Richardson's View

[Wickerman]

The door does not obscure the body in the position it is depicted, no. But I trust you agree that it did so when shut? And that Chapman did not come into view until it was sufficiently open?

The depictions are of course drawings only, and I doubt that Richardson sat for that portrait. We have no idea whether it was drawn in situ, from memory, from a sketch or from a photo.

If there were no witnesses a reporters drawing is more open to debate. As both yards (Nos. 27 & 29) had plenty of witnesses the reporter had plenty of sources.
There isn't a whole lot of variables for Richardson, steps are only so wide and so high, much the same as today. It helps to see a person sat where he claimed in relation to the open door and his view of the yard.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear Christer, it is what it is.

[Scott Nelson]

Not only was the backyard fence different in the 20th century photos from the time of the murder, the door may have been as well.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish.

Although I tend to believe that Chapman was killed at 5.30 a.m., I wish to be fair-minded about it.

One thing to bear in mind as we discuss these events, is that the drawing of Richardson sitting placidly on the steps (below, left) shows a wide gap between where he is sitting and the door to his left, which makes his angle of visibility ample enough to have seen the body.

However...

When I re-staged these events to satisfy my own curiosity, I used a spring-loaded door, and the tension was strong enough to press the door firmly against my side, which greatly reduced my angle of vision to the left. Indeed, the force of the door made me naturally angle myself to my right. This is a factor that is not immediately obvious no matter how long one stares at photographs, and might suggest that the drawing is misleading.

Yes, sitting there on the steps fiddling with my shoe, while the door was trying to close on top of me was clumsy as hell. I don't know if it was 'historically' credible that this is what Richardson would have put up with, but I felt it was a necessary assumption based on Richard's statement to the Coroner:

"I did not close the door. It closed itself."

Which suggests the door was under tension. Whether it had spring-loaded hinges, I do not know, but these hinges seem to be defunct or missing when the above photographs were taken, because the door is obviously standing wide open!

It is difficult to see how the above door could have been fitted with a spring mechanism, unless the circled piece in photo #2 are the remnants of some sort of hardware that I am unfamiliar with. Not sure what it is.

You see, I'm a west coast Yank, so nothing in my neck of the woods dates before Elvis and pre-sliced bread. If a building is more than 15 minutes old, we tear it down and rebuild it.

What is your explanation, spring hinges, or something else?

Thanks for that, R J!
As for how the door was hinged, I donīt know, but I seem to remember that there is an old thread about it somewhere. Personally, I think that if the door fell back towards the operner on account of itīs weight, that may have been enough for it to press against Richardsons side. It would depend on how straight it was hung up.

[DJA]

I believe they were striped, red and white, though I can't find the reference at present

Sam Flynn 13 months ago.

[Fisherman]

If there were no witnesses a reporters drawing is more open to debate. As both yards (Nos. 27 & 29) had plenty of witnesses the reporter had plenty of sources.
There isn't a whole lot of variables for Richardson, steps are only so wide and so high, much the same as today. It helps to see a person sat where he claimed in relation to the open door and his view of the yard.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear Christer, it is what it is.

Neither of us can, Jon. R J Palmer has only just confirmed what I say, and so the pursemaking seems to be on your hands...?

[The Baron]

Lloyds Sept 10th 1888:

"Our representative spoke to the son of the lady who lived in the house where the murdered woman was found.
John Richardson, a big man peculiarly twisted to the right, swept the long hair back from his face and with his one good eye surveyed the small, muddy yard where the mutilated woman was discovered two days ago."


He suffered Epilepsy too.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

I believe they were striped, red and white, though I can't find the reference at present

There is a drawing to that effect somewhere on the net, but it is recent. Maybe that was what you saw? Of course, the drawing could have been made as a result of the artist having seen the source you seem to remember!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Doors are opened to a rather smallish gap every day,

They are Fish but on this occasion Richardson walked through the door and stepped to ground level which he could hardly have done with the door only partially open and as he said that he could see all of the yard this points to him descending the steps, quite normally, straight ahead, which means the door being opened 90 degrees plus.

