Richardson's View

[etenguy]

I agree. I don't think Cadosche is lying. But I also don't think he necessarily heard the murder. He heard someone say 'no' and it may have been from #29. The fact that he's not entirely sure where the noise came from suggests to me that it didn't come from right beside him.

Has anyone seen how Cadosch described the word 'no' he heard - as a shout or a scream or something else. At the inquest he simply said he heard a voice say no - not even whether it was a male or female voice.

[Abby Normal]

To be fair, I am not buying Richardson's testimony completely.


Richardson said:

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.


Do we need a knife to feed a rabbit ?!

Do rabbits usually have difficulties eating carrot?!

How did Richardson know he will meet a rabbit, so that he took with him the knife which he usually doesn't carry ?!

Where did he meet the rabbit exactly, near the yard?!

What happened to the rabbit?!



The Baron

lol! yes id like to know more to about this rabbit. im surprised the coroner wasnt all over it.

Diddles the cat, Richardsons rabbit, burgo the bloodhound. anymore silly beasts in this saga? : )

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree. I don't think Cadosche is lying. But I also don't think he necessarily heard the murder. He heard someone say 'no' and it may have been from #29. The fact that he's not entirely sure where the noise came from suggests to me that it didn't come from right beside him.

He expressed no doubt where the noise came from Chava. He was only cautious about the ‘no’ but his first instinct was that it came from number 29. People say that the ‘no’ could have come from elsewhere but I don’t buy it. If you hear a voice from less than 6 feet away how likely would it be that it came from a distance away. It smacks of wishful thinking imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be fair, I am not buying Richardson's testimony completely.


Richardson said:

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.


Do we need a knife to feed a rabbit ?!

Do rabbits usually have difficulties eating carrot?!

How did Richardson know he will meet a rabbit, so that he took with him the knife which he usually doesn't carry ?!

Where did he meet the rabbit exactly, near the yard?!

What happened to the rabbit?!



The Baron

[Chava]

I don't have any issue with Cadosch's statements - quite what he heard and where from may be up for question, but nothing about what he said or did gives us a reason to doubt he was telling the truth as he understood it.

I agree. I don't think Cadosche is lying. But I also don't think he necessarily heard the murder. He heard someone say 'no' and it may have been from #29. The fact that he's not entirely sure where the noise came from suggests to me that it didn't come from right beside him.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

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?

Hey Herlock

I do not know why Richardson might lie about sitting on the step, except to give more credence to his evidence and cement his crucial witness status for the papers et al (that old chestnut). It has been known to happen. Even so, it is a bit convoluted when there are far more simple options, one of which you cite.

I accept that we can’t know for certain of course but I think it likelier that either Chandler misheard him during an interview in the passageway with no notes being taken. Or, in that interview in hardly ideal circumstances, Richardson just didn’t bother mentioning sitting on the step if he wasn’t pushed for detail. But at the Inquest, under oath, and after he’d heard it questioned about whether he could have missed the body or not, he explains fully why he couldn’t have missed her.

I think the second of your explanations is the more likely given later issues with Richardson's statements. However, the reason I struggle with accepting Richardson as a reliable witness is that the step sitting is just one of a number of significant elucidations (and in the case of the knife, contradictions) which undermine, in my view, either his credibility or his power of recall (which might mean he got the time wrong as the police postulated at the time).

Then we have Cadosch who points to someone in the yard half an hour later and despite a desperate attempt to discredit him there really is nothing to show that he lied about what he heard.

The cumulative effect for me is that Richardson sat on the step and had an ample view of the yard which allowed him to say with confidence that he couldn’t have missed it had it been there.

I don't have any issue with Cadosch's statements - quite what he heard and where from may be up for question, but nothing about what he said or did gives us a reason to doubt he was telling the truth as he understood it.

I

[The Baron]

I'm not buying the idea that Richardson perched on the second step to do anything to his boot. He'd have to fold himself in half to do that unless he is very very short. That 2nd step is maybe 12" off the ground.

To be fair, I am not buying Richardson's testimony completely.


Richardson said:

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.


Do we need a knife to feed a rabbit ?!

Do rabbits usually have difficulties eating carrot?!

How did Richardson know he will meet a rabbit, so that he took with him the knife which he usually doesn't carry ?!

Where did he meet the rabbit exactly, near the yard?!

What happened to the rabbit?!



The Baron

[Chava]

The problem with that Chava is twofold.....it relies on Richardson being incorrect, and for Cadosche to be wrong about which yard he heard the noises from. No-one other than the killer was in that yard with a dead woman lying there at 5:15 to 5:25, and Cadosche heard a female voice say "no".

From Richardson: " I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then"...... Coroner: "You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found?"- Yes, I must have seen her."..... Coroner:"Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard."

Cadosche: "As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29"

Note that he heard the voice when he would be in the closest proximity to where Annie is found, as he re-entered the house.

