Richardson's View

[Fisherman]

Phillips' earlier ToD is almost certainly what led to the article in the Star about Richardson's story being doubted. The Echo carries the same story, but with slight differences, especially the last sentance.

Echo 13 Sept;

"The police efforts are today being vigorously proceeded with, especially in the direction of settling the question of the exact time at which the murder of Annie Chapman actually occurred. Some doubt was originally thrown by them 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 that no signs of the murder were then apparent. Proof is now being sought to establish the fact that Richardson was right as to the time."

The long and the short of it is that we simply cannot be certain that Richardson was correct about anything at all, more or less. He gave different stories, and he was forced to admit that his bootcutting story was not really correct. It is fair to say that Phillips´ estimation will at least partly have been what gave the police reason to doubt Richardson, but overall, the ones they really needed to distrust if they accepted Phillips´estimation would be Long and Cadosch, and not so much Richardson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the contentious issue with his testimony which suggests he heard "noises and voices"

Bearing in mind the time and the fact that it would still have been relatively quiet It cannot be taken for granted that the noises and voices he supposedly heard came from where he said they did. In the quietness of the morning, sounds and voices would carry.

In fact, he stated that he "believed" it came from 29, that is not conclusive proof so his testimony is unsafe!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I struggle to believe that you repeatedly keep missing my point Trevor so I’ll try, yet again, to illustrate what I mean.

Herlock’s statement:

“I was walking along the street the other day and I’m fairly sure that I saw Fisherman on the other side of the road. When I was questioned about how certain I was I had to admit that he was a distance away and I only saw him briefly so it’s possible that it might have been someone that resembled him. I carried on along the street and walked past Trevor Marriott. When questioned I said that I was absolutely confident that it was Trevor because, a) I know what Trevor looks like, and b) I was very close to him and looked straight at him.”

So a statement with two sightings. One a cautious one the other a confident one. With Cadosch we have a statement where he heard two things, 1) the ‘no’ which he expressed caution about when pressed, and 2) the noise which he was absolutely confident in.

Now my point is that anyone reading Herlock’s statement would think - well he was sensibly cautious about seeing Fisherman so there’s a chance that it might not have been him but he was 100% certain about seeing Trevor at close hand so he’s extremely likely to have been correct.

