Richardson's View

[DJA]

Nothing.

[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]

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.

[DJA]

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

[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.

[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".

[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]

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 ...

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Unless Richardson was a contortionist...

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

[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).