Richardson's View

[Fisherman]

There are mentions of Chapman being sighted in a pub at 5am. Not a sure fire pointer that she was murdered after that time, but a good point nevertheless.

Who was the observer, Joshua? How credible was he or she? Chapman was dead at that time. Did they serve dead people in pubs back then?

[Joshua Rogan]

One more thing, I believe Mr Marriot pointed out that sightings of Chapman after her removal from the lodging house are not in evidence. Not a sure fire pointer that she was murdered within a relatively short time after her removal, but a good point nevertheless.

There are mentions of Chapman being sighted in a pub at 5am. Not a sure fire pointer that she was murdered after that time, but a good point nevertheless.

[Joshua Rogan]

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've posted this before, but Chandler apparently gave every appearance of believing Richardson;

Daily News 14 Sept
"from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable"

[Fisherman]

For me there can be no doubt that he was where he said he was and that he was doing exactly what he said that he was doing.

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

We know that it did happen!


Chandler:

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.


Under oath Sir.. under oath!


The Baron

Or, as another paper recorded;

"Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

[The Baron]

and only a counter claim, again under oath,would be taken into consideration,and we know that didn't happen.

We know that it did happen!


Chandler:

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.


Under oath Sir.. under oath!


The Baron

[The Baron]

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

[Curious Cat]

I believe Wickerman has dealt with this adequately, better than I could have put it anyway.




Why must it be true? My point is, he did have a motivation to lie, he volunteered that information, that is, sitting on the step at the back, because he didn't want to get into trouble with his mother, who had instructed him to to check on the yard, and the cellar. He never visited the back yard. As I said two things point to this, Dr Philips TOD, and the other canonical murders were carried out under cover of darkness. Again, just a possibility.

One more thing, I believe Mr Marriot pointed out that sightings of Chapman after her removal from the lodging house are not in evidence. Not a sure fire pointer that she was murdered within a relatively short time after her removal, but a good point nevertheless.

No he wasn't instructed. He wasn't necessarily expected to check it by his mother. He only says he'd taken to looking in on the lock on market days on his way to work.

It wouldn't have bothered his mother a jot if he hadn't come that morning to check the padlock. Even less so if it didn't happen to be a market day.

[harry]

Observer,
Your belief he was not there that morning,against Richardson's stated claim,under oath,that he was.Forget what Fisherman says about proving he was there.Richardson doesn't have to.He has nade a claim under oath,and only a counter claim, again under oath,would be taken into consideration,and we know that didn't happen.

[Abby Normal]

Spring-heeled Jack?

lol. nice catch!

[Abby Normal]

Exactly Cat

If he wasn’t there then not only did he needlessly place himself at the scene of an horrific murder he needlessly placed himself at the scene of an horrific murder, alone and in possession of a knife. This would be almost suicidal stupidity. And as I’ve said in earlier posts even if, for some strange reason, he wanted it known that he was there he could easily have said that he’d sat on the step for a smoke. He had no reason to mention using a knife. There’s just no reason for him to have done this. For me there can be no doubt that he was where he said he was and that he was doing exactly what he said that he was doing.

exactly 100 % correct herlock. same goes for hutch, no reason to lie and place themselves at the murder scene and in the crosshairs of the police unless they were actually there. and in hutches case his presence is verified.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Inspector Chandler, Daily Telegraph 14 Sept;

"Did you find anything else in the yard? - There was a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water. It was about two feet from the water tap.

Was it shown to the doctor? - Yes. There was also a box, such as is commonly used by casemakers for holding nails. It was empty. There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.
Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been."

Hmm....so Richardson's gaiter spring was found right where he said he'd sat and cut leather from his boot....wonder how that got there?

Spring-heeled Jack?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
The motivation for John Richardson to account for being in the yard when there are no witnesses around leans towards him telling the truth as he doesn't need to say why or when he was on the steps at the back door if there's no-one to say differently. He doesn't need to place himself there at all, but he volunteers that information. His arrival at work could be verified. The motivation to lie either about being there or not being there doesn't exist for either. Therefore the time he's there, the reason he's there and the two minutes he's sat on the step for before leaving to go to work must be true.

Exactly Cat

If he wasn’t there then not only did he needlessly place himself at the scene of an horrific murder he needlessly placed himself at the scene of an horrific murder, alone and in possession of a knife. This would be almost suicidal stupidity. And as I’ve said in earlier posts even if, for some strange reason, he wanted it known that he was there he could easily have said that he’d sat on the step for a smoke. He had no reason to mention using a knife. There’s just no reason for him to have done this. For me there can be no doubt that he was where he said he was and that he was doing exactly what he said that he was doing.

[Abby Normal]

Assuming further questions of the "Mrs Kennedy" he's read about in the paper at the inquest would prompt Hutchinson to come forward with an account of his own. Not actually being identified at the inquest itself but having his description recognised in the press reports after may have put him in a position of someone asking what he was up to. Although not mentioned in the press before the inquest, he realises "Mrs Kennedy" must have seen him on her way into the court and is likely to be asked if she saw anyone hanging around Dorset Street near Miller's Court. He can't do anything about the inquest but he can do something about throwing attention away from himself and onto another man he says he seen with Mary Kelly while also justifying why he was there.

His assumption turns out to be right in terms of being seen and mentioned at the inquest but his timings are by going by the 3am given by "Mrs Kennedy" in the press as he doesn't know yet that Sarah Lewis has given the time of being in Dorset Street as 2:30am. He has to place himself there at 3am in anticipation of being said to be seen by "Mrs Kennedy" but has to leave as soon as possible after so as not to be there when the cry of murder is heard.

He knows he's been seen, so that would be the motivation in coming forward with his account when he did.

As I say, this is only a thought. I'm not saying this was definitely the case, just a possibility.


The motivation for John Richardson to account for being in the yard when there are no witnesses around leans towards him telling the truth as he doesn't need to say why or when he was on the steps at the back door if there's no-one to say differently. He doesn't need to place himself there at all, but he volunteers that information. His arrival at work could be verified. The motivation to lie either about being there or not being there doesn't exist for either. Therefore the time he's there, the reason he's there and the two minutes he's sat on the step for before leaving to go to work must be true.

well said curious. well said

[Herlock Sholmes]

Where do we get the suggestion that Richardson’s mother had told him to check the cellar from?