Theres also Cadosch to consider of course. For Richardson to have missed the body we have to explain away the noise that Cadosch heard later.

[DJA]

Oops!

[etenguy]

I am a bit surprised that whether John Richardson would have seen Annie's body had it been there is a point of contention. The door would in no way obscure her legs and torso, though possibly her head could be obscured. John Richardson sat on the steps right next to where Annie's body was later found. And not just for a mere moment, but long enough to attend to his boots.

[Yabs]

When Richardson walked back into the house he would have stood up within the yard while holding the door open
(if spring loaded)
Then he would turn around 180° to face the door before walking back in, exactly where James Mason stands in this screen grab.

I couldn’t say I was 100% sure, but I really feel it very unlikely he would have missed a body if it was there.

[Fisherman]

They are Fish but on this occasion Richardson walked through the door and stepped to ground level which he could hardly have done with the door only partially open and as he said that he could see all of the yard this points to him descending the steps, quite normally, straight ahead, which means the door being opened 90 degrees plus.

Theres also Cadosch to consider of course. For Richardson to have missed the body we have to explain away the noise that Cadosch heard later.

Try one of your own doors back home, Herlock; can you go through the passage without opening it to the full? I can do so, and I am 193 centimeters and 111 kilograms. The door allows for a man twice my width. And if the doorblade had worked like a saloon door, I would never have opened it to the full.

It is something that you seemingly will not accept, but that is of course not my problem. I can only point you to the truth.

Richardson of course never said that he could see straight ahead, that is your invention. He said that it was so light that he could see all over the yard. Meaning that he could do so if he wished to, not that he actually did look at the whole yard.

And Cadosch? He was way out of sync with the medical evidence in the first place, which for me rules out any chance that it was Chapman he heard. And of course, Chapman would not be the only person/animal/object in London who could have made a sound against a fence.

Iīm leaving it there. At least you are no longer speaking of Richardsons failing spatial perception ...

[Fisherman]

I am a bit surprised that whether John Richardson would have seen Annie's body had it been there is a point of contention. The door would in no way obscure her legs and torso, though possibly her head could be obscured. John Richardson sat on the steps right next to where Annie's body was later found. And not just for a mere moment, but long enough to attend to his boots.

Sigh. Read up on R J Palmers post. He seems to be the only one who put it to the test, which is always a good thing. And guess what he found?

[DJA]

Crabman

[Fisherman]

When Richardson walked back into the house he would have stood up within the yard while holding the door open
(if spring loaded)
Then he would turn around 180° to face the door before walking back in, exactly where James Mason stands in this screen grab.

I couldn’t say I was 100% sure, but I really feel it very unlikely he would have missed a body if it was there.

Exactly - you cannot be sure. Read R J Palmers post!

PS. Have a look at James Mason. How much can he see of the recess where Annie Chapman was found, in the position he is? And if he turned to his right, would that make him see her better? And how do we know that Richardson rose to Masons position in the first place? What if he was turned to the right, having looked at the lock? If so, he could have had his back to the recess as he rose, more or less.

Furthermore, I donīt think Mason is standing where Richardson had stood (if he was not telling porkies, something the police kept the door ajar for - excuse the pun). I think Mason is a bit further out. If he was to sit down, he would land outside the step Richardson spoke of and hurt his behind. You need to have him placed closer to the obscuring door, as it happens.
Plus, of course, Mason has the advantage of the bright light of day, whereas Richardson had gloom only.

The whole exercise as such is very treacherous. There is no way we can say that Mason did what Richardson did. Letīs respect that.

The police at the time did not rule out that he could have missed Chapman. Nor did they rule out that he told porkies. Why is it that we cannot accept that today, not least when we have fellow posters who put it to the test and found that Richardson could have missed the body?