Richardson's View

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

There's an interesting parallel with the Hilda Murrell case from the eighties, she was kidnapped on a Wednesday night, and found on the Saturday, where, the authorities maintain she had been for 3 days. However, the landowner had been out with his dog marking trees on the Thursday and swore that the body wasn't there. His words are near identical to Richardson's. A case of history repeating.

[Trevor Marriott]

Mmm, exactly - what Richardson says is that it was not so dark that parts of the backyard would be impossible to see. What he does NOT say is that he checked every inch of the back yard.

We must also not forget that the victim's legs were drawn up thereby restricting the amount of body size that would have been visible.

So if Chapman was 5`2 inches in height perhaps only 4 feet of her body would have been visible and behind an open door could have been missed by the door being opened and maintained at an angle preventing it being seen.

Or alternatively, Richardson lied, perhaps he did see the body and panicked thinking that he might come under suspicion!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Even if the length of the body with legs drawn up was four feet,the fact that her head was two feet from the wall,would mean,from looking at the photograph,at least half would extend beyond the steps,and open to view from someone sitting on that middle step,and how far would Richardson have to look?Two feet,three?No more surely.
No Fisherman ,none of that.If Cross could see a bundle from across the street,and Diemschuts a bundle from a seat on a cart,in conditions less favourable than those afforded Richardson,I have the utmost confidence there was no body for Richardson to see.
,

[Herlock Sholmes]

Inspector Chandler said that the body was 2 feet from the wall of the house and 6 to 9 inches from the step. So if we draw a line across the bottom step and extend it across the the fence the top of Annie’s head was 6 to 9 inches in front of it so we can see how far her body would have stretched into the yard (taking into account her legs being drawn up) So we can comfortably say 5 feet or slightly under from the bottom step.

So looking at the photo I’d estimate that the edge of the door extended 6 inches or so from the bottom step. Therefore, according to Chandler, the top of Annie’s head would have been at the edge of the door, if opened to around 90 degrees, with her body extending 5 feet or so into the yard. And as the legs were drawn up the knees were turned outward (as per Phillips) meaning that those striped stockings were further in view toward the centre of the yard. The more you read the less likely it seems that Richardson could have missed her. Around 1% I’d say.

[Joshua Rogan]

We must also not forget that the victim's legs were drawn up thereby restricting the amount of body size that would have been visible.

We must also not forget that her knees were turned out, thus increasing the width of the body that would have been visible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We must also not forget that the victim's legs were drawn up thereby restricting the amount of body size that would have been visible.

So if Chapman was 5`2 inches in height perhaps only 4 feet of her body would have been visible and behind an open door could have been missed by the door being opened and maintained at an angle preventing it being seen.

Or alternatively, Richardson lied, perhaps he did see the body and panicked thinking that he might come under suspicion!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But, as I recall you mentioning before Trevor, wouldn’t he have been taking the huge risk of being seen and then have some local say “I saw John Richardson enter at...” after he ‘neglects’ to mentioning finding the body?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Part Two.

Okay. As you no doubt know, back in the 1950s and 1960s, Dan Farson, as well as Tom Cullen, interviewed quite a few old-timers living in the East End.

People are naturally skeptical about oral history, but we can confirm that some of these people did indeed live in Whitechapel or Spitalfields—Mrs. Boufield’s son, for instance.

Anyway, Farson located one old bloke who claimed to have been in Hanbury Street that morning, evidently chasing Kent and Green and Davis back to the house, or very shortly thereafter.

Here’s what Farson reported:

“I met a charming old man who, as a boy at the time, was driving through Hanbury Street at dawn, perched on the back of a cart. Hearing the cry of ‘Murder!’ his curiosity got the better of him and he jumped off to find out what happened, losing his job in consequences.”

“’There she was,’ he told me in a soft and gentle voice. ‘And her entrails were steamin’ ‘ot. And I’ll never forget it because she had red-and-white stockings on.’” (Farson, 2^nd edition, p. 26)

Now, most people will dismiss this story out of hand, but having seen entrails steaming in ‘real life,’ it has the ring of truth to me.

They DO steam.

The strange detail about Chapman’s red-and-white stocking could be pure horse droppings, of course, but the contemporary sketches, strange to say, show Chapman wearing striped socks—a type that are often red-and-white---and the inquest describes them as striped.

Could this old codger have remembered such a banal detail for seventy years, unless he had been there?

Maybe, I don’t know, but that’s why I say that the color of Chapman’s socks will tell me her time of death. If they were indeed red-and-white, I’ll give the geezer the benefit of the doubt, which means the entrails were steaming, and she couldn’t have been dead for more than five or six minutes when Davis started hollering murder!

