Richardson's View

[Michael W Richards]

For the sake of accuracy,....A table knife of that era would have wood/bone/ivory and to a lesser degree plastic handles which would be screw mounted to the knifes' tang. Missing a handle could mean as little as one of those 2 attached panels on the tang, or both, missing.

[Fisherman]

Hi Herlock

You're absolutely correct, we could speculate scenarios, and reasonable ones at that, that would clear up the confusion above about the knife. We could also do that around Chandler who reported that Richardson initially said he did not go down the steps. And we could probably do that too about how he expressed himself to suggest he successfully cut his boot before later saying he did it at the market in the end. But we do see a pattern of behaviour in his communication, either contradicting himself or being very unclear. I think there are too many examples in what is a relatively short narrative to conclude anything other than the issue, whatever it was nerves, shock, poor communication skills, deliberate obfuscation etc... arose from Richardson. Hence caution about the other parts of his narrative.

Given the way he communicated about other elements of his statement, I could quite imagine that if after quite clearly saying he would definitely have seen the body had it been there, if someone asked 'are you sure?' he might have contradicted himself again and said something else.

Lawyers typically divide witnesses up in good witnesses and bad witnesses, going on the impression they are likely to make on a jury. I think it is safe to say that John Richardson would have been referred to the "bad witness" category. And actually, it does not necessarily say anything about his veracity. It only says that he was never going to be able to convince a jury about being correct, and as such, he would be likely to do more damage than good to the cause he was championing.

[etenguy]

Im not claiming to have an answer but I still can’t help wondering why no one at the time jumped on this very blatant anomaly unless a satisfactory explanation had been given somewhere?

The above quote says the he ‘cut’ his boot followed by ‘it was not sharp enough.’ The only way that I could suggest to try and explain is that, like the previous day, he either cut some leather or tried to, but it wasn’t sufficient and so he had to complete the operation with a sharper knife from the market. After all he’d have had to have been pretty stupid to have, after being sent to fetch the knife that he’d used, only to return with a completely different one.

An error of wording or understanding of what he might have actually said seems a possible, though obviously not conclusive, explanation for me. That he used his own knife but didn’t fully achieve the task resulting in him completing the task with a knife at the market makes sense as an action. The wording doesn’t fit though. So could the wording be wrong?

Hi Herlock

You're absolutely correct, we could speculate scenarios, and reasonable ones at that, that would clear up the confusion above about the knife. We could also do that around Chandler who reported that Richardson initially said he did not go down the steps. And we could probably do that too about how he expressed himself to suggest he successfully cut his boot before later saying he did it at the market in the end. But we do see a pattern of behaviour in his communication, either contradicting himself or being very unclear. I think there are too many examples in what is a relatively short narrative to conclude anything other than the issue, whatever it was nerves, shock, poor communication skills, deliberate obfuscation etc... arose from Richardson. Hence caution about the other parts of his narrative.

Given the way he communicated about other elements of his statement, I could quite imagine that if after quite clearly saying he would definitely have seen the body had it been there, if someone asked 'are you sure?' he might have contradicted himself again and said something else.

[etenguy]

I should have added to post #402

After Richardson returned to the Inquest with the knife why didn’t the Coroner say “Well go and get the knife that you used then!”

I find it difficult to understand why the Coroner let this pass? An issue about a knife....at an Inquest into an horrific knife murder......questioning a man who was at the scene of that murder?!

You'd think. Not Richardson's fault of course, but leaves us with a confusing story from Richardson.

[etenguy]

Hi

Epilepsy is a multi faceted condition. The stereotypical seizures that people imagine are Tonic/Clonic seizures. Given that his morning routine was not disrupted, it's unlikely he'd had a seizure that morning, the after effects of such a seizure being more than a general confusion.

Absence epilepsy is a preferable option, the momentary loss of awareness. These only last a matter of seconds, often the sufferer is unaware of having had an absence. This type of epilepsy is far more common in children.

The other varieties would be unlikely to have affected Richardson unless he point blank lied about falling (Tonic and Atonic), either of which could have him falling down the cellar steps. A Myoclonic seizure is a short jolt action and would have no bearing.

Simple partial seizures are twitches and the like. Complex partial (discognative) seizures are a far more interesting proposition as the sufferer can be mobile and communicative, interestingly, fidgeting with clothes is a really common feature. But again, he got to work as usual, so it seems unlikely.

Any epilepsy will disqualify you from military service, same then as today. What bearing that has on being called as a witness, I don't know. I don't see it has any personally.

There you go. Don't say I never learned you nothing!

Thanks Al - really interesting post.

