Richardson's View

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
"The vast majority"? I must have missed when that was estabished. And what if he did not do as the vast majority? What if he had a reason not to do so, like, say, that he was there to check to the right? Or perhaps that the door swung back towards him? How does the vast majority react to such things in that poll you´ve seen?

His only task was to check the cellar door which would have taken all of two seconds and wouldn’t have required him rigidly facing only in that direction and then never taking his eyes from it after he’d sat down.

Davis saw the body when he opened the door but of course he didn’t open the door slightly then walk down the steps pushing against the door with his body as he went looking only to his right.

Its not remotely realistic or likely but if you’re simply picking the low hanging fruit then fine, it wasn’t impossible. Like it wasn’t impossible that he was scratching his left eye at the time or that he had some kind of door opening phobia. We can only talk in terms of likely/unlikely and this was unlikely taken to extremes.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

That steps not huge, and directly right is a void. Add to that, by sitting facing right, he's a bit off balance, and comfort wise it's not conducive to achieving maximum ass cheek to step contact. He could have exclusively sat and looked right, but the space for Annie's bodies isn't that big really. And even with that, he'd need virtually no peripheral vision, even in the dark, and a total lack of observational awareness.

I'd rather opt for him being mistaken about time, not telling a straight story a la Chandler, or even as Trev suggests, seeing the body and befouling his breeches. Or, he was there, Annie wasn't. It's not that implausible is it?

[etenguy]

But I am not saying that it is established how he sat. I am simply pointing out that we don´t know. And since I have checked - as has R J Palmer - I know full well that it would have been possible to miss the body from many positions.

In a choice between which is the better option to dismiss Richardson, we have either the possibility that he could have missed the body - which has people claiming that it is a stupid thing to suggest, or that we can´t rely on him - which has Jon saying that we should absolutely not call him a liar.

There´s ripperology for you.

I am becoming increasingly sceptical about Richardson's story. Firstly, he does not mention sitting on the step to Chandler, then at the inquest he does, saying he sat on the step to remove leather from his boot with a knife. Then he is asked to bring the knife to the inquest and it is clearly not up to the job he described. Then he changes his story and says it is another knife he used at the market - so he didn't remove leather from is boot in the yard.

I'm not sure which poster is Jon - but I share his aversion to simply dismissing statements as lies when they are inconvenient. However, the constantly changing nature of Richardson's statement regarding significant factors at the very least undermines his credibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jon saying that we should absolutely not call him a liar.

What reason do we have to call him a liar? Why couldn’t Chandler have been mistaken about Richardson mentioning sitting on the step? Even if Richardson didn’t mention it why is that sinister. He might have just said something like “when I was at the back door there was no body there?” To which Chandler might have said “Are you certain that you couldn’t have missed it?” To which Richardson says “no.” Why would he have needed to elaborate? Maybe he didn’t want to mention the knife and it didn’t occur to him to make up some other excuse for sitting on the step.

If have no evidence that he was an habitual or compulsive liar (and we don’t) then we at least need a valid reason for him to have lied about seeing the body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I'm not sure which poster is Jon

Jon is Wickerman.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I am becoming increasingly sceptical about Richardson's story. Firstly, he does not mention sitting on the step to Chandler, then at the inquest he does, saying he sat on the step to remove leather from his boot with a knife. Then he is asked to bring the knife to the inquest and it is clearly not up to the job he described. Then he changes his story and says it is another knife he used at the market - so he didn't remove leather from is boot in the yard.

I'm not sure which poster is Jon - but I share his aversion to simply dismissing statements as lies when they are inconvenient. However, the constantly changing nature of Richardson's statement regarding significant factors at the very least undermines his credibility.

Hi Etenguy,

Jon is "Wickerman".

I agree, if looking to discount Richardson, his less than solid story is safer ground than his missing the body because of a combination of lighting and angles. Say, theoretically, he had a cursory glance at the padlock. That keeps his timeframe and allows for missing Annie. Then, later, he panics about being accused and says he knows for a fact she wasn't there. This allows for Phillips TOD, but doesn't incriminate Richardson. It's far more plausible than a set of circumstances that obscured his vision. Or him being Quasimodo. It puts Cadosch into question, but he is anyway. He either had galloping trots or a UTI, either would affect his observations that morning. But overall, I'd question Richardson's statement over his lack of observation.

Personally, I think the murder was after John's impromptu boot repair, Long hearing a quarter hour chime, tallying up with her commute. But we have to explore all the angles, unlike John, who only saw the "right" one.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would a Barrister destroy Cadosch’s testimony in particular? If I remember correctly it’s your thinking that because he expressed a bit of caution about the direction of the word ‘no’ then his testimony about hearing the noise is ‘unsafe.’

Of cpurse it is unsafe if you are trying to suggest that he iscorrcet in

To most people, being cautious and accepting the possibility (however slight) of being wrong on one issue would be a sign of trustworthiness and believability in others but you seem to regard this as a detrimental trait?

