Richardson's View

[Wickerman]

The colour of Chapman's stockings will tell me her time-of-death, +/- three minutes.

Sort of...

Now that you have intrigued everyone......the floor is yours.

I'm going to sound like I'm fighting for Christer's side, Wick, but Kent & Davis were already told the body was there, so obviously they would have opened the door until they were able to see it.

If the body was hidden away in a corner then you might have a point, but is was in full view.

All I really argued is that doors don't close by themselves, so Richardson's statement of the self-closing door is a curiosity. And if the door had a door closing mechanism, it wouldn't stand open by itself, either, so I'm not entirely convinced the door ever extended more than half-way, at most.

Some old outdoor hinges were cut on a slant to enable the door/gate to close by it's own weight.

This is a modern version.



Alternately, it may have been just a spring wrapped around the door.

[harry]

Quite a few of us,I am sure,on a daily basis is doing is doing something similar to what Richardson did.Every time a driver or passenger alights from a car they open the door ,face sideways ,and glance down.While in that posistion,the space between the bottom of the door and the ground is visible.Try it,see how much space is revealed,and judge whether a body could still be hidden.

[Harry D]

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

You know that's a gag, right?

RIGHT?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Now that you have intrigued everyone......the floor is yours.

Spill the beans Roger

[Fisherman]

There is nothing wrong with your logic, Fisherman - it just does not apply in this case - Richardson states he was sitting on the step, which means the door was fully or close to fully open. It had to be for Richardson to sit there. In that case, if the body was there, he couldn't fail to notice it.

Your take on things would predispose that Richardson had a three-foot wide bottom or suchlike, Etenguy. Two people could sit side by side on those stairs, and therefore, somebody sitting on the right hand side, could well have a door leaning against himself at an angle to the wall of perhaps 45-60 degrees.
And it is not only the angle of the door that governs this, it is also the proximity of Richardsons head to the doorblade and how far out on the stairs he was.

Plus, of course, people with three-foot bottoms do not have to sit straight. They can turn, just like you and me.

[Fisherman]

RJ was not there Christer, Richardson was.
Oh, and so was Kent & Davis.

Were YOU there, Jon?

[Fisherman]

Come on Fish. He said that he couldn’t have missed her had she been there. He couldn’t have said that if he hadn’t looked in that direction.

Oh yes, he could. He was commenting on what the light conditions allowed for, not on the exact amount of the yard he looked at. You may have noticed that the police reasoned that perhaps Richardson could have missed out on the body? That, Herlock, is because Richardson did NOT say that he looked in the recess. If he had said that, then there would never have been any debate about that particular matter.

[Fisherman]

Sorry to take this position Christer but, the only question of logic here is why we are having this debate. It's an argument that makes no sense to me.
Richardson couldn't possibly miss the body, in my view.

Then allow me to inform you that ther reason we are having the debate is that not everybody agree with you, Jon. That is the nature of a debate, and how it comes about. Find yourself a flight of stairs with a door on top and try it out in more detail. You will be amazed. I know I was.

[Fisherman]

Richardson could not have sat on that second step with his feet on the ground if the door was limited to that degree.

What...? How does that work? Was there a law against not sitting straight?

As for the angle, it could have been wider than so and still have hidden Chapman.

A further point of interest is that there is a very obvious possibility that the door could have been at an angle that would give away the body - if Richardson looked to his left. But I donīt think there was any law ruking that you must do so either.

A lawless people, the Victorians.

[Fisherman]

Quite a few of us,I am sure,on a daily basis is doing is doing something similar to what Richardson did.Every time a driver or passenger alights from a car they open the door ,face sideways ,and glance down.While in that posistion,the space between the bottom of the door and the ground is visible.Try it,see how much space is revealed,and judge whether a body could still be hidden.

Are you suggesting that Richardson feared to get run down by a hansom cab if he didnīt look to his left...?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh yes, he could. He was commenting on what the light conditions allowed for, not on the exact amount of the yard he looked at. You may have noticed that the police reasoned that perhaps Richardson could have missed out on the body? That, Herlock, is because Richardson did NOT say that he looked in the recess. If he had said that, then there would never have been any debate about that particular matter.

But if he said that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there then it’s reasonable to assume that he wasn’t speaking purely about the light conditions but the yard itself. That he didn’t specifically look behind the door isn’t relevant as, a) he knew the location of the body, b) he knew how much floor area the body took up and c) how much area would have remained hidden to him by the door.

