Richardson's View

[barnflatwyngarde]

Looking at this remarkably clear and detailed photo of the rear of 29 Hanbury Street, it is difficult to envisage a scenario where Richardson could have failed to see the body if it had been there.

[Fisherman]

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).

She lay in full view of anybody opening the door enough to allow for seeing her. Please understand that what governs this is the position of the door in combination with the position of Richardson! If the door had been completely closed, he could not have seen her. I hope we may agree on that? If the door was only opened three inches, he could not have seen her either. Agreed? It is therefore only when and if the door is sufficiently opened that he may have seen her, and it all boils down to what position he was in in relation to the doorblade.
That, effectively, is end of. He may have missed her, it is as simple as that.

[Fisherman]

Looking at this remarkably clear and detailed photo of the rear of 29 Hanbury Street, it is difficult to envisage a scenario where Richardson could have failed to see the body if it had been there.

And nevertheless, he could. Difficult though it may seem to envisage. Begin by sinking the picture into a greysh gloom. It will make it less remarkably clear.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its not end of. You have Richardson walking down the steps at an angle for some unknown reason. You also have him only opening the door slightly (which would pretty much have the door brushing against his left hand side) Then you have him, again for some unknown reason, sitting facing right and only looking to his right. So in essence you a creating a very specific and unusual set of circumstances to prove your point.

Youre setting your bar at the lowest possible level. The ‘well it’s not impossible’ level. Is it probable or likely? Not remotely so. The chances of Richardson not seeing the body and then being so blunderingly unaware of even of the possibility of it being hidden behind a door beggars belief.

Cadosch pretty much seals the deal. Unless someone else brushed against the fence and also managed to miss the body under the cloak of invisibility cast by the door.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And nevertheless, he could. Difficult though it may seem to envisage. Begin by sinking the picture into a greysh gloom. It will make it less remarkably clear.

And Richardson wearing blinkers and a neck brace

[Fisherman]

It is getting silly now, so I will leave other posters to do the clowneries.

[DJA]

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.

I'd disregard Cadosch.
He was ill and the fence was in very bad condition.
Read up on it.

Nichols moved next door to Eddowes just before she went hopping.
Eddowes returns for a "reward".
Tends to confirm they knew each other from London Hospital 1867/8.

Mrs. Long describes a man of the same height as the author of GSG with Chapman. Try it. They were arguing.
There are similarities in the mutilations and time frame.

Chapman and Kelly were neighbors.

Trainee Nun reported Kelly was the cause of it all.

[Michael W Richards]

The credible position here is that Richardson could not have missed the body, Cadosche heard Annie and her killer, and Long was mistaken. Which establishes very critical things....like for one, the rough TOD.

There is very little chance that Richardson could miss the body there when he was on the steps, he didnt just glance into the yard, he sat down on the step. Fixed his boot. If Cadosche heard what he said he did, both times, then its almost a certainty that he heard Annie with her killer. There is very little time for an exchange of personelle in the yard, and we have some substantial cutting to be done. Which takes time. These 2 points lead to the obvious conclusion that Long could not have seen Annie. Not when she said she did anyway.

[Chava]

There are too many variables here. First of all there would be little to no ambient light in that backyard. The gas lamps were in the front of the house on the street. Secondly there was probably a lot of rubbish in that backyard on a constant basis. There certainly was when James Mason went back there in 1967! Richardson walks in, looks right to check the cellar entrance. His eyes likely will have to adjust to the lack of light because he's coming in from the street. He might have noticed what looked like discarded stuff to his left--her legs were drawn up and it's certainly possible her skirt covered them--but not being able to see clearly he might not have realized it was a body. Then he sits down to cut some leather off his boot. If he looks left, he sees the body for sure because he'd be looking down & his eyes have adjusted. If he looks right, he might not. I'm not suggesting this is a certainty. But I'm also not going to take either Cadoche or Long at face value as possible witnesses to the murder. The time is out of whack. Again I'm not saying this as a fact. But I do think it's a possibility. And little experiments undertaken in nice brightly-lit houses will not give anyone any new info at all. Also btw Richardson says he sat on the middle step. Which I think is highly unlikely unless he's 3' tall. It would be very uncomfortable. My bet is that whether the body was there or not he sat on the top step where his view is impeded by that door and embroidered his testimony to make it even clearer that he had nothing to do with the murder.

