Richardson's View

[Curious Cat]

exactly curious-its a joke of an argument. my chair is about the same height and the benches and chairs around my firepit are even lower and I can assure you even that is quite cozy. but its all a moot point because even if the step was only six inches off the ground he could have sat on it.
Its laughable argument and dont waste anymore time on it. I know im not.

Yes, I have wondered how this particular angle has garnered the conclusion that the simple sitting position suddenly becomes an act of human origami.

[Chava]

Perspective appears to be your issue.

If it helps, the chair is a recliner so when it's in the reclined position the front lifts and is level with the seat. This creates a ledge 15" from the floor. The cat - of average cat size - is able to walk underneath without the need to crouch or dip his head.

And yes, I can comfortably place my laptop on my lap whether the seat is reclined or not. Yoga positions not required.

Ah. A recliner. That does explain your comfort.

What a shame Richardson couldn't be as comfy on the middle step as you are on your lovely recliner. Because he had no cushioned back seat like you do. That pesky top step was right behind him, was concrete or stone, and would dig into his lower back something fierce. So he would have sat upright. With no support at all. He would have had no choice. I do hope his abs were in good shape to help keep him balanced while he sorted out his boot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whatever the points for or against Richardson the dimensions of the step can have no significance unless it could have been shown to have been so narrow as to have made it impossible for him to have sat on. And we know that this wasn’t the case.

Comfort wasn’t a factor as Richardson wasn’t planning to curl up with a good book. He might even have sat on the step with both legs extended with the boot resting on his thighs. Whatever doubts anyone has about Richardson none can be raised in regard to the step. It’s a complete non-starter. A step too far in fact.

[Curious Cat]

Ah. A recliner. That does explain your comfort.

What a shame Richardson couldn't be as comfy on the middle step as you are on your lovely recliner. Because he had no cushioned back seat like you do. That pesky top step was right behind him, was concrete or stone, and would dig into his lower back something fierce. So he would have sat upright. With no support at all. He would have had no choice. I do hope his abs were in good shape to help keep him balanced while he sorted out his boot.

I already said that I regularly sit on the edge of the seat to tie my shoe laces while it is not reclined. The space taken up is less than the full depth of that middle step and there is no need to contort my body into ridiculous positions to do up my shoes. My back is not against anything and it's actually a fairly firm seat, not a squishy cushioned one. Despite this, my spine and abs do not collapse into a pool of mush.

You have Richardson suddenly turning into a Gordian knot and suffering terrible physical trauma just from sitting on a stone step for less than three minutes.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I agree, the nature of the step is really of little concern. If one was to assume that Richardson wasn't there, or he never sat on the step, the dimensions are irrelevant. If he was there, his sitting was out of necessity, not comfort or practicality. You can't dicker with a boot standing.

The thread started examining Richardson's view. The practicality or comfort of the step isn't the issue. Yes, if he's lying, we can look at disproving his statement, but if he's not, the step doesn't need to be a velvet lined work station. If you get a stone in your shoe, do you wait until you find an ergonomically suitable location to remove it, or do you hop around and lean on the nearest structure?

Discrepancies in his story? Fair enough. Visibility of the padlock? OK. Door to body angles? Could be. But the step? If that's the basis for refuting Richardson, I'm surprised the crime scene inventory didn't list "bunch of straws, grasped".

[DJA]

Yep,we already have piles of evidence he sat there.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Yep,we already have piles of evidence he sat there.

"Piles"?

That'll happen if you sit on a cold step!

[harry]

No Fisherman,you claimed an interrogation of Richardson as a suspect took place.Back pedal(yes I got that word correct) all you want,you cannot change what you claimed,and it's a lie.
How many times is it now you've stated you do not wish for me to post on your topics,Well just do not address your posts to me.Normally I wouldn't comment on what you say,you are so ridiculous,It's the lies of yours that attract me.Now if you wish to report me for calling you a liar,go ahead,you have threatened that in times gone by.I'm still here.
Unless Richardson was a contortionist,he would have had to stand to leave,and whether he stood on the bottom step or the yard surface,he would have been beyond the door's coverage,and a whole body would have been exposed,if one were there.(A picture is worth a thousand words).

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Unless Richardson was a contortionist...

...he could not have checked the cellar door padlock from the top step, as claimed.

[DJA]

...he could not have checked the cellar door padlock from the top step, as claimed.

He did not claim that at all.

As his feet were on the flags when seated on the middle step,it is logical that he turned to his right before sitting down.

[DJA]

This photo,albeit reversed,shows the cellar door and the steps down to it.
If we use the obvious measurements,etc available to us,you start to realise just how stupid this thread is.

The steps Richardson did not go down are obviously those leading to the cellar.

