Richardson's View

[Simon Wood]

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.”

[Chava]

Hi Trevor, I asked you who was on trial and you didn't answer.

This was a coroner's inquest, not a trial.

But suppose there had been a trial. Someone was charged with the murder of Annie Chapman. Your comment presumes Cadosh is called as a witness by the prosecution and the defense barrister destroys his testimony. You didn't explain why you assume that. Cadosh could just as easily be called as a defense witness - if he were called to testify at all.

ps

how did this become a Cadosh thread anyway? The title says Richardson

Cadoche comes into this thread because he corroborates Richardson. Richardson is back there at 4.45 and doesn't see the body ergo there's no body there. Cadoche apparently hears the murder at 5.20 or so.

However I'm pointing out that it might be possible for Richardson to have opened the door, looked the wrong way, and not seen a body. And it might also be possible for Cadoche to have been mistaken in what he says he heard. A voice saying 'no' which comes from 'the yard' could have been someone saying 'no' in the yard that backs onto #29's yard. The bang against the fence could have been anything up to and including a wind gust blowing the door. Let's not forget that any struggle at the point of that 'no' being said would have been carrying on right next to him. Also it's likely some few words were spoken in the moments beforehand as Chapman led her killer into the yard. And he doesn't appear to have heard that either. Now it's certainly possible he didn't notice what was going on. But if you allow for that then I think you must also allow for the possibility that John Richardson didn't notice what was going on either.

[Fisherman]

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.

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

And yes, Herlock, they did not find anything.

The tricky thing is that 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.

[Joshua Rogan]

"And I’d ask again. If he did hear the sound of someone/something brushing against the fence what else could it have been?"
(Herlock Sholmes #317)

I suggested earlier on #121 that it was at least within the realms of possibility that the killer left the murder scene not via the "close" of 29 Hanbury Street, but by clambering over the back wall.
It would certainly be the quickest way to put some distance between himself and the murder scene.
To answer Herlock's question, it is certainly possible that the sound Cadosch heard, was in fact the killer clambering over the back wall.

Unfortunately, there was no back wall, at least not one that could be clambered over. The yard of number 29 backed directly onto the wall of a factory.
There was an alley behind some of the other houses, but it ended at no.27, so he would have had to climb into Cadosche's yard to access it. Or perhaps clambered over the fence the other side and escaped thrrough that house. The police did check for any signs that the fences had been scaled though, and found none.

[barnflatwyngarde]

"And I’d ask again. If he did hear the sound of someone/something brushing against the fence what else could it have been?"
(Herlock Sholmes #317)

I suggested earlier on #121 that it was at least within the realms of possibility that the killer left the murder scene not via the "close" of 29 Hanbury Street, but by clambering over the back wall.
It would certainly be the quickest way to put some distance between himself and the murder scene.
To answer Herlock's question, it is certainly possible that the sound Cadosch heard, was in fact the killer clambering over the back wall.

[Paddy Goose]

As to Cadosh in a modern-day trial, a barrister would destroy his testimony.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor, I asked you who was on trial and you didn't answer.

This was a coroner's inquest, not a trial.

But suppose there had been a trial. Someone was charged with the murder of Annie Chapman. Your comment presumes Cadosh is called as a prosecution witness, and on cross examination the barrister for the defense destroys his testimony. You didn't explain why you assume that. Cadosh could just as easily be called as a defense witness - if he were called to testify at all.

ps

how did this become a Cadosh thread anyway? The title says Richardson

[Abby Normal]

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.

salient point curious
cadosch either heard the murderer and his victim, or a couple of people who would have seen the body had it been there and chose to do nothing.
Maybe thats what he heard.

man: hey look at that dead mutilated body there. should we alert anyone?
women: no

lol.I think its rather obvious it must have been the killer and chapman.. she wasnt there when richardson was.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.