Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richardson's View

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

  • And what about the possibility that Richardson actually saw the body of the murdered woman there, and stole the rings from her fingers?!

    The normal thing for him to tell in the inquest then, is that the body was not there, and no one will suspect him of stealing.

    You see in such complex cases, you cannot know what happened exactly based on your feelings or merely on what witnesses say.

    You cannot prove that Richardson didn't steal the rings =

    You cannot prove the body was not there.



    The Baron

    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post

      and only a counter claim, again under oath,would be taken into consideration,and we know that didn't happen.


      We know that it did happen!


      Chandler:

      If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.


      Under oath Sir.. under oath!


      The Baron

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


        We know that it did happen!


        Chandler:

        If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.


        Under oath Sir.. under oath!


        The Baron
        Or, as another paper recorded;

        "Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          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.
          For the police, though, there not only could be doubt - there WAS doubt. That, however, seems not to worry you one little bit...? He must have been there, and he must have done things the way he said he did them. The second time he told the police what he did, that is. We know from Chandler that he told it in anither fashion the first time he gavce his story.

          How Richardson can inspire belief within anybody with a discerning mind is beyond me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            For the police, though, there not only could be doubt - there WAS doubt. That, however, seems not to worry you one little bit...? He must have been there, and he must have done things the way he said he did them. The second time he told the police what he did, that is. We know from Chandler that he told it in anither fashion the first time he gavce his story.

            How Richardson can inspire belief within anybody with a discerning mind is beyond me.
            I've posted this before, but Chandler apparently gave every appearance of believing Richardson;

            Daily News 14 Sept
            "from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Observer View Post
              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.
              There are mentions of Chapman being sighted in a pub at 5am. Not a sure fire pointer that she was murdered after that time, but a good point nevertheless.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                There are mentions of Chapman being sighted in a pub at 5am. Not a sure fire pointer that she was murdered after that time, but a good point nevertheless.
                Who was the observer, Joshua? How credible was he or she? Chapman was dead at that time. Did they serve dead people in pubs back then?
                Last edited by Fisherman; 10-03-2020, 11:23 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                  I've posted this before, but Chandler apparently gave every appearance of believing Richardson;

                  Daily News 14 Sept
                  "from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable"
                  Hereīs a bit more flesh on the bones, same quotation:

                  "Inspector Chandler quietly doled out to the Coroner, sentence by sentence, an account of what he and the constables under his direction had done, Mr. Baxter writing it all down pretty much as it was dictated to him. A few questions were put to the inspector, especially with regard to the blood stains alleged to have been found on the neighbouring fences, as though somebody with blood upon him had been getting over. Both the inspector and afterwards Mr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, expressed the belief that the marks observed were not blood stains, though to the untrained eye they might easily be taken for such. The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable. The jury questioned the police-officer with the view of ascertaining whether it may have been possible that when Richardson went to the yard the body might have been laying there without his perceiving it. The inspector thought that it was very possible if he had only gone to the top of the steps. In that case, as the door opened outwards, it might have concealed the body behind it."

                  So what Chandler relied upon was that Richardson had only gone to the top of the steps, in which case it was very possible to miss out on Chapmans body.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    Who was the observer, Joshua? How credible was he or she? Chapman was dead at that time. Did they serve dead people in pubs back then?
                    So much for your open minded approach.

                    Comment


                    • Got it, Joshua:

                      "Later that day one of the bar staff at the Ten Bells pub, at the junction of Commercial Street and Church Street (today’s Fournier Street), told a journalist that a woman answering Annie Chapman's description had stopped in for a drink at around 5am, when a man in a "little skull cap" popped his head round the door and called her out. The veracity of this sighting is difficult to ascertain."

                      There is no hard evidence telling us that she was spotted alive after 1.35. Of course, many sightings will have been made of people who somewhat resembled her, the pub people will not have been the only ones, reasonable. There was a case with two killed girls in the US in the fifties or sixties, who had been dead for many weeks when they were found in thawing snow. During these weeks, they had been "sighted" in dozens of spots, all over America.

                      Does "open minded" mean that I must accept that it was Chapman in the Ten Bells, or only that it canīt be proven either way - and that the police and papers worked from the assumption that she was not seen?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Does "open minded" mean that I must accept that it was Chapman in the Ten Bells, or only that it canīt be proven either way - and that the police and papers worked from the assumption that she was not seen?
                        No, you don't have to accept that this sighting was of Chapman. This story has several issues, after all. But the fact that - without even knowing what the evidence was - you declared that she was already dead by 5am shows that you are not open even to the possibility that she was still alive.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          So what Chandler relied upon was that Richardson had only gone to the top of the steps, in which case it was very possible to miss out on Chapmans body.
                          A cursory glance at the cellar door from the top step, might have resulted in Richardson missing the body.
                          It's possible, but then the boot cutting exercise would have to be a lie, or at best, "borrowed" from a prior day.
                          It seems to be a lie to some extent regardless, as Richardson admits the knife wasn't sharp enough to do the job he had said it did.

                          So what's going on here? Why is Richardson putting himself "in the thick of it", by telling the rabbit/knife/stairs/boot story?
                          Why does he not just say he only glanced at the cellar from the top step, and therefore probably missed the body?
                          A plausible explanation might be; embarrassment - Richardson is too embarrassed to admit that he came within a few feet of the body, but did not notice it.
                          He needs a story that keeps him at the steps a while longer, and in a position from which he cannot possibly miss the body - the middle step - so that the world knows he wasn't the dunce that missed seeing a mutilated body, when in close proximity to it.

                          The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable.

                          So Baxter determined Richardson's reliability as a witness, by reading the tone and manner of the inspector who questioned him.
                          Does that sound odd to you?
                          Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 10-03-2020, 12:19 PM.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                            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.
                            bingo. I like the way your analytical mind works curious. again you are correct. as i posted earlier, if anything she probably would have been releived if her son had skipped checking the cellar that day.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                              Or, as another paper recorded;

                              "Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

                              You like the third person record more than the first person's, huh Joshua?!

                              Good, so explain this from your quote:

                              He went to the top



                              The Baron

                              Comment


                              • And since we are at it Joshua, why did you ignore the possibility that Richardson may have stolen the rings from the woman?


                                Huh?


                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X