And so Richardson was absolutely confident that, had the body been there, he couldn’t have failed to have seen it.

[Fisherman]

But if he said that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there then it’s reasonable to assume that he wasn’t speaking purely about the light conditions but the yard itself.

Well, Herlock, the exchange loked like this:

[Coroner] Was it light?
- It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.

Richardson gives his response to the question "Was it light" and not to the question "Did you take in all the yard?". Since we cannot ask Richardson in retrospect exactly what he was talking about, we shall never know for sure. But to my ears, it sounds as if he is saying "It was not too dark for me to be able to see things in the yard".
Richardson COULD see all over the place - if he wanted to. But did he? In all probability he didnīt, becasue if he had said that he did look in the recess, we would likely have that information. As I said before.

That he didn’t specifically look behind the door isn’t relevant as, a) he knew the location of the body, b) he knew how much floor area the body took up and c) how much area would have remained hidden to him by the door.

Whether he looked in the recess or not is actually the only vital question at hand. If he did not, and instead tried to recreate in retrospect what he could or could not see, his testimony is of a very doubtful character. That is how I see it.

And so Richardson was absolutely confident that, had the body been there, he couldn’t have failed to have seen it.

Have you never experienced people who have been dead certain about something only to secinds later stand corrected? "Iīm sure I shut the window", "I cannot have left my wallet at home, Iīm sure of that", "I am absolutely certain that there was nobody but me in the house that day". And then "Hey, look, itīs open! And I was so sure Iīd closed it!", "I really cannot understand this - but thereīs my wallet!" and "Oh yeah, right, the window cleaner. I totally forgot about him!"

If you want to believe that Richardson could not have been wrong, then do so. My aim is not to sway you, but to point out to others reading the boards why I think you may well be wrong.

[Kattrup]

But if he said that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there then it’s reasonable to assume that he wasn’t speaking purely about the light conditions but the yard itself. That he didn’t specifically look behind the door isn’t relevant as, a) he knew the location of the body, b) he knew how much floor area the body took up and c) how much area would have remained hidden to him by the door.

And so Richardson was absolutely confident that, had the body been there, he couldn’t have failed to have seen it.

Exactly.

Richardson, who was there, stated categorically that he did not see the body and that he would have seen it, had it been there. The police said it would be difficult to understand how Richardson would not have seen it. Another witness said that as soon as he opened the door, he saw the body.

And the counterargument to that is "he could have been wrong!"

How is this a debate at all? Actually, it's not. It's just an exercise in futility.

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly.

Richardson, who was there, stated categorically that he did not see the body and that he would have seen it, had it been there. The police said it would be difficult to understand how Richardson would not have seen it. Another witness said that as soon as he opened the door, he saw the body.

And the counterargument to that is "he could have been wrong!"

How is this a debate at all? Actually, it's not. It's just an exercise in futility.

It's also an exercise in reasoning in trying to explain why this killer would at 5am when it was getting light go with a victim into a confined yard which was overlooked, with what it seems was one way in an one way out, with the likelhood of being disturbed at any moment.

and the fact that there is no evidence to show that this killer murdered any of the other victims at that time of the morning.

The sad fact about the ripper case is that there are so many conflciting witness statements it is hard to establish the real truth from the made up truth!

My own personal belief is that he did not see the body

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Exactly.

Richardson, who was there, stated categorically that he did not see the body and that he would have seen it, had it been there. The police said it would be difficult to understand how Richardson would not have seen it. Another witness said that as soon as he opened the door, he saw the body.

And the counterargument to that is "he could have been wrong!"

How is this a debate at all? Actually, it's not. It's just an exercise in futility.

Considering that your argument amounts to saying "If he said he believed he should have seen her if she was there, then that must be taken as a fact", I canīt say that I am very flummoxed by your "point", Kattrup.

Then again, I rarely find cause to award much interest to your musings.

Actually, the counterargument "he could have been wrong" is a very good counterargument when it can be shown that the doorblade actually could have obscured the view of Chapman, lying in the dark.

And to boot, that is not the only counterargument presented, is it? There is also the fact that the papers reported on how the police seemingly found Richardson unreliable, and speculated that the body would likely have been in place before the time Richardson claimed to have been there. And that Richardson could have lied, no less!

Given these things, Iīd say that the question "how is that a debate at all" should be put to you instead. How is it any debate to say "No, nope, he must have been right, and it cannot be challenged"...?

I find that a much less informed view; gulping down what questioned witnesses say as if it was strawberry cake is not advisable in my world.