[Fisherman]

Back pedal(yes I got that word correct)

We will do this the easy way, and just show what kind of debater you are. Here is your last post, two passages in bold:

How would Cadoche know anything about police interrogating Richardson as the possible killer,for him to back peddal.It was not known then,and it is not known now,that Richardson was interrogated in that respect.He was treated as a witness,not anything else.Why do you pedall such lies,Fisherman.

Itīs still peddle, not pedall, Harry. The rest of your post gets all the attention it deserves: none.

[Fisherman]

Whatever the points for or against Richardson the dimensions of the step can have no significance unless it could have been shown to have been so narrow as to have made it impossible for him to have sat on. And we know that this wasn’t the case.

Comfort wasn’t a factor as Richardson wasn’t planning to curl up with a good book. He might even have sat on the step with both legs extended with the boot resting on his thighs. Whatever doubts anyone has about Richardson none can be raised in regard to the step. It’s a complete non-starter. A step too far in fact.

If you are saying that this issue cannot be used to nullify Richardson as a witness, I totally agree. However, the question is not per se unimportant. Compare it, if you will, to Hutchinsons claim that he walked the streets all night after having left Dorset Street on the night of his vigil. It was a blustery and very wet night, and so it would not have been logical to walk the streets all through it. Ergo, the question arises if he really was talking about the night when Kelly was murdered or about the night before.

The same applies here, we cannot use the anomaly to claim that Hutchinson could not have walked the streets all night. But we can point to how it would not have been an expected thing, and so we may need to be cautious about the statement.

If we take it a bit further, there is Hutchinsons description of A man, regarded as nonsense and a lie by many out here. But if he said he saw a man who looked like this, then why should we not accept it - if we should accept that Richardson sat on the middle step BECAUSE HE SAID HE DID?

In Richardsons case, it is much the same. Yes, he could have chosen a less comfortable and expected manner of sitting on the steps to cut his boot. But since there was another, more comfortable and more expected way to do it, this lends itself well to point to how we may perhaps need to be wary about the claims he made.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Back pedal(yes I got that word correct) all you want,you cannot change what you claimed,and it's a lie

It's the lies of yours that attract me.Now if you wish to report me for calling you a liar,go ahead,you have threatened that in times gone by.I'm still here.

Ok, the whole pedal / peddle thing, semantically they're interchangeable, depending on the context. Given that Christers' native language is akin to playing a record backwards for a laugh, maybe the whole nit picking can be left out? And yes, I gather that he's criticising you, so it applies equally. Spelling and grammar aren't the finer points of many a poster, myself very much included, but it's the sentiment that matters.

Does Christer have to be lying? Can't he just be wrong, deluded, misleading, bloody minded or many other such terms? Lots of people don't agree with him, hell, some vehemently disagree, but it doesn't mean he's lying. The whole liar tag is bandied about too freely, and it's totally unwarranted. It only serves to fuel personal feuds, and that detracts from any discourse, to the detriment of all.

Anyway, that's my tuppence.

[Fisherman]

Ok, the whole pedal / peddle thing, semantically they're interchangeable, depending on the context. Given that Christers' native language is akin to playing a record backwards for a laugh, maybe the whole nit picking can be left out? And yes, I gather that he's criticising you, so it applies equally. Spelling and grammar aren't the finer points of many a poster, myself very much included, but it's the sentiment that matters.

Does Christer have to be lying? Can't he just be wrong, deluded, misleading, bloody minded or many other such terms? Lots of people don't agree with him, hell, some vehemently disagree, but it doesn't mean he's lying. The whole liar tag is bandied about too freely, and it's totally unwarranted. It only serves to fuel personal feuds, and that detracts from any discourse, to the detriment of all.

Anyway, that's my tuppence.

Are you aware that we Swedes say that the Danes sound like they are speaking with a hot potato in their mouths? And here you are, telling me, a proud practitioner of the most beautiful language on Earth that I sound like a record being played backwards...?

Your advice to stay away from telling fellow posters that they are liars is a very good one. I fear that Harry will have none of it, though; it is apparently a favourite pastime of his to call me a liar. Robbing him of that pleasure would not be acceptable to him, I fear.

As for me being "wrong, deluded, misleading or bloody minded" about Ricardson being interrogated, I tend to turn to Swansons October 19 report to establish what applies:

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 police specially directed their attention to him.

So Richardson was payed a visit by the police, who "specially directed their attention" to him. They prompltly searched his house, checked his clothing (reasonably for blood, unless they were more interested in fashion matters) and had a statement taken by him. Another phrase for that procedure is interrogation. It resembles what happened to Hutchinson, although it seems the police were less charitable about Richardson.

When Harry describes what happened, he says that Richardson was treated as an ordinary witness, so Harry will be either wrong, deluded, misleading or bloody minded. Thatīs not to say that he is l...g about it, though. But he IS wrong about how "peddle" is spelt ...