Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richardson's View

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    only an idiot or someone with a pre conceived theory would doubt sarah lewis saw hutch. and im serious about that.
    Then I'm an idiot, who doesn't have a preconceived theory. However, I am most certainly not serious about that

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      lewis unreliable? hmmm ok. guess she just happened to get lucky not only saying she saw hutch where, when and what he was doing(admitted by him) but also the screams of murder around four am thats corroberated by another witness.

      cmon, shes one of the most reliable witnesses we have.

      and if she made up the bethnal green botherer it must have been another conspiracy because she (needlessly) included another witness in this story, whom the police could have checked out.
      This has already been pointed out by two other posters, but here it is again. If Lewis saw Hutchinson, why then did Hutchinson not mention Lewis, and the young couple passing along the street in his statement?

      Regarding the BGB, the police might have checked out the story with Lewis's supposed companion with regard to the BGB, that is, after they had stopped grinning at the absurdity of it. Cmon, Lewis seriously over egged the pudding with regard to the BGB. In reality, someone probably gave her a dirty look, as she was going about her business that day in Bethnal Green.

      The only part of Lewis's testimony I'm safe with is she visited the Keylers on the night of Kelly's murder, and it's possible she heard a cry of "murder" during that night.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        Observer,
        It's corroborated to the extent that it cannot be proven to be wrong.Really,you still want to argue that the door would have obstructed Richardson's view?
        I don't believe he visited number 29 on the morning of the murder Harry. As Fisherman has pointed out it can't be proved that he was there. Two things make me think this, Doctor Philips estimated TOD, and the other four canonical murders took place under the cover of darkness.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

          Assuming further questions of the "Mrs Kennedy" he's read about in the paper at the inquest would prompt Hutchinson to come forward with an account of his own. Not actually being identified at the inquest itself but having his description recognised in the press reports after may have put him in a position of someone asking what he was up to. Although not mentioned in the press before the inquest, he realises "Mrs Kennedy" must have seen him on her way into the court and is likely to be asked if she saw anyone hanging around Dorset Street near Miller's Court. He can't do anything about the inquest but he can do something about throwing attention away from himself and onto another man he says he seen with Mary Kelly while also justifying why he was there.

          His assumption turns out to be right in terms of being seen and mentioned at the inquest but his timings are by going by the 3am given by "Mrs Kennedy" in the press as he doesn't know yet that Sarah Lewis has given the time of being in Dorset Street as 2:30am. He has to place himself there at 3am in anticipation of being said to be seen by "Mrs Kennedy" but has to leave as soon as possible after so as not to be there when the cry of murder is heard.

          He knows he's been seen, so that would be the motivation in coming forward with his account when he did.

          As I say, this is only a thought. I'm not saying this was definitely the case, just a possibility.
          I believe Wickerman has dealt with this adequately, better than I could have put it anyway.


          Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
          The motivation for John Richardson to account for being in the yard when there are no witnesses around leans towards him telling the truth as he doesn't need to say why or when he was on the steps at the back door if there's no-one to say differently. He doesn't need to place himself there at all, but he volunteers that information. His arrival at work could be verified. The motivation to lie either about being there or not being there doesn't exist for either. Therefore the time he's there, the reason he's there and the two minutes he's sat on the step for before leaving to go to work must be true.
          Why must it be true? My point is, he did have a motivation to lie, he volunteered that information, that is, sitting on the step at the back, because he didn't want to get into trouble with his mother, who had instructed him to to check on the yard, and the cellar. He never visited the back yard. As I said two things point to this, Dr Philips TOD, and the other canonical murders were carried out under cover of darkness. Again, just a possibility.

          One more thing, I believe Mr Marriot pointed out that sightings of Chapman after her removal from the lodging house are not in evidence. Not a sure fire pointer that she was murdered within a relatively short time after her removal, but a good point nevertheless.
          Last edited by Observer; 10-02-2020, 08:50 PM.

          Comment


          • Inspector Chandler, Daily Telegraph 14 Sept;

            "Did you find anything else in the yard? - There was a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water. It was about two feet from the water tap.

            Was it shown to the doctor? - Yes. There was also a box, such as is commonly used by casemakers for holding nails. It was empty. There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.
            Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been."

            Hmm....so Richardson's gaiter spring was found right where he said he'd sat and cut leather from his boot....wonder how that got there?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
              Inspector Chandler, Daily Telegraph 14 Sept;

              "Did you find anything else in the yard? - There was a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water. It was about two feet from the water tap.

              Was it shown to the doctor? - Yes. There was also a box, such as is commonly used by casemakers for holding nails. It was empty. There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.
              Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been."

              Hmm....so Richardson's gaiter spring was found right where he said he'd sat and cut leather from his boot....wonder how that got there?
              More to the point, when was it deposited there?

