Richardson's View

[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.’

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Fisherman]

Because at the time they considered doctors almost infallible but the Coroner accepted that he was probably wrong.

No, they did not consider doctors infallible at all. They gave them credit for their knowledge, the way we do. They are valuable expert witnesses. But doctors were questioned all the time, the way for example Llewellyn was hounded by Baxter.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

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!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Not too dark Fisherman.I would have noticed if it was there.

It was actually a joke about my remark that you couldn´t see, Harry. I know that you would have seen the body if it was there and you looked at it. So would I. But if I did not look at it, I certainly could have missed it. And the doorblade could well have obscured it completely or to a large degree, depending on Richardsons position. It really is that simple.

So would Richardson,and how someone could disbelieve that opinion,when the remark could be tested,takes a lot of understanding.So it is not his honesty that should be questioned,that is not in doubt,he should be preferred because the time of death can be more readily accepted,he being truthful,as at a later time than the untested opinions of others.

He being truthful? But you don´t know that, Harry. Just read the thread, more and more posters who take the time to check him out tend to loose faith in him. And that´s exactly as it should be, given his varying accounts.

[Joshua Rogan]

Because at the time they considered doctors almost infallible but the Coroner accepted that he was probably wrong.

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."

[harry]

Not too dark Fisherman.I would have noticed if it was there.
So would Richardson,and how someone could disbelieve that opinion,when the remark could be tested,takes a lot of understanding.So it is not his honesty that should be questioned,that is not in doubt,he should be preferred because the time of death can be more readily accepted,he being truthful,as at a later time than the untested opinions of others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So did the police, so you need to shake your head at them too ...

Because at the time they considered doctors almost infallible but the Coroner accepted that he was probably wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I certainly agree with you regarding whether he would have seen poor Annie's body had it been in the yard and if Richardson sat on the second step to deal with his boots. I can't see any reasonable situation in which he could fail to see her in those circumstances.

I disagree about the reliability of his statements though. They are at best confusing and certainly suspect given the significant changes he made as his statement grew. You are of course right to highlight that there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this and if we were able to question him, he might be able to explain more fully. It could of course go the other way and he might be caught out in embellishing his story. I have checked a number of newspaper reports on this site and none of them report Richardson sitting on the step to work on his boots, nor does he appear to have told Chandler that. The first time I can find it mentioned is at the inquest. Again, there are potential innocent explanations, but it does add to the feeling that he may have embellished.

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?

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

And yet you go for Phillips over Richardson, Cadosch and Long.

So did the police, so you need to shake your head at them too ...