To be honest Trevor I don’t know why you bother with the case if absolutely everyone involved cannot be trusted to any extent? And that doesn’t mean that which should accept everyone at face value (before you say it again) but no everyone is a compulsive liar.

Theres nothing ‘unreliable’ about Cadosch’s testimony except a presumption of unreliability on your part about everyone.

The witness statements are there to be tested and accepted or rejected not readily accepted as being correct, we can only work with what we have in statement form because we do not have the witnesses to cross-examine, and clear and obvious flaws can be seen in many of these readily accepted statements, but it seems you are one who cannot see these flaws or don't want to see them because to identify and accept these flaws might prejudice you own personal take on the case.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

I'd rather opt for him being mistaken about time, not telling a straight story a la Chandler, or even as Trev suggests, seeing the body and befouling his breeches.

Very plausible explanation, being mistaken about the time is a pattern that we have seen very often in this particular case.


The Baron

[The Baron]

I am becoming increasingly sceptical about Richardson's story. Firstly, he does not mention sitting on the step to Chandler, then at the inquest he does, saying he sat on the step to remove leather from his boot with a knife. Then he is asked to bring the knife to the inquest and it is clearly not up to the job he described. Then he changes his story and says it is another knife he used at the market - so he didn't remove leather from is boot in the yard.

I'm not sure which poster is Jon - but I share his aversion to simply dismissing statements as lies when they are inconvenient. However, the constantly changing nature of Richardson's statement regarding significant factors at the very least undermines his credibility.

Well said, that is the long and short of it, one cannot say Richardson was a reliable suspect with a straight face.

Any barrister will be able to discredit him easily.



The Baron

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Very plausible explanation, being mistaken about the time is a pattern that we have seen very often in this particular case.


The Baron

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that's a particular issue regarding Berner St? It may crop up in the odd witness statement. See Fanny in the Doorway for details.

(Strangely enough, I could swear I heard tea being spat out in Canada...)

[etenguy]

Hi Etenguy,

Jon is "Wickerman".

I agree, if looking to discount Richardson, his less than solid story is safer ground than his missing the body because of a combination of lighting and angles. Say, theoretically, he had a cursory glance at the padlock. That keeps his timeframe and allows for missing Annie. Then, later, he panics about being accused and says he knows for a fact she wasn't there. This allows for Phillips TOD, but doesn't incriminate Richardson. It's far more plausible than a set of circumstances that obscured his vision. Or him being Quasimodo. It puts Cadosch into question, but he is anyway. He either had galloping trots or a UTI, either would affect his observations that morning. But overall, I'd question Richardson's statement over his lack of observation.

Personally, I think the murder was after John's impromptu boot repair, Long hearing a quarter hour chime, tallying up with her commute. But we have to explore all the angles, unlike John, who only saw the "right" one.

Thanks Al, I recognise Wickerman of course.

I think it is difficult to be sure of the time Annie was killed, we have Phillips versus the witnesses. A dissertation by Wolf Vanderlinden called 'Considerable Doubt' and the death of Annie Chapman sets out a compelling case for Annie to have been killed around 4.30am which fits Phillip's estimate, though most, I think favour a later time of death.

[etenguy]

Jon is Wickerman.

Thanks Herlock.

[etenguy]

Well said, that is the long and short of it, one cannot say Richardson was a reliable suspect with a straight face.

Any barrister will be able to discredit him easily.

The Baron

I think the statement(s) as we have them make it difficult to understand what John Richardson actually did and therefore we have to approach with some caution. In that respect he is an unreliable witness in my view. If he faced a barrister and was questioned, he might be able to explain the situation better and give us more confidence, or indeed as you state, he may equally be totally discredited. Without that though, his information cannot be relied upon in my view.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The witness statements are there to be tested and accepted or rejected not readily accepted as being correct, we can only work with what we have in statement form because we do not have the witnesses to cross-examine, and clear and obvious flaws can be seen in many of these readily accepted statements, but it seems you are one who cannot see these flaws or don't want to see them because to identify and accept these flaws might prejudice you own personal take on the case.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve just said that we shouldn’t take everything at face value Trevor. You are the one that’s always claiming that no one can be trusted. Any study of the case is redundant if we take your default position that nothing’s trustworthy.

Tell me the ‘flaws’ in Cadosch’s statement. I can’t see one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well said, that is the long and short of it, one cannot say Richardson was a reliable suspect with a straight face.

Any barrister will be able to discredit him easily.



The Baron

Rubbish. Nothing shows that Richardson was a liar or blind (or a one eyed hunchback for that matter) The knife scenario is difficult to explain but it doesn’t mean that he lied only that we don’t have a fuller explanation. Why does Richardson have to have been wrong but Chandler had to have been correct?

Theres nothing definitely unreliable about Richardson but medical experts tell us that TOD estimations were definitely unreliable.

And yet you go for Phillips over Richardson, Cadosch and Long.