Richardson's View

[Abby Normal]

Richardson was told of the murder while he was at the market in his position as porter. He returned to Hanbury Street a couple of minutes before the body was taken away from the yard. He's the one person that morning to have seen the spot both with and without the body in situ. There will have been a number of people about to know whether it was possible he could have missed the body had it been there at 4:45am.

Who was talking in the yard at 29 Hanbury Street and what hit the fence by where the body was found when Richardson was at the market? He can't be in two places at once and it can't be fathomable that anyone could be in the yard at the time Cadosch heard the voice and fence thump and have ignored the body if it had been there longer.

salient point curious
cadosch either heard the murderer and his victim, or a couple of people who would have seen the body had it been there and chose to do nothing.
Maybe thats what he heard.

man: hey look at that dead mutilated body there. should we alert anyone?
women: no

lol.I think its rather obvious it must have been the killer and chapman.. she wasnt there when richardson was.

[Paddy Goose]

As to Cadosh in a modern-day trial, a barrister would destroy his testimony.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor, I asked you who was on trial and you didn't answer.

This was a coroner's inquest, not a trial.

But suppose there had been a trial. Someone was charged with the murder of Annie Chapman. Your comment presumes Cadosh is called as a prosecution witness, and on cross examination the barrister for the defense destroys his testimony. You didn't explain why you assume that. Cadosh could just as easily be called as a defense witness - if he were called to testify at all.

ps

how did this become a Cadosh thread anyway? The title says Richardson

[barnflatwyngarde]

"And I’d ask again. If he did hear the sound of someone/something brushing against the fence what else could it have been?"
(Herlock Sholmes #317)

I suggested earlier on #121 that it was at least within the realms of possibility that the killer left the murder scene not via the "close" of 29 Hanbury Street, but by clambering over the back wall.
It would certainly be the quickest way to put some distance between himself and the murder scene.
To answer Herlock's question, it is certainly possible that the sound Cadosch heard, was in fact the killer clambering over the back wall.

[Joshua Rogan]

"And I’d ask again. If he did hear the sound of someone/something brushing against the fence what else could it have been?"
(Herlock Sholmes #317)

I suggested earlier on #121 that it was at least within the realms of possibility that the killer left the murder scene not via the "close" of 29 Hanbury Street, but by clambering over the back wall.
It would certainly be the quickest way to put some distance between himself and the murder scene.
To answer Herlock's question, it is certainly possible that the sound Cadosch heard, was in fact the killer clambering over the back wall.

Unfortunately, there was no back wall, at least not one that could be clambered over. The yard of number 29 backed directly onto the wall of a factory.
There was an alley behind some of the other houses, but it ended at no.27, so he would have had to climb into Cadosche's yard to access it. Or perhaps clambered over the fence the other side and escaped thrrough that house. The police did check for any signs that the fences had been scaled though, and found none.

[Fisherman]

It means that they would have looked at anything that Richardson said or did in detail. Primarily to see if he was a suspect or not but during this focus do you think that if anything stood out to them suggesting that he wasn’t a reliable witness that they would have ignored it. They looked at him and found nothing.

Yes, Herlock, they looked at Richardson. It is stated very clearly.

And yes, Herlock, they did not find anything.

The tricky thing is that not finding anything is not the same thing as nothing being there. Unfair, I know - but there you are.

What they looked for was evidence that he was linked to the murder, that too is clearly defined. You donīt search his clothes to find out whether he sat on the steps or not. That wonīt be given away by whatīs in the clothes. For example.

You may feel optimistic about the police having established that Richardson was there, sat on the step and would have seen the body if it was there.

I donīt deal in optimism in that kind of way, just as I donīt deal in all people sitting straight on stairs. I find the world is too complicated and unpredictable to make those kinds of calls.

But carry on, by all means, and have fun along the road.

[Chava]

Hi Trevor, I asked you who was on trial and you didn't answer.

This was a coroner's inquest, not a trial.

But suppose there had been a trial. Someone was charged with the murder of Annie Chapman. Your comment presumes Cadosh is called as a witness by the prosecution and the defense barrister destroys his testimony. You didn't explain why you assume that. Cadosh could just as easily be called as a defense witness - if he were called to testify at all.

ps

how did this become a Cadosh thread anyway? The title says Richardson

Cadoche comes into this thread because he corroborates Richardson. Richardson is back there at 4.45 and doesn't see the body ergo there's no body there. Cadoche apparently hears the murder at 5.20 or so.

