Richardson's View

[harry]

The original arguement was that the body wouldn't have been seen by Richardson,because the door would block the line of vision.
Cannot see your remark about darkness Fisherman,as Richardson was nearer to the body than from where the photo was taken.

[etenguy]

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.

Hi Herlock

I certainly agree with you regarding whether he would have seen poor Annie's body had it been in the yard and if Richardson sat on the second step to deal with his boots. I can't see any reasonable situation in which he could fail to see her in those circumstances.

I disagree about the reliability of his statements though. They are at best confusing and certainly suspect given the significant changes he made as his statement grew. You are of course right to highlight that there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this and if we were able to question him, he might be able to explain more fully. It could of course go the other way and he might be caught out in embellishing his story. I have checked a number of newspaper reports on this site and none of them report Richardson sitting on the step to work on his boots, nor does he appear to have told Chandler that. The first time I can find it mentioned is at the inquest. Again, there are potential innocent explanations, but it does add to the feeling that he may have embellished.

[Fisherman]

The original arguement was that the body wouldn't have been seen by Richardson,because the door would block the line of vision.
Cannot see your remark about darkness Fisherman,as Richardson was nearer to the body than from where the photo was taken.

You cannot see my remark? Maybe itīs too dark, Harry?

[Fisherman]

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.

We can actually talk in terms of "possibilities" too, Herlock. Like it or not. And you may find that we define that term differently, as well as "likely".

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure which poster is Jon - but I share his aversion to simply dismissing statements as lies when they are inconvenient.

That will be Wickerman, etenguy. And I too dislike calling people liars with nothing to show for it.

However, the constantly changing nature of Richardson's statement regarding significant factors at the very least undermines his credibility.

Which is why I point to the possibility that he could have been less than truthful. In his case, there IS something to show for the suggestion.

[Fisherman]

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.

That is anybodyīs choice. What I do is to warn against discarding either possibility, because both may apply.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Herlock

I certainly agree with you regarding whether he would have seen poor Annie's body had it been in the yard and if Richardson sat on the second step to deal with his boots. I can't see any reasonable situation in which he could fail to see her in those circumstances.

I disagree about the reliability of his statements though. They are at best confusing and certainly suspect given the significant changes he made as his statement grew. You are of course right to highlight that there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this and if we were able to question him, he might be able to explain more fully. It could of course go the other way and he might be caught out in embellishing his story. I have checked a number of newspaper reports on this site and none of them report Richardson sitting on the step to work on his boots, nor does he appear to have told Chandler that. The first time I can find it mentioned is at the inquest. Again, there are potential innocent explanations, but it does add to the feeling that he may have embellished.

Richardson's story - complete with boot cutting - was reported in several newspapers on the 10th, well before his inquest appearance. Cadosche's too.

Eg. Echo 10th Sept

"At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, of 2, St. John-street, son of the landlady of 29, Hanbury-street, the proprietor of a packing-case business, as usual went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. A short while before there had been a burglary in this place. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot"

[Fisherman]

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

So did the police, so you need to shake your head at them too ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I certainly agree with you regarding whether he would have seen poor Annie's body had it been in the yard and if Richardson sat on the second step to deal with his boots. I can't see any reasonable situation in which he could fail to see her in those circumstances.

I disagree about the reliability of his statements though. They are at best confusing and certainly suspect given the significant changes he made as his statement grew. You are of course right to highlight that there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this and if we were able to question him, he might be able to explain more fully. It could of course go the other way and he might be caught out in embellishing his story. I have checked a number of newspaper reports on this site and none of them report Richardson sitting on the step to work on his boots, nor does he appear to have told Chandler that. The first time I can find it mentioned is at the inquest. Again, there are potential innocent explanations, but it does add to the feeling that he may have embellished.

Hi Eten,

The problem for me is why then would Richardson lie about sitting on that step? After all he could have told Chandler that he’d just opened the door enough to stick his head out to check the cellar doors and so the body might or might not have been there for all he’d known. Why was he so adamant to tell the police that the body wasn’t there?

He would have been taking a large risk if he’d denied being at number 29 of course but he might easily have said that he never went to the yard door. That he just went inside to pick something up from his mother’s?

I accept that we can’t know for certain of course but I think it likelier that either Chandler misheard him during an interview in the passageway with no notes being taken. Or, in that interview in hardly ideal circumstances, Richardson just didn’t bother mentioning sitting on the step if he wasn’t pushed for detail. But at the Inquest, under oath, and after he’d heard it questioned about whether he could have missed the body or not, he explains fully why he couldn’t have missed her.

Then we have Cadosch who points to someone in the yard half an hour later and despite a desperate attempt to discredit him there really is nothing to show that he lied about what he heard.

The cumulative effect for me is that Richardson sat on the step and had an ample view of the yard which allowed him to say with confidence that he couldn’t have missed it had it been there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So did the police, so you need to shake your head at them too ...

Because at the time they considered doctors almost infallible but the Coroner accepted that he was probably wrong.

[harry]

Not too dark Fisherman.I would have noticed if it was there.
So would Richardson,and how someone could disbelieve that opinion,when the remark could be tested,takes a lot of understanding.So it is not his honesty that should be questioned,that is not in doubt,he should be preferred because the time of death can be more readily accepted,he being truthful,as at a later time than the untested opinions of others.

[Joshua Rogan]

Because at the time they considered doctors almost infallible but the Coroner accepted that he was probably wrong.

Phillips' earlier ToD is almost certainly what led to the article in the Star about Richardson's story being doubted. The Echo carries the same story, but with slight differences, especially the last sentance.

Echo 13 Sept;

"The police efforts are today being vigorously proceeded with, especially in the direction of settling the question of the exact time at which the murder of Annie Chapman actually occurred. Some doubt was originally thrown by them 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 that no signs of the murder were then apparent. Proof is now being sought to establish the fact that Richardson was right as to the time."

[Fisherman]

Not too dark Fisherman.I would have noticed if it was there.

It was actually a joke about my remark that you couldnīt see, Harry. I know that you would have seen the body if it was there and you looked at it. So would I. But if I did not look at it, I certainly could have missed it. And the doorblade could well have obscured it completely or to a large degree, depending on Richardsons position. It really is that simple.

So would Richardson,and how someone could disbelieve that opinion,when the remark could be tested,takes a lot of understanding.So it is not his honesty that should be questioned,that is not in doubt,he should be preferred because the time of death can be more readily accepted,he being truthful,as at a later time than the untested opinions of others.

He being truthful? But you donīt know that, Harry. Just read the thread, more and more posters who take the time to check him out tend to loose faith in him. And thatīs exactly as it should be, given his varying accounts.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then we have Cadosch who points to someone in the yard half an hour later and despite a desperate attempt to discredit him there really is nothing to show that he lied about what he heard.

This is the contentious issue with his testimony which suggests he heard "noises and voices"

Bearing in mind the time and the fact that it would still have been relatively quiet It cannot be taken for granted that the noises and voices he supposedly heard came from where he said they did. In the quietness of the morning, sounds and voices would carry.

In fact, he stated that he "believed" it came from 29, that is not conclusive proof so his testimony is unsafe!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Because at the time they considered doctors almost infallible but the Coroner accepted that he was probably wrong.

No, they did not consider doctors infallible at all. They gave them credit for their knowledge, the way we do. They are valuable expert witnesses. But doctors were questioned all the time, the way for example Llewellyn was hounded by Baxter.