Richardson's View

[Fisherman]

Happy to see 'we' finally got there...

Finally? I never said he couldnīt see all over the yard IF HE WANTED TO, did I? Ar early dawn, standing on the shore of a lake, I can see all over the lake.

But I cannot see what floats on itīs surface.

The generic phrase "I could see all over the place" must not be mistaken for "I carefully looked all over the place". And truth be told, even if I carefully look out over that lake at early dawn, being absle to see all over the place, I will not be able to see everything floating on itīs surface.

Thereīs only so many ways I can make this point, but I will keep making it because it is very important.

[Fisherman]

Not forgetting those red & white striped stockings.
There's a reason traffic signs are red & white today, yet we are supposed to believe she couldn't be seen.

In the gloom, all cats are grey, Jon. Have a look at this picture:
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/p...age/1124329126

Can you tell me if you can see all over the place? And can you tell me how much red colour you can make out? What colour are the boats? Can there be, say a book lying on the pier in the picture? Does the light allow for telling? Would full daylight produce other conditions?

I really donīt like it when it is claimed that this is an open- and shut case. It is anything but.

Hereīs what googling "backyard" and "dawn" got me:
https://i2.wp.com/tamatelandscaping....ct-at-dawn.jpg

I can easily see all over the place. I can not as easily swear that I would immediately be able to make out a dead person by the fence in the recess to the right, least of all if much of it was hidden by the flagstones. Although there are lamps lit.
Yes, it is a different task and setting, but thatīs not the point. The point is to show that we dealing with a less easy task than some will have it. Would the colour red present itself readily down there, for example, Jon?

[harry]

While Richardson may not have identified it as being a body,he would have been close enough to have seen something.Like Cross and Diemshutz,there would have been a shape of something.Enough to cause him to investigate?He would not have had to move from his position to ascertain what the shape was. That her body parts would extend past the steps has been amply proven,the starting point being two feet from the building's wall,this being the police inspector's judgement,so the door,as a complete shield ,can safely be ignored.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then why is it that the Star told us that this was the precise view that was taken? I doubt it had to do with the lighting conditions.

As it mentions the body being carried into the yard it sounds like the story came about after it had been mentioned that blood had been found elsewhere. Sounds like the press jumping to erroneous conclusions to me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My take on things is that Chapman could have filled the recess between stairs and fence entirely and Richardson would not have seen her anyway if the door was not far enough out to the left to allow for peaking under it. It all hinges to a very large degree on where Richardson head was, how high up and how close to the doorblade.

Or if he acted entirely unnaturally of course. Otherwise he couldn’t have missed it.

[Fisherman]

While Richardson may not have identified it as being a body,he would have been close enough to have seen something.

Again, HArry, if he was an inch and that inch was made up of a doorblade, he would see nothing. Proximity is useless if we donīt look.

Like Cross and Diemshutz,there would have been a shape of something.

But he was not like Lechmere and Diemshitz. In their cases, there was no door the victim could be hidden behind.

Enough to cause him to investigate?

Yes, if he saw the body, no if he didnīt.

He would not have had to move from his position to ascertain what the shape was.

If he saw nothing, then he would certainly need to move. If he was looking left, he needed to look right. If the door was in the way, he needed to stretch out past it.

That her body parts would extend past the steps has been amply proven,the starting point being two feet from the building's wall,this being the police inspector's judgement,so the door,as a complete shield ,can safely be ignored.

No, it can not. If you look out a door that is in a ninety degre angle to the wall, it is how far out that you are that governs what you can see. As I said, a five meter giraffe could have been hidden by the door, depending on the angle of the door and Richardsons position. How is that in any way hard to understand?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Finally? I never said he couldnīt see all over the yard IF HE WANTED TO, did I? Ar early dawn, standing on the shore of a lake, I can see all over the lake.

But I cannot see what floats on itīs surface.

The generic phrase "I could see all over the place" must not be mistaken for "I carefully looked all over the place". And truth be told, even if I carefully look out over that lake at early dawn, being absle to see all over the place, I will not be able to see everything floating on itīs surface.