Accept it or not!

I remember this story as I was doing a bit of Druitt-related re-reading around a year ago. It does have a ‘ring of truth’ about it but it does throw up issues (like everything!) We often say Cadosch or Long but this clashes with both. 40 minutes after Cadosch heard something and 20-25 minutes after Long. So it slightly favours Long but it’s a bit of a time to have been talking. Unless Long got her time wrong? 15 minutes and it’s bang on.
Good spot though Roger. I read Farson and didn’t make any connection.

[Trevor Marriott]

But, as I recall you mentioning before Trevor, wouldn’t he have been taking the huge risk of being seen and then have some local say “I saw John Richardson enter at...” after he ‘neglects’ to mentioning finding the body?

I am looking at all things in perspective and I still come back to the TOD and all that there is which to me suggest she was not killed at 5am but much earlier consisietnt with the doctors estimated TOD. Much of the witness testimony from the public all through these murders is unreliable, yet reserchers want to keep relying on it as being gospel.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

So, the fundamental question is whether John Richardson was lying or telling the truth.

Alas, we shall never know.

Oh no!, not "the lying witness" angle....

[Wickerman]

Mmm, exactly - what Richardson says is that it was not so dark that parts of the backyard would be impossible to see. What he does NOT say is that he checked every inch of the back yard.

He doesn't say it Christer, but it may be implied from his testimony. He had caught 'people' in the yard, and he knew 'people' came there for immoral purposes. So, it could be said he was also looking for 'people', so had he seen two 'people' having sex he would have noticed them, as it was on his mind.
Annie was a 'people' right?, and she could have been having sex either standing or laying down, so Richardson was alert to that possibility.

This is the exchange with the coroner:

[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there?
[Richardson] Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose?
[Richardson] Yes, they do.

So I think you are obliged to accept that Richardson was also on the lookout for any 'people' in that yard, and as a dead body still constitutes as 'people' then his attention would have been drawn to it.

[Wickerman]

I am looking at all things in perspective and I still come back to the TOD and all that there is which to me suggest she was not killed at 5am but much earlier consisietnt with the doctors estimated TOD. Much of the witness testimony from the public all through these murders is unreliable, yet reserchers want to keep relying on it as being gospel.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Phillips did provide a caution in his testimony:

"[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?
[Phillips] I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

Coupled with the testimony of both Richardson & Mrs Long, plus what was heard by Cadosch. It's not like 1 - 1, it's one against three, or more accurately half against three & a half.

[DJA]

Josh and I have referred to "Chronic Hypothermia following tuberculous meningitis" a few times.

Google it and have a read.

Chapman's temperature was most likely in the low 30s.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am looking at all things in perspective and I still come back to the TOD and all that there is which to me suggest she was not killed at 5am but much earlier consisietnt with the doctors estimated TOD. Much of the witness testimony from the public all through these murders is unreliable, yet reserchers want to keep relying on it as being gospel.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not ‘gospel’ Trevor. Anymore than Phillips t.o.d was ‘gospel.’ But we have a man that was actually in the yard who said that the body wasn’t there. We have no reason to accuse him of lying and no evidence that he was lying. The chances of him being mistaken, when we look at the location, appears to be close to impossible. Then we have Cadosch. Another witness that we have no reason to accuse of lying. He heard the sound in a yard where there was alleged to have been a dead body. So what caused the noise? Or was he lying (if so, why would he?) His testimony was cautious so it’s almost impossible to see how he could have been mistaken.

By taking the default position that every single person involved in the case was unreliable is hardly reasonable. This doesn’t mean that we take the default position they they are all 100% reliable of course.

[Fisherman]

There's an interesting parallel with the Hilda Murrell case from the eighties, she was kidnapped on a Wednesday night, and found on the Saturday, where, the authorities maintain she had been for 3 days. However, the landowner had been out with his dog marking trees on the Thursday and swore that the body wasn't there. His words are near identical to Richardson's. A case of history repeating.

History is probably littered with people claiming things on their behalfs that were simply not true. Itīs a world full of mistakes.Thanks for pointing us to the Murrell case!

[Fisherman]

Even if the length of the body with legs drawn up was four feet,the fact that her head was two feet from the wall,would mean,from looking at the photograph,at least half would extend beyond the steps,and open to view from someone sitting on that middle step,and how far would Richardson have to look?Two feet,three?No more surely.
No Fisherman ,none of that.If Cross could see a bundle from across the street,and Diemschuts a bundle from a seat on a cart,in conditions less favourable than those afforded Richardson,I have the utmost confidence there was no body for Richardson to see.
,

I have no doubt about that either - if he looked at the corpse. The thing is, we cant tell that he did. Stiff neck or not.