Forgive me, but I don't see the word 'female' in Cadosche's testimony. He says he heard a voice. No gender provided.
And if you look at the pix of the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street I think you'll be surprised how shallow they are. So I'm not buying the idea that Richardson perched on the second step to do anything to his boot. He'd have to fold himself in half to do that unless he is very very short. That 2nd step is maybe 12" off the ground.

[Fisherman]

At the risk of repeating myself.

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.”

I donīt mind, Simon. It is perhaps the most useful post altogether on this thread.

[Fisherman]

Optimism isn’t really the word Fish. It’s a simple matter of going for the plausible over the implausible.

Hasnīt it dawned on you yet, Herlock, that:

A/ Not everybody has the same view on what is plausible or not, and
B/ Things that seem implausible (at least to you, that is) are nevertheless possible?

Richardson sat on the step and didn’t see the body because it wasn’t there (as he stated at the Inquest)

He actually never said the body was not there. He said he should have seen it if it was there, which is the kind of wording we use when we havent checked. It is the same as saying that he THOUGHT he should have seen it, nothing else.

This is confirmed by Cadosch (who had no reason to lie) who heard the word ‘no’ and something brush against a fence in a yard where there was, according to you, an horrifically mutilated corpse.

No, it is not confirmed by Cadosch. Unless you claim that Cadosch was a spectator at 4.45...? You see, otherwise he can not confirm that Richardson checked and that there was no body. What Cadosch claims is to have heard a word and a noise that cannot have been Chapman. Because THIS IS CONFIRMED by Long, who saw Chapman outside the yard at a later stage.
So much for confirmations, Herlock.

And to dispute that we have Richardson squeezing through a partially open door whilst all the while looking only to his right then sitting facing right with the door against the left hand side of his body and who then doesn’t realise the obstructive power of a door.

He would not have to squeeze at all, that is your own invention and not a very good one. He could have opened the door to a rather wide angle and sat down straight on the stairs without being able to see Chapman. It hinges on how far out from the facade and from the doorblade his eyes were. All that stuff you keep on spewing here about minimal door openings and Richardson trying his body at contortionism is ridiculous and does not belong in a sound debate, Iīm afraid. Make a simple drawing from above and check what it takes for Richardson to see the area where Chapman was lying instead. Use your time productively, Herlock!

Not it much of a choice really.

When we cannot see all the options, that as what we end up with. Itīs not until we understand the width of a problem that we can assess all the choices.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. unreliable witness

I think that whenever this phrase is used we should replace the word ‘unreliable’ with ‘inconvenient.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Richardson said that he entered the yard, and looked behind the door and there was nothing their..

Against the medical report, which was supported by the rigor, digesting time, and the temperature of the body, I will still prefer the TOD giving by Dr. Phillips as the most likly one.

Let alone being unreliable witness, with a door securing the body.



The Baron

I’ve no doubt the YOU would Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, Herlock, they looked at Richardson. It is stated very clearly.

And yes, Herlock, they did not find anything.

The tricky thing is i not finding anything is not the same thing as nothing being there. Unfair, I know - but there you are.

What they looked for was evidence that he was linked to the murder, that too is clearly defined. You donīt search his clothes to find out whether he sat on the steps or not. That wonīt be given away by whatīs in the clothes. For example.

You may feel optimistic about the police having established that Richardson was there, sat on the step and would have seen the body if it was there.

I donīt deal in optimism in that kind of way, just as I donīt deal in all people sitting straight on stairs. I find the world is too complicated and unpredictable to make those kinds of calls.

But carry on, by all means, and have fun along the road.

Optimism isn’t really the word Fish. It’s a simple matter of going for the plausible over the implausible. Richardson sat on the step and didn’t see the body because it wasn’t there (as he stated at the Inquest) This is confirmed by Cadosch (who had no reason to lie) who heard the word ‘no’ and something brush against a fence in a yard where there was, according to you, an horrifically mutilated corpse.

And to dispute that we have Richardson squeezing through a partially open door whilst all the while looking only to his right then sitting facing right with the door against the left hand side of his body and who then doesn’t realise the obstructive power of a door.

Not it much of a choice really.

[The Baron]

If Richardson said that he entered the yard, and looked behind the door and there was nothing their..

Against the medical report, which was supported by the rigor, digesting time, and the temperature of the body, I will still prefer the TOD giving by Dr. Phillips as the most likly one.

Let alone being unreliable witness, with a door securing the body.



The Baron

[Michael W Richards]

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.

The problem with that Chava is twofold.....it relies on Richardson being incorrect, and for Cadosche to be wrong about which yard he heard the noises from. No-one other than the killer was in that yard with a dead woman lying there at 5:15 to 5:25, and Cadosche heard a female voice say "no".

From Richardson: " I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then"...... Coroner: "You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found?"- Yes, I must have seen her."..... Coroner:"Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard."

Cadosche: "As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29"

Note that he heard the voice when he would be in the closest proximity to where Annie is found, as he re-entered the house.