Richardson's View

[Fisherman]

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

What I agreed about was that if the body was there and he looked at it, he would see it. Sorry about the bad wording.

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.

Yes, but it is subjeced to the exact same thing as a key when light is scarce. Which is my whole point. If I had used the analogy of you and me looking for dead wome in our backyards, then of course would BOTH have seen them. But the point is that there may only have been a smallish part visible, if Richarldson opened the door to a degree that made such a smallish part visible. Therefore, I used the key analogy, hoping that you would pick up on how I am pointing to how ANY object is harder to see in gloom than in daylight.

It didnīt work out, of course, but that was my aim.

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

"You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? -She was found lying just where my feet were."

[Fisherman]

"You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? -She was found lying just where my feet were."

Chapman wass found in the recess and alongside the fence. If she was found where Richardsons feet were, then Richardsons feet were in the recess or alongside the fence.

I think we both know that such a suggestion has a whiff of the unlikely about it. Or?

Iīm off now, Joshua, so any suggestion you make will have to go uncommented on by me for the next few hours.

[Wickerman]

Violena was proven a liar - but, of course, it is not a "modern accusation".

Proven by police we might add.
Packer is often lumped in to this category, because the police determined he changed his story.
So the police investigations were thorough enough to suss out the witnesses who were not being truthful or consistent.
Yet we are led to believe they missed this one, John Richardson, and for what reason?

However, it does tell us something that we should already be aquainted with: that witnesses sometimes tell porkies, for whatever reason.

And what about those that sometimes tell the truth?, or should we more accurately say, more often tell the truth?
How does that tip the scales, or do we ignore that uncomfortable fact?

Millerīs Court was full of women who claimed that they had heard the cry "Murder!" at various points of time, and it was decided that they were not telling the truth.

Decided by who, when?

There is the very contemporary Star article from the 13:th, stating that "Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and no signs of the murder were then apparent. It is now beginning to be believed that the woman was brought to the backyard in Hanbury-street some time earlier."

By now, it should be quite apparent how the Star have developed a reputation for printing inaccurate stories. Especially stories that might embarrass the authorities. Their objective was to sell newspapers, printing stories that went against the grain meant people would stop and buy their newspaper as opposed to any other. Look at what they wrote about Hutchinson, and before that, what they said about Pizer, which they nearly got sued for. And here you have another instance with Richardson.
Don't you see a pattern unfolding? - controversy sells!

Of course, if you demand that I prove that Richardson was lying before I can suggest the possibility on as completely relevant grounds as the Star article, then you will win the day.

Well, the alternative is to accept any accusation by a modern theorist that a 'witness of their choice' was a liar.
The historical record does show the police were quite able to suss out a lying witness. So on what grounds are we expected to trust the modern theorist, if they are not expected to provide any proof?
No-one should get a free pass to call anyone they choose, a liar.

[Joshua Rogan]

Richardson didn't have any trouble seeing that the padlock on the cellar door was in place, from the same distance, and that was down a hole. So I don't think the light level would have been a factor.

[Wickerman]

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, he was also looking for people, he had disturbed them before, Christer, and they could have been anywhere back there.

[Wickerman]

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.

But Dr. Phillips said there was about 6 inch from the bottom step to her head. So not between the steps and the fence, not hidden by the 3ft wide door either. She lay beyond both, out in the open, alongside the fence, in full view of anyone opening the door (as per Davis & Kent, etc).

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

But we know that people had been thrown out because they were there for that purpose.

Whether it would have been safe or not. This would surely have been down to Chapman as she would have taken the killer to the yard rather than the other way around. The killer would have assumed, and probably been told, that she’d used the yard before and that they wouldn’t be disturbed.

We know that Phillips t.o.d estimate could very easily have been wrong. Some medical experts have called it little better than guesswork.

Against that we have Richardson who was 100% confident that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there. We have Cadosch who heard voices and a noise from the yard. Not to mention Long (despite the 15 mins or so time issue)

This heavily favours the body not being there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know that this is about Richardson but I’d like to ask, if Cadosch wasn’t simply lying (for which we have no reason to suggest) and if he wasn’t mistaken (which seems unlikely from where he was) what made the noise against the fence?

[DJA]

What is the time issue with Mrs Long?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only in relation to Cadosch. If Long did see the killer with Annie then Cadosch couldn’t have heard them and vice versa. Unless either Long or Cadosch got their time wrong.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I know that this is about Richardson but I’d like to ask, if Cadosch wasn’t simply lying (for which we have no reason to suggest) and if he wasn’t mistaken (which seems unlikely from where he was) what made the noise against the fence?

There's a thread about that...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/724403-was-albert-cadosch-a-reliable-witness

[Fisherman]

Richardson didn't have any trouble seeing that the padlock on the cellar door was in place, from the same distance, and that was down a hole. So I don't think the light level would have been a factor.

Contrary to that suggestion, it is actually always a factor. Light is what makes us see things in the first place. If there was not light, there would be no sight. Fish that swim in subterranean lakes have no eyes. They have no use for them.

So yes, light WILL have played a role, and less light means that we see less. It really is that simple.

It is an entirely different matter that the light level will have been enough for Richardson to make out things, bodies included - but as I keep trying to say, the degree to which he would actually have seen them hinges on his position on the stairs, his chosen direction of view, the position of the door and the amount of light there was. And even if I have to repeat it to my dying day, Iīm afraid these things MAY - taken one by one or in combination - have meant that Richardson did/would/could not see the body. This MAY have been so, and it MAY equally be that his position etc meant that he WOULD have seen the body if it was there.

That is as far as we are going to get because it is impossible to take it any further.

[Fisherman]

Proven by police we might add.
Packer is often lumped in to this category, because the police determined he changed his story.
So the police investigations were thorough enough to suss out the witnesses who were not being truthful or consistent.
Yet we are led to believe they missed this one, John Richardson, and for what reason?



And what about those that sometimes tell the truth?, or should we more accurately say, more often tell the truth?
How does that tip the scales, or do we ignore that uncomfortable fact?



Decided by who, when?



By now, it should be quite apparent how the Star have developed a reputation for printing inaccurate stories. Especially stories that might embarrass the authorities. Their objective was to sell newspapers, printing stories that went against the grain meant people would stop and buy their newspaper as opposed to any other. Look at what they wrote about Hutchinson, and before that, what they said about Pizer, which they nearly got sued for. And here you have another instance with Richardson.
Don't you see a pattern unfolding? - controversy sells!



Well, the alternative is to accept any accusation by a modern theorist that a 'witness of their choice' was a liar.
The historical record does show the police were quite able to suss out a lying witness. So on what grounds are we expected to trust the modern theorist, if they are not expected to provide any proof?
No-one should get a free pass to call anyone they choose, a liar.

That is a very long post to faultily suggest that I would have said that Richardson was a liar. What I have suggested is that he MAY have been a liar and it would be outright stupid to categorically disregard that suggestion. In essence, I think that is very hard to disagree about. Not that you cannot try if you wish ...

[Fisherman]

But, he was also looking for people, he had disturbed them before, Christer, and they could have been anywhere back there.

Like in the recess? And his saying that he kept an eye out for them is not the same as him saying that he surveyed the entire backyard on every occasion. And when and if he did, I donīt think he looked behind doors and suchlike; he simply threw them out if they were around, and he would have noticed that without having to look for them.