Thereīs only so many ways I can make this point, but I will keep making it because it is very important.

This is just very obvious wordplay on your part Fish.

Richardsons meaning is perfectly clear. If a body had been there he couldn’t have failed to have seen it because there was no area of the yard hidden to him that was of sufficient size to accommodate a mutilated corpse.

ie He couldn’t have missed it.

And he didn’t.

[Fisherman]

As it mentions the body being carried into the yard it sounds like the story came about after it had been mentioned that blood had been found elsewhere. Sounds like the press jumping to erroneous conclusions to me.

Many things sound differently to you than they do to me. That is the nature of things. It is emphatically NOT said that the body was taken there, it is said that "the woman" was brought to the yard. Presumably alive! Otherwise, why not write "body"?

[Fisherman]

This is just very obvious wordplay on your part Fish.

Richardsons meaning is perfectly clear. If a body had been there he couldn’t have failed to have seen it because there was no area of the yard hidden to him that was of sufficient size to accommodate a mutilated corpse.

ie He couldn’t have missed it.

And he didn’t.

So he saw it, then? Good, thanks for that.

[Fisherman]

Or if he acted entirely unnaturally of course. Otherwise he couldn’t have missed it.

Why is it not "unnatural" - you like that expression, donīt you? - to look to your left when you come to look to your right? I mean, if we are to speak of the unnatural?

Ooopla ....

[Fisherman]

... and I am out, for some time. I cannot take too much intellectualism in too short a space of time. Itīn unnatural to me.

[The Baron]

Will that yard be the right place for an unfortunate to take a client to at +5:00 am (+6:00 am today) in the morning?!

Will it be the safe place for the ripper too at that time in the morning when most of the inhabitants start getting up and moving around where they can see all over the place?!


That Richardson missed the body suggestion is far better explanation than that, especially when the medical examination of the body leans towards the early TOD, and that there was a door that could secure the body laying behind.



The Baron

[Joshua Rogan]

Why is it not "unnatural" - you like that expression, donīt you? - to look to your left when you come to look to your right? I mean, if we are to speak of the unnatural?

Ooopla ....

As I mentioned earlier, Davis' objective too was on the right, yet he opened the door wide enough and looked left enough to see thr body even before descending the steps.

Richardson was in the yard for two minutes. Checking the padlock was secure would have taken no more than ten seconds. After that, his attention would have been free to wander all over the place.

[Curious Cat]

Yes, The body was there to be seen. I agree!

Yes, Richardson would have been able to see it in the prevailing light conditions. I agree!

But no, there is no evidence telling us that Richardson looked in the direction she was lying. But if he DID throw part of a small glance to his left, then THAT is where the light conditions come in, because gloom is not the best condition avaliable for picking up on things.

Think of it like this: You and me both step into pne copy each of the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. We are both told that there is a key lying in the yard. I get to look in full daylight, while you get to look in gloom.

Who do you think is most likely to find the key first? Correct: I am! And is that becasue you are not able to make out your key? No, it is becasue the gloom you work under reduces your capability of making things out as easily as they are made out in daylight.

I hope that helps to explain what I am talking about.

Firstly, don't change my words. I clearly said the body was not there to be seen, therefore you do not agree with me.

Secondly, I may not have paid full attention in every lesson involving physics when I was at school but I'm pretty sure a human body is considerably larger than a key.

[Fisherman]

As I mentioned earlier, Davis' objective too was on the right, yet he opened the door wide enough and looked left enough to see thr body even before descending the steps.

Richardson was in the yard for two minutes. Checking the padlock was secure would have taken no more than ten seconds. After that, his attention would have been free to wander all over the place.

It is a question about whether it is logical or not to look to your left when your objective is linked to looking to the right, Joshua. It is not as if I am saying it never happens.
As for two minute wandering eyes, the reason he was supposedly in the yard for two minutes what that he worked on his shoe. And when you do, the logical thing to do is to look at the shoe.