Richardson's View

[Abby Normal]

I kind of like the argument "Richardson said he couldnīt have missed her, and he was there so he would know". It is an argument that looks away from the fact that we sometimes conclude matters without really having checked. Like Abby.

oh ive checked. amd so did richardson. she wasnt there yet fish. get over it .
if it helps lech still could have been her killer though, just later.

[Wickerman]

I thought Richardson was sat on the top step, with his feet in the yard?
If he could see sufficient distance to his right that the cellar door had not been tampered with, then clearly he was able to see to his left a body extending 5ft beyond the steps into the yard.
It's not like the body was behind the door, but below the door and further out beyond the door.

[harry]

Richardson also remarked he had bent down to tie his shoelace.That would expose the ground beneath the door.

[Fisherman]

oh ive checked. amd so did richardson. she wasnt there yet fish. get over it .
if it helps lech still could have been her killer though, just later.

It is not about Lechmere, Abby. Its about the fact that Richardson may have missed her even if she was there. The last time over this was discussed, an incredulous R J Palmer made an experiment at a friends house, and it turned out that I was correct.

This is how things should be done. We should not just glance at things and decide that our first impression is correct. My own first impression was that Richardson could not possibly have missed her, and so I checked - and it turned out that he could. You now say that youīve checked it too, and that he could not have missed her? So how did you check it?

[Fisherman]

I thought Richardson was sat on the top step, with his feet in the yard?

Well, that was what he SAID. But he also said he cut leather from his boot - and it turned out that he didnīt. And it also turned out that he told Chandler another story, right? So letīs be a tad cautios with what he said, shall we?

If he could see sufficient distance to his right that the cellar door had not been tampered with, then clearly he was able to see to his left a body extending 5ft beyond the steps into the yard.
It's not like the body was behind the door, but below the door and further out beyond the door.

Jon, Iīve explained this before. The door swung back against anybody who opened it. That means that it is quite possible that it never got even near a, say, 90 degree angle against the wall. Maybe it was 60 degrees. Maybe it was 70. How would we be able to refute such a thing? I know I canīt! And the angle governed how far to the left that Richardson could see (if he even looked to his left), it really is that simple. If the doorblade was between his eyes and the body, then he would need x-ray vision to see Chapman. It would be quite possible for the door to obscure the total length of the fence to Richardson, if the angle was narrow enough. A giraffe could have lain there unseen under such circumstances.

You speak about "if he could see sufficient distance to his right that the cellar door had not been tampered with...", but we have it on record that the lock could be seen from a stance on top of the stairs.

On top of this, there is also the matter that even if part of Chapmans body was visible from his position, what possible reason would he have had to look to the left when it was the lock to his right he came to check? It was gloomy and as the saying goes: In the darkness, all cats are grey.

There is a very obvious possibility that Richardson was wrong, and it seems the police understood that too. And in fact, I think most people who claim he could not have missed the body actually mean to say that it would be strange if he did. If he missed it, he would be an idiot, as it was bitterly worded on a previous thread. Well, anybody who feels the need to make that claim is welcome to do so, but it is not as if the world lacks idiots, is it?

[Fisherman]

Richardson also remarked he had bent down to tie his shoelace.That would expose the ground beneath the door.

Not if the door was only opened in a narrow angle. The only thing exposed would be the stairs in such a case, not least if the door was resting against your side/back.

[Fisherman]

John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.

Take a look at the doorblade in the lower picture. It is more or less parallel to the fence. Now, instead imagine the doorblade pointing right towards the photographer. Then put Richardsons bum on the middle doorstep and his feet on the yard flagstone. Imagine where his head and eyes would be, with the door resting against his side.

Once that exercise is done, it should give another picture altogether of the matter!

[Fisherman]

Star, 13th September 1888—

“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.”

Yup. And the thing is, we donīt even have to doubt that Richardson WAS there and that he DID sit on the stairs if we find such a pill hard to swallow. He could nevertheless have missed Chapman.

[Harry D]

There's no way Richardson is missing Chapman's mutilated corpse. Even if it was still dark, it would stretch credulity.

[Yabs]

Would Richardson have not smelt a disembowelled corpse laying inches away from him?
The first thing you do when you smell something out of the ordinary is look around for the source.

[Fisherman]

Would Richardson have not smelt a disembowelled corpse laying inches away from him?
The first thing you do when you smell something out of the ordinary is look around for the source.

Richardson was suffering from a cold as these things unveiled, Yabs. It is mentioned in the paper reports. Moreover, I think there may well have beern all sorts of smells around in them backyards. The odd whiff from Cadoscheīs loo, perhaps?

[Fisherman]

There's no way Richardson is missing Chapman's mutilated corpse. Even if it was still dark, it would stretch credulity.

There we have it again. "It would stretch credulity."
So stretch it, then.
"He would have been an idiot to miss it."
Idiots exist.

Take another look at the picture I referred to, and place Ricardson on that step behind the door the way I suggested, please.

[DJA]

My laundry door is used several times a day to access my backyard.
Same door width,as confirmed by the 200mm + bricks.
It is rare for me not to open the door a full 90 degrees and then look down to the bottom "step".
Although my door is a few inches less above the ground,I could not miss Chapman's feet.
If I was to sit on the step,my heels would be planted 2 to 4 inches from the back of the lower step.
In the process of bending over to sit,there is a clear parallel view from the door edge.
I have taken her "height" and deducted several inches for knees being apart with her feet together.

[Trevor Marriott]

My laundry door is used several times a day to access my backyard.
Same door width,as confirmed by the 200mm + bricks.
It is rare for me not to open the door a full 90 degrees and then look down to the bottom "step".
Although my door is a few inches less above the ground,I could not miss Chapman's feet.
If I was to sit on the step,my heels would be planted 2 to 4 inches from the back of the lower step.
In the process of bending over to sit,there is a clear parallel view from the door edge.
I have taken her "height" and taken several inches off for knees being apart with her feet together.

We only have a vague description of where the body was located it is in my opinion not conclusive and we have no sketches from 1888 which would give us more of an idea excatly where the body was located.

As I see it whether Richardson would have seen the body, in my opinion, is dependant oh how far he opened the door and in which direction his vision was focussed on. if you look at the door and how it opens there are ceratin angles where it would block the line of vision to anything or anybody lying in a certain position in that back yard.

So there must be a doubt about about his evidence

Not withstanding that there were no other murders which took place at that time of the morning

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

My laundry door is used several times a day to access my backyard.

Okey...?

Same door width,as confirmed by the 200mm + bricks.

U-huh.

It is rare for me not to open the door a full 90 degrees and then look down to the bottom "step".

Aha. However, the door in the backyard of Hanbury Street would swing back toards the one who opened it. And we donīt know how much power there was behind the swing. Is your door the exact same?

Although my door is a few inches less above the ground,I could not miss Chapman's feet.

But that would depend on the 90 degreee angle, right? What happens if you only open your door 60 degrees?

If I was to sit on the step,my heels would be planted 2 to 4 inches from the back of the lower step.

Surely, you do not have the exact same kind of steps as there was in Hanbury Street? Look at the picture I reposted and imagine the doorblade points to the photographer. Can you see what happens?

In the process of bending over to sit,there is a clear parallel view from the door edge.

... with the door opened 90 degrees. In fact, the view afforded will ALWAYS be parallel from the door edge. Meaning that if the door is opened only 60 degrees, then that parallel view will not take in the parts to the left.

I have taken her "height" and taken several inches off for knees being apart with her feet together.

She could have been ten feet tall if the door was only opened 60 degrees, and she would still be obscured.