Richardson's View

[harry]

Well no fisherman,I do not claim any debating skills,but if yours is of such a childish nature as you have shown,then I pity you.The mispelling of a word is neither here nor there,it negates nothing of my post.You didn't answer my questions because you have no meaningful answers.
Well AL,Fisherman has done his share of calling people liars,and more,but look I will play fair.I will apologise to him if he can produce evidence of an interrogation of Richhardson as a suspect,and that is what he (Fisherman) claimed.I will go even further,I will apologise if anyone can produce evidence of Richardson interrogated as a suspect.If he had said there might have been,or it was possible there had been,then I would have replied in a different manner,but he claimed there was.
On a lighter note.

[Fisherman]

Well no fisherman,I do not claim any debating skills,but if yours is of such a childish nature as you have shown,then I pity you.The mispelling of a word is neither here nor there,it negates nothing of my post.You didn't answer my questions because you have no meaningful answers.
Well AL,Fisherman has done his share of calling people liars,and more,but look I will play fair.I will apologise to him if he can produce evidence of an interrogation of Richhardson as a suspect,and that is what he (Fisherman) claimed.I will go even further,I will apologise if anyone can produce evidence of Richardson interrogated as a suspect.If he had said there might have been,or it was possible there had been,then I would have replied in a different manner,but he claimed there was.
On a lighter note.

You apparently missed my post 675. And you must forgive me for my puerile sense of humor when it comes to language issues. Itīs just that I find it funny when somebody writes about "the mispelling of a word".

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Is the few inches gained by standing on the middle step, compared to standing on the edge of the top step, enough to make the following claim true?...

WB: Did you go into the yard at all?
JR: Not at all, sir.
WB: I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?
JR: Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

Now which step or steps he means here is unclear (although it sounds like 'any'), but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he usually stops on the middle step to check the padlock.
As the pictures demonstrate however, the cellar door is recessed - apparently quite a inches - so standing on the middle step as he normally does (supposedly), seemingly will not afford him a view of the padlock.
The only way out of this conundrum, as I see it, is for the cellar door to have been moved backwards, some time after 1888.
I would suppose though, that the hinge fixings would have been built-in to the brickwork.

Even if the door had been moved by the time the photos were taken, there is also the issue Simon mentions in #634 - the canopy would most likely obstruct the view of any standing observer.

The steps are just not a good place to being checking the padlock.
Why take a detour to work and then save oneself a few seconds of movement, at the cost of having to check the security at such an awkward angle - then at night time, take the exact opposite approach by actually going down the house steps, and the cellar steps, and trying the lock?

The bottom line for me is; if we cannot even trust that Richardson did the things he claimed to have done, then any value he might have had as a witness, is lost.

[DJA]

OK Nothing,you do not comprehend simple English and also missed the next post with the BIG PICTURE and further explanation.

[DJA]

Well no fisherman,I do not claim any debating skills,but if yours is of such a childish nature as you have shown,then I pity you.The mispelling of a word is neither here nor there,it negates nothing of my post.You didn't answer my questions because you have no meaningful answers.

By now you must realise you are up against a mass debater.

[Fisherman]

OK Nothing,you do not comprehend simple English and also missed the next post with the BIG PICTURE and further explanation.

Could you please clarify who you are talking to and what your issue is?

[DJA]

Nothing.

[Fisherman]

Nothing.

Is it me you are calling Nothing? And is this your idea of a sensible debate?

[DJA]

You are prolly the only person on this board stupid enough not to understand that I was replying to Andrew's post ie the post immediately before my reply.

I shortened his tag to Nothing,others use NBN,NBFN,etc.

Much the way some refer to you as Fish.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

The only thing that looks vaguely like a cellar door in this BIG PICTURE, is at 90° to the back wall of the building!
Worse still for someone on the steps, it's facing the wrong way!
I reckon the padlock wasn't even visible from the bottom house step, let alone the middle.
One would have had to go at least as far as the cellar steps to check the padlock, and at the time of day in question, maybe further.
Any normal person would have done that anyway.

The cellar door was basically under the house. It's dark down there.
Imagine what might be in there though - probably some nice sharp knifes and a rabbit.

[Fisherman]

You are prolly the only person on this board stupid enough not to understand that I was replying to Andrew's post ie the post immediately before my reply.

I shortened his tag to Nothing,others use NBN,NBFN,etc.

Much the way some refer to you as Fish.

It could be the other way around - you may be the only person on these boards who is unable to word yourself in a manner that allows for other posters to understand you. Itīs not all that easy to understand who you are lashing out against in your posts.

Anyways, I will (merrily) leave you to your mumbling and obviously bitter existence now. Good luck with Sutton, by the way - I read that he was a small, shy, studious, quiet, partially deaf and unambitious man, whose hobbies were quiet ones like fishing (good on him) and poetry. "The sweetest of men", as he was described by a colleague in his obituary. And that he was 51 at the time of the Ripper murders.

Doesnīt sound much like the man of "great strength" the police were hunting for to me. Then again, being that stupid, how would I know?

Have a wonderful life.

[DJA]

53 years of age actually.

RLS based his novella on him.

It's return as a stage play was most likely the catalyst for the murders.

The reason RLS used Edward Hyde's name for the antagonist.

[Fisherman]

So that’ s why Sutton suddenly turned murderous - the play! You know, it’ s not a common thing to make tour debut as a serial killer at the ripe age of 53. Any thoughts on that?

[DJA]

The only thing that looks vaguely like a cellar door in this BIG PICTURE, is at 90° to the back wall of the building!
Worse still for someone on the steps, it's facing the wrong way!
I reckon the padlock wasn't even visible from the bottom house step, let alone the middle.
One would have had to go at least as far as the cellar steps to check the padlock, and at the time of day in question, maybe further.
Any normal person would have done that anyway.

The cellar door was basically under the house. It's dark down there.
Imagine what might be in there though - probably some nice sharp knifes and a rabbit.

The cellar doorway is recessed 16" under the house.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The cellar doorway is recessed 16" under the house.

Maybe Jack asked Annie to go down there with him and she said 'No'