[Fisherman]

Tempting as it may be, and frustrating as it is, I don't think we can take newspaper report wording as gospel. The Daily News described irichardson"s knife as a" small table-knife with half the blade broken off"
whereas the ELO said it was a
"rusty little table knife without a handle"

That doesn't leave much knife. ..Maybe it didn't exist at all?

Good question! The handle on a table knife is typically mounted on the back end of the metal that makes up both blade and handle support. Perhaps that was it: a table knife where the handle had come off, leaving only the metal part that runs through the handle and supports it, and with half the blade gone. That is the only way I can see my way through to the papers being correct. Then again, why mention a missing handle and not mention a halved blade...?
I think it would be wise to accept that we may be dealing with sloppy reporting here. Any which way, it does. ot seem like a knife that lent itself well to cutting leather.

[Joshua Rogan]

Tempting as it may be, and frustrating as it is, I don't think we can take newspaper report wording as gospel. The Daily News described irichardson"s knife as a" small table-knife with half the blade broken off"
whereas the ELO said it was a
"rusty little table knife without a handle"

That doesn't leave much knife. ..Maybe it didn't exist at all?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excuses.. excuses.. , thats the only thing we are hearing from the other side of the fence.

And you have a rabbit in your house (which is only an assumption) and you want to feed it, you go to the kitchen, open the drawer, and you choose between all the knives there the broken one and no else to cut the carrot (which cannot be fed directly to the rabbit) and you so happened to forget it in your pocket which you usually don't carry there!


Why the broken Knife?!


The Baron

You keep making faulty assumptions quite intentionally to try a dismiss Richardson. We don’t know that he got the knife from a drawer. It might very well have been kept near to where the rabbit was kept. The fact that it was broken would explain why it might have been left outside. Either way, you’ve posted some complete nonsense about the rabbit about which you appear to have an obsession. He fed a rabbit.....this should be end of. The rabbit has no connection to these events.

What Richardson said about the knife appears not to make sense so.......

1) If we can see that why did no one at the time point that out?

2) Why would Richardson think that he could get away with bringing the wrong knife when asked for the one that he’d used?

3) Why, when he apparently brought the wrong knife to the Inquest, did the Coroner not send him to fetch the correct knife?

Could you try giving a remotely sensible answer to these three questions that doesn’t involve rabbits.

[Fisherman]

I should have added to post #402

After Richardson returned to the Inquest with the knife why didn’t the Coroner say “Well go and get the knife that you used then!”

I find it difficult to understand why the Coroner let this pass? An issue about a knife....at an Inquest into an horrific knife murder......questioning a man who was at the scene of that murder?!

The knife he eventually used was not his own, I believe, it was a knife he supposedly borrowed at the market.

[Fisherman]

Im not claiming to have an answer but I still can’t help wondering why no one at the time jumped on this very blatant anomaly unless a satisfactory explanation had been given somewhere?

That would be convenient, of course. Then again, many anomalies are left untouched upon, and it is only with hindsight that we realize how dumb it is.

The above quote says the he ‘cut’ his boot followed by ‘it was not sharp enough.’ The only way that I could suggest to try and explain is that, like the previous day, he either cut some leather or tried to, but it wasn’t sufficient and so he had to complete the operation with a sharper knife from the market. After all he’d have had to have been pretty stupid to have, after being sent to fetch the knife that he’d used, only to return with a completely different one.

Some would say he would be pretty stupid to return with an eight inch very sharp blade if that was what he used to cut the leather. That is to say IF he cut any leather in the first place. There are drawbacks to both scenarios.

An error of wording or understanding of what he might have actually said seems a possible, though obviously not conclusive, explanation for me. That he used his own knife but didn’t fully achieve the task resulting in him completing the task with a knife at the market makes sense as an action. The wording doesn’t fit though. So could the wording be wrong?

The wording can always be wrong. But truth be told, if you are going to post that whenever the phrase unreliable witness is used, we should replace the word ‘unreliable’ with ‘inconvenient’, that will seriously detract from whatever credibility can be ascribed to the suggestion of errors of understanding. What goes around comes around, sort of. No harm meant.
These are tough calls to make, and personally, IŽd say that it is only when a wording is very unrealistic that it can be thrown forward that there may have been an error of hearing. I have had too many suggestions of how Mizen must would have misheard "a policeman is really needed in Bucks Row" for "a policeman in Bucks Row sent me to fetch you"...

[Abby Normal]

I should have added to post #402

After Richardson returned to the Inquest with the knife why didn’t the Coroner say “Well go and get the knife that you used then!”

