

For the police, though, there not only could be doubt - there WAS doubt. That, however, seems not to worry you one little bit...? He must have been there, and he must have done things the way he said he did them. The second time he told the police what he did, that is. We know from Chandler that he told it in anither fashion the first time he gavce his story.

How Richardson can inspire belief within anybody with a discerning mind is beyond me.

I agree completely.
As for Hutch I'm happy to continue this fascinating discussion...in the Hutch threads.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And what about the possibility that Richardson actually saw the body of the murdered woman there, and stole the rings from her fingers?!

The normal thing for him to tell in the inquest then, is that the body was not there, and no one will suspect him of stealing.

You see in such complex cases, you cannot know what happened exactly based on your feelings or merely on what witnesses say.

You cannot prove that Richardson didn't steal the rings =

You cannot prove the body was not there.



The Baron

And you cannot prove that the body was there. Or that Chapman hadn’t sold her rings days before or that she hadn’t been robbed.