[DJA]

Now, I am not sure which article it is you are speaking of, and I must admit that I kind of lost the will to debate with you on the grounds inplied by this post, but if you will be so good as to tell me what article you are speaking of and provide me with a link, I promise to take a look at it and comment on it too.

Once again ........

Chronic hypothermia following tuberculous meningitis

DJ Dick,GL Sanders,M Saunders and MD Rawlins

Try pasting that into your browser.

[The Baron]

There are too many variables here. First of all there would be little to no ambient light in that backyard. The gas lamps were in the front of the house on the street. Secondly there was probably a lot of rubbish in that backyard on a constant basis. There certainly was when James Mason went back there in 1967! Richardson walks in, looks right to check the cellar entrance. His eyes likely will have to adjust to the lack of light because he's coming in from the street. He might have noticed what looked like discarded stuff to his left--her legs were drawn up and it's certainly possible her skirt covered them--but not being able to see clearly he might not have realized it was a body. Then he sits down to cut some leather off his boot. If he looks left, he sees the body for sure because he'd be looking down & his eyes have adjusted. If he looks right, he might not. I'm not suggesting this is a certainty. But I'm also not going to take either Cadoche or Long at face value as possible witnesses to the murder. The time is out of whack. Again I'm not saying this as a fact. But I do think it's a possibility. And little experiments undertaken in nice brightly-lit houses will not give anyone any new info at all. Also btw Richardson says he sat on the middle step. Which I think is highly unlikely unless he's 3' tall. It would be very uncomfortable. My bet is that whether the body was there or not he sat on the top step where his view is impeded by that door and embroidered his testimony to make it even clearer that he had nothing to do with the murder.

Very good post! That Richardson must have seen the body saga is only an assumption, and speculations don't prove anything.

He also had long hair on his face, one good eye, and suffered Epilepsy.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very good post! That Richardson must have seen the body saga is only an assumption, and speculations don't prove anything.

He also had long hair on his face, one good eye, and suffered Epilepsy.



The Baron

I recall that in the other thread you were told that this was a joke. In an earlier post in this thread Harry D told you:

“You know that's a gag, right?

RIGHT?”

And yet you keep on quoting it. Ask anyone Baron...it’s not true.

Theres even a sketch of Richardson with short hair.

[The Baron]

That he suffered from Epilepsy is not a joke.

Epilepsy is a central nervous system (neurological) disorder in which brain activity becomes abnormal, causing seizures or periods of unusual behavior, sensations, and sometimes loss of awareness..


That can easily explain why he may have missed the body completely.



The Baron

[The Baron]

Jon Guy posted on 16.08.2019:


[[Found it !!

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.]]




So could you elaborate what was the joke exactly instead of repeating what others say?



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jon Guy posted on 16.08.2019:


[[Found it !!

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.]]




So could you elaborate what was the joke exactly instead of repeating what others say?



The Baron

I can’t recall who responded to you on the other thread and I don’t know any background on that quote but....

Harry isn’t in the habit of making things up or posting nonsense.

Ive seen two contemporary sketches of Richardson (one full body, one just head and shoulders) He has short hair in both. In the one he doesn’t appear to have any impairment with his eyes. And in the full body one of him sitting on the step he isn’t in any way twisted to the right.

Also as it was a question of what he saw or not don’t you think that the police would have noticed and mentioned these 3 very obvious factors which might have hampered his sight?

And last, the description is almost a caricature of the disabilities that Richardson would have needed to have had to have missed the body unless they forgot to mention that his head sloped to the left causing his hat to fall over his eyes!

Where does the epilepsy come from?