              Comment


              • Also, I'm surprised that Mrs Richardson had a detailed knowledge of the components of her son's leggings! But there you go

                Comment


                • Where do we get the suggestion that Richardson’s mother had told him to check the cellar from?
                  Regards

                  Herlock




                  “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                  As night descends upon this fabled street:
                  A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                  The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                  Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                  And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                    Assuming further questions of the "Mrs Kennedy" he's read about in the paper at the inquest would prompt Hutchinson to come forward with an account of his own. Not actually being identified at the inquest itself but having his description recognised in the press reports after may have put him in a position of someone asking what he was up to. Although not mentioned in the press before the inquest, he realises "Mrs Kennedy" must have seen him on her way into the court and is likely to be asked if she saw anyone hanging around Dorset Street near Miller's Court. He can't do anything about the inquest but he can do something about throwing attention away from himself and onto another man he says he seen with Mary Kelly while also justifying why he was there.

                    His assumption turns out to be right in terms of being seen and mentioned at the inquest but his timings are by going by the 3am given by "Mrs Kennedy" in the press as he doesn't know yet that Sarah Lewis has given the time of being in Dorset Street as 2:30am. He has to place himself there at 3am in anticipation of being said to be seen by "Mrs Kennedy" but has to leave as soon as possible after so as not to be there when the cry of murder is heard.

                    He knows he's been seen, so that would be the motivation in coming forward with his account when he did.

                    As I say, this is only a thought. I'm not saying this was definitely the case, just a possibility.


                    The motivation for John Richardson to account for being in the yard when there are no witnesses around leans towards him telling the truth as he doesn't need to say why or when he was on the steps at the back door if there's no-one to say differently. He doesn't need to place himself there at all, but he volunteers that information. His arrival at work could be verified. The motivation to lie either about being there or not being there doesn't exist for either. Therefore the time he's there, the reason he's there and the two minutes he's sat on the step for before leaving to go to work must be true.
                    well said curious. well said

                    Comment


                    • .
                      The motivation for John Richardson to account for being in the yard when there are no witnesses around leans towards him telling the truth as he doesn't need to say why or when he was on the steps at the back door if there's no-one to say differently. He doesn't need to place himself there at all, but he volunteers that information. His arrival at work could be verified. The motivation to lie either about being there or not being there doesn't exist for either. Therefore the time he's there, the reason he's there and the two minutes he's sat on the step for before leaving to go to work must be true.
                      Exactly Cat

                      If he wasn’t there then not only did he needlessly place himself at the scene of an horrific murder he needlessly placed himself at the scene of an horrific murder, alone and in possession of a knife. This would be almost suicidal stupidity. And as I’ve said in earlier posts even if, for some strange reason, he wanted it known that he was there he could easily have said that he’d sat on the step for a smoke. He had no reason to mention using a knife. There’s just no reason for him to have done this. For me there can be no doubt that he was where he said he was and that he was doing exactly what he said that he was doing.
                      Regards

                      Herlock




                      “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                      As night descends upon this fabled street:
                      A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                      The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                      Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                      And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                        Inspector Chandler, Daily Telegraph 14 Sept;

                        "Did you find anything else in the yard? - There was a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water. It was about two feet from the water tap.

                        Was it shown to the doctor? - Yes. There was also a box, such as is commonly used by casemakers for holding nails. It was empty. There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.
                        Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been."

                        Hmm....so Richardson's gaiter spring was found right where he said he'd sat and cut leather from his boot....wonder how that got there?
                        Spring-heeled Jack?
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Exactly Cat

                          If he wasn’t there then not only did he needlessly place himself at the scene of an horrific murder he needlessly placed himself at the scene of an horrific murder, alone and in possession of a knife. This would be almost suicidal stupidity. And as I’ve said in earlier posts even if, for some strange reason, he wanted it known that he was there he could easily have said that he’d sat on the step for a smoke. He had no reason to mention using a knife. There’s just no reason for him to have done this. For me there can be no doubt that he was where he said he was and that he was doing exactly what he said that he was doing.
                          exactly 100 % correct herlock. same goes for hutch, no reason to lie and place themselves at the murder scene and in the crosshairs of the police unless they were actually there. and in hutches case his presence is verified.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            Spring-heeled Jack?
                            lol. nice catch!

                            Comment


                            • Observer,
                              Your belief he was not there that morning,against Richardson's stated claim,under oath,that he was.Forget what Fisherman says about proving he was there.Richardson doesn't have to.He has nade a claim under oath,and only a counter claim, again under oath,would be taken into consideration,and we know that didn't happen.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Observer View Post

                                I believe Wickerman has dealt with this adequately, better than I could have put it anyway.




                                Why must it be true? My point is, he did have a motivation to lie, he volunteered that information, that is, sitting on the step at the back, because he didn't want to get into trouble with his mother, who had instructed him to to check on the yard, and the cellar. He never visited the back yard. As I said two things point to this, Dr Philips TOD, and the other canonical murders were carried out under cover of darkness. Again, just a possibility.

                                One more thing, I believe Mr Marriot pointed out that sightings of Chapman after her removal from the lodging house are not in evidence. Not a sure fire pointer that she was murdered within a relatively short time after her removal, but a good point nevertheless.
                                No he wasn't instructed. He wasn't necessarily expected to check it by his mother. He only says he'd taken to looking in on the lock on market days on his way to work.

                                It wouldn't have bothered his mother a jot if he hadn't come that morning to check the padlock. Even less so if it didn't happen to be a market day.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X