I find it difficult to understand why the Coroner let this pass? An issue about a knife....at an Inquest into an horrific knife murder......questioning a man who was at the scene of that murder?!

i know right? its mind boggling. the coroner, after crafty and deft questioning gets him to admit he actually lied and used a sharp knife, one he probably had with him at the scene of the crime its suddenly dropped with no further questions asked? weird

[The Baron]

Im not claiming to have an answer but I still can’t help wondering why no one at the time jumped on this very blatant anomaly unless a satisfactory explanation had been given somewhere?

The above quote says the he ‘cut’ his boot followed by ‘it was not sharp enough.’ The only way that I could suggest to try and explain is that, like the previous day, he either cut some leather or tried to, but it wasn’t sufficient and so he had to complete the operation with a sharper knife from the market. After all he’d have had to have been pretty stupid to have, after being sent to fetch the knife that he’d used, only to return with a completely different one.

An error of wording or understanding of what he might have actually said seems a possible, though obviously not conclusive, explanation for me. That he used his own knife but didn’t fully achieve the task resulting in him completing the task with a knife at the market makes sense as an action. The wording doesn’t fit though. So could the wording be wrong?

Excuses.. excuses.. , thats the only thing we are hearing from the other side of the fence.

And you have a rabbit in your house (which is only an assumption) and you want to feed it, you go to the kitchen, open the drawer, and you choose between all the knives there the broken one and no else to cut the carrot (which cannot be fed directly to the rabbit) and you so happened to forget it in your pocket which you usually don't carry there!


Why the broken Knife?!


The Baron

[Michael W Richards]

Er, Dr Phillips headed straight up there to view the body. So yes, it was thought a possibility that Jack had taken a road trip.

Obviously in error it would seem, which again goes to the actual point of that inclusion in my post. Jack the Ripper was very blatantly not the only killer in England at that same specific point in time that slit ladies throats then mutilated their abdomens. On a weekend no less. If the fact that only 5 of the 12 victims in the Unsolved Murder file are presumed to be by this killer isnt enough.

[Michael W Richards]

The very act of sitting down on the step implies he had to crouch with his head lower and oriented forward. Past where the door might have blocked his vision. This is a human being were talking about, she was only 5 feet tall but in this situation she is five feet long. I cant seriously entertain the idea that he would get into that sitting position and trim his boot without being aware of a body lying there. As I said before, if you choose to believe that he did miss seeing her there is still the pertinent fact that between 5:10 and 5:25ish a person spoke on the other side of Cadosches fence. He heard the voice when he came back from the loo, at the closest point he would have been from the actual murder spot. Within 10 feet or so. So you have 2 witnesses you need to discredit. Long being wrong is just a by-product of the facts as they are, Annie was dead or being killed when she thought she saw her. This now leaves us with what would have to be a wildly incorrect TOD assumption by the medical personelle. Or does it.

"I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death". "I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood." "The thickening of the tongue would be one of the signs of suffocation? - Yes."

It seems to me that the fact that someone is in that yard between 5:00 and 5:30 and that "no" is the word heard by Cadosche, we have evidence that suggests perhaps he heard the beginning of the killer strangling, or garroting her. That leaves us with about 45 minutes minimum for the body to be examined for the first time by a professional. Her discovery at around 6 means that the killer had left before then. So, we have 30 minutes or so to kill her and mutilate her and then leave unseen. And about 30 minutes or so from the time she is splayed open to the time she will be examined, presuming that the killer left no later than 5:45. "But it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning" and the body would be more apt to cool rapidly".

If youre of the mind to, you can make a sensible scenario from that data. Richardson sat on the steps before Annie had been in the yard, she arrived after that, with her killer, before Cadosche goes to the privy. She is killed between 12:15 and 12:25ish. The killer spends about 15 minutes there. "I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour". He leaves well before Annie is discovered. The medical examiner arrives at 6:15ish, and begins to examine the condition of the body. Annie has been laid open for perhaps 45 minutes now.

If that is the case, then Long was simply mistaken about her id. "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning". At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them." Yet with this couple she did get a good look at them. Seems convenient that on this particular morning she did take specific notice of a couple when it was common to see them about at that time and that she rarely noticed them as a result.

I think she wanted to be a part of this case. Like we see so often in all these events. This was big news stuff, a person might profit from being associated with the crimes as a witness, be the talk of the town, and maybe be seen as an upstanding citizen to boot. I think Mrs Long decided she had seen Annie for whatever motives she had, but I dont think it was anything more nefarious than seeking publicity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I should have added to post #402

After Richardson returned to the Inquest with the knife why didn’t the Coroner say “Well go and get the knife that you used then!”

I find it difficult to understand why the Coroner let this pass? An issue about a knife....at an Inquest into an horrific knife murder......questioning a man who was at the scene of that murder?!