But by your strange logic Trevor it’s - well he might have been wrong about Fisherman (though he accepted this) so his sighting of Trevor is unreliable too.

~~~~

Cadosch’s initial response was that the ‘no’ came from number 29. He was only feet away but he was still cautious when pressed (something which should be treated as commendable and pointing to trustworthiness) But he was totally confident about the noise. The ‘no’ was out of the blue but by the time he that he heard the noise he was alerted to someone being in next doors yard.

Your dismissal of his testimony as unsafe defies reason.

And I’d ask again. If he did hear the sound of someone/something brushing against the fence what else could it have been?

[Wickerman]

Well said, that is the long and short of it, one cannot say Richardson was a reliable suspect with a straight face.

Any barrister will be able to discredit him easily.



The Baron

Which is why the police paid particular attention to him.

Swanson wrote:
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although the police specially directed their attention to him."

What is also apparent from Swanson's words is that the police not only tested whether Richardson was lying, they also wanted to eliminate him of suspicion of being the murderer. So their investigation of Richardson was quite exhaustive, not just as a casual witness.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Chava,

Cadosch did mention that the reason for his two visits to the loo in such a short space of time was connected to the fact that he’d recently been in hospital though I’m fairly sure that he didn’t say what he was in there for.

We did discus this gap of time on the other thread which seems too long. Possible explanations imo are:

Maybe the ‘no’ wasn’t actually the point at which Annie was attacked
but just part of a brief conversation and the ‘no’ was possibly just spoken slightly louder so that it was all that Cadosch heard. Just as a ‘maybe’ couldn’t the ‘no’ just have been Annie replying to the killer asking something like “aren’t we likely to be disturbed here?” To which Annie emphasises the word “no” to assure her client and Cadosch heard her.

The noise against the fence is usually suggested as being the body falling against the fence or the door, as you said. But it could have simply been the killer brushing against the fence. Possible changing position for access?

So we could have Cadosch exiting his back door when he hears the word ‘no.’ Annie is either killed while he’s in the loo or they both keep quiet until he’s gone back inside (the killer not wanting to be disturbed) and Annie is then killed. Cadosch, on his second loo trip, hears the killer brush an arm or a shoulder against the fence in the act of mutilating Annie.

"No" could have been when the action turned deadly Herlock, but I think its probable that Annie was choked before the throat cuts anyway. The thud, or sound, he hears on his second trip out is probably the body being adjusted for the cutting. This would set aside about 30-40 minutes in the cold air for Annies body, post mutilations. Might be enough time for the time for body cooling, something that was likely misinterpreted.

[Michael W Richards]

Based on this image from Gavin Bromley's dissertation on this site, "Cadosche-The other side of the fence", note the proximity to the body location when heading to the loo and returning to the house. The orientation suggests a close proximity at multiple points in time to the specific murder location. When he says he believed the sound came from the yard in 29, its hard not to concur with that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which is why the police paid particular attention to him.

Swanson wrote:
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although the police specially directed their attention to him."

What is also apparent from Swanson's words is that the police not only tested whether Richardson was lying, they also wanted to eliminate him of suspicion of being the murderer. So their investigation of Richardson was quite exhaustive, not just as a casual witness.

This is a very valid point Wick. Richardson’s story obviously came under scrutiny by the police and they found nothing to object to. So why the objections now?

[Herlock Sholmes]

"No" could have been when the action turned deadly Herlock, but I think its probable that Annie was choked before the throat cuts anyway. The thud, or sound, he hears on his second trip out is probably the body being adjusted for the cutting. This would set aside about 30-40 minutes in the cold air for Annies body, post mutilations. Might be enough time for the time for body cooling, something that was likely misinterpreted.

You could be right Michael especially if the killer immediate slapped his hand over Annie’s mouth after the ‘no.’

[Fisherman]

This is a very valid point Wick. Richardson’s story obviously came under scrutiny by the police and they found nothing to object to. So why the objections now?

Sigh. It is not as if "they found nothing to object to", Herlock - they found he was not the killer. That is per se not equivalent with the police regarding Richardson as squeaky clean in other respects - like for example the hard art of understanding what a doorblade may conceal or the finer points of telling the truth.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The problem for me is why then would Richardson lie about sitting on that step? After all he could have told Chandler that he’d just opened the door enough to stick his head out to check the cellar doors and so the body might or might not have been there for all he’d known. Why was he so adamant to tell the police that the body wasn’t there?

He would have been taking a large risk if he’d denied being at number 29 of course but he might easily have said that he never went to the yard door. That he just went inside to pick something up from his mother’s?

Putting yourself in Richardson's boots, would you have mentioned to Chandler or Baxter that you'd used a knife just inches from the location Chapman's body would be found at, about an hour later?
I personally would be very inclined to leave that part of the story out, and surely JR could have got away with omitting the boot cutting details. As he says...

The sole object I had in going there was to see whether the cellar was all right.

And...

How long were you there?
About a minute and a half, or two minutes at the outside.

Apparently another resident of #29 has seen John with a knife that morning, and therefore he cannot take the risk of not mentioning his activity with it.
So where exactly was he, when seen with the knife?

[etenguy]

Richardson's story - complete with boot cutting - was reported in several newspapers on the 10th, well before his inquest appearance. Cadosche's too.

Eg. Echo 10th Sept

"At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, of 2, St. John-street, son of the landlady of 29, Hanbury-street, the proprietor of a packing-case business, as usual went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. A short while before there had been a burglary in this place. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot"

Thanks Joshua - I found lots without the last sentence - missed this one.

[Chava]

Based on this image from Gavin Bromley's dissertation on this site, "Cadosche-The other side of the fence", note the proximity to the body location when heading to the loo and returning to the house. The orientation suggests a close proximity at multiple points in time to the specific murder location. When he says he believed the sound came from the yard in 29, its hard not to concur with that.

I agree. However thinking that the sound came from the yard in 29 suggests what Cadoche heard was a little further off than a couple of feet away from his ear. That's one experiment that does still hold good. Have someone stand horizontally to your left. Let's be generous and put them 4' away. And have them say 'no'. You would know where that sound came from because it's really close. And the murderer would know you were there. Because I doubt the backdoor of #27 was much quieter than the back door of #29. But Our Brave Killer holds his ground. Sticks around. Does a little knife work. Even though his victim has been able to say 'no' and was likely overheard. Even though, if the neighbour did raise a hue and cry, our guy would have been caught like a rat in a trap because there was no way out. That argues an exceptionally cool calm & collected murderer. We won't know the truth of this. But I think we can at least question the idea that Chapman was murdered at around 5.25 am rather than around, say, 4.00 am. Apart from anything else, where the hell was she between 1.45 am when she leaves the lodging house and 5.20 am when she was presumed killed? No one saw her. Hallie R thinks she was rough sleeping in the back of #29. Which has been mentioned as a possibility by no one else ever including the inhabitants of #29 at the time.

Richardson wasn't there looking for a body. He wanted to check his ma's packing business stuff. I don't believe he sat on the second step because it's low to the ground and if he really was tending to his boot it would be too awkward an angle. I think that was embroidery on his part to emphasize he hadn't seen anything. My opinion is that he opened the door. Looked to his right. Saw the doors down to the seller were undisturbed. Turned and went back out. The body may not have been there. But the door is an effective barrier and it was dark. I think it's possible she was there--and dead--already.

[Curious Cat]

Richardson was told of the murder while he was at the market in his position as porter. He returned to Hanbury Street a couple of minutes before the body was taken away from the yard. He's the one person that morning to have seen the spot both with and without the body in situ. There will have been a number of people about to know whether it was possible he could have missed the body had it been there at 4:45am.

Who was talking in the yard at 29 Hanbury Street and what hit the fence by where the body was found when Richardson was at the market? He can't be in two places at once and it can't be fathomable that anyone could be in the yard at the time Cadosch heard the voice and fence thump and have ignored the body if it had been there longer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sigh. It is not as if "they found nothing to object to", Herlock - they found he was not the killer. That is per se not equivalent with the police regarding Richardson as squeaky clean in other respects - like for example the hard art of understanding what a doorblade may conceal or the finer points of telling the truth.

It means that they would have looked at anything that Richardson said or did in detail. Primarily to see if he was a suspect or not but during this focus do you think that if anything stood out to them suggesting that he wasn’t a reliable witness that they would have ignored it. They looked at him and found nothing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Putting yourself in Richardson's boots, would you have mentioned to Chandler or Baxter that you'd used a knife just inches from the location Chapman's body would be found at, about an hour later?
I personally would be very inclined to leave that part of the story out, and surely JR could have got away with omitting the boot cutting details. As he says...

The sole object I had in going there was to see whether the cellar was all right.

And...

How long were you there?
About a minute and a half, or two minutes at the outside.

Apparently another resident of #29 has seen John with a knife that morning, and therefore he cannot take the risk of not mentioning his activity with it.
So where exactly was he, when seen with the knife?

I think that it’s the most obvious explanation for why he didn’t mention doing his knife work.

I can’t recall anyone saying that they saw Richardson with a knife though?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

]

Apparently another resident of #29 has seen John with a knife that morning, and therefore he cannot take the risk of not mentioning his activity with it.
So where exactly was he, when seen with the knife?

Was it a resident that saw him? He couldn't do the job with his blunt knife and mentions using one at work to cut the leather, so if he's told anyone at the market about his boot, he'd be taking a risk not telling the police he had a knife. Not sure who would have seen him at 29?