However I'm pointing out that it might be possible for Richardson to have opened the door, looked the wrong way, and not seen a body. And it might also be possible for Cadoche to have been mistaken in what he says he heard. A voice saying 'no' which comes from 'the yard' could have been someone saying 'no' in the yard that backs onto #29's yard. The bang against the fence could have been anything up to and including a wind gust blowing the door. Let's not forget that any struggle at the point of that 'no' being said would have been carrying on right next to him. Also it's likely some few words were spoken in the moments beforehand as Chapman led her killer into the yard. And he doesn't appear to have heard that either. Now it's certainly possible he didn't notice what was going on. But if you allow for that then I think you must also allow for the possibility that John Richardson didn't notice what was going on either.

[Simon Wood]

At the risk of repeating myself.

Star, 13th September 1888—

“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.”

[Michael W Richards]

I agree. However thinking that the sound came from the yard in 29 suggests what Cadoche heard was a little further off than a couple of feet away from his ear. That's one experiment that does still hold good. Have someone stand horizontally to your left. Let's be generous and put them 4' away. And have them say 'no'. You would know where that sound came from because it's really close. And the murderer would know you were there. Because I doubt the backdoor of #27 was much quieter than the back door of #29. But Our Brave Killer holds his ground. Sticks around. Does a little knife work. Even though his victim has been able to say 'no' and was likely overheard. Even though, if the neighbour did raise a hue and cry, our guy would have been caught like a rat in a trap because there was no way out. That argues an exceptionally cool calm & collected murderer. We won't know the truth of this. But I think we can at least question the idea that Chapman was murdered at around 5.25 am rather than around, say, 4.00 am. Apart from anything else, where the hell was she between 1.45 am when she leaves the lodging house and 5.20 am when she was presumed killed? No one saw her. Hallie R thinks she was rough sleeping in the back of #29. Which has been mentioned as a possibility by no one else ever including the inhabitants of #29 at the time.

Richardson wasn't there looking for a body. He wanted to check his ma's packing business stuff. I don't believe he sat on the second step because it's low to the ground and if he really was tending to his boot it would be too awkward an angle. I think that was embroidery on his part to emphasize he hadn't seen anything. My opinion is that he opened the door. Looked to his right. Saw the doors down to the seller were undisturbed. Turned and went back out. The body may not have been there. But the door is an effective barrier and it was dark. I think it's possible she was there--and dead--already.

The problem with that Chava is twofold.....it relies on Richardson being incorrect, and for Cadosche to be wrong about which yard he heard the noises from. No-one other than the killer was in that yard with a dead woman lying there at 5:15 to 5:25, and Cadosche heard a female voice say "no".

From Richardson: " I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then"...... Coroner: "You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found?"- Yes, I must have seen her."..... Coroner:"Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard."

Cadosche: "As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29"

Note that he heard the voice when he would be in the closest proximity to where Annie is found, as he re-entered the house.

[The Baron]

If Richardson said that he entered the yard, and looked behind the door and there was nothing their..

Against the medical report, which was supported by the rigor, digesting time, and the temperature of the body, I will still prefer the TOD giving by Dr. Phillips as the most likly one.

Let alone being unreliable witness, with a door securing the body.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, Herlock, they looked at Richardson. It is stated very clearly.

And yes, Herlock, they did not find anything.

The tricky thing is i not finding anything is not the same thing as nothing being there. Unfair, I know - but there you are.

What they looked for was evidence that he was linked to the murder, that too is clearly defined. You donīt search his clothes to find out whether he sat on the steps or not. That wonīt be given away by whatīs in the clothes. For example.

You may feel optimistic about the police having established that Richardson was there, sat on the step and would have seen the body if it was there.

I donīt deal in optimism in that kind of way, just as I donīt deal in all people sitting straight on stairs. I find the world is too complicated and unpredictable to make those kinds of calls.

But carry on, by all means, and have fun along the road.

Optimism isn’t really the word Fish. It’s a simple matter of going for the plausible over the implausible. Richardson sat on the step and didn’t see the body because it wasn’t there (as he stated at the Inquest) This is confirmed by Cadosch (who had no reason to lie) who heard the word ‘no’ and something brush against a fence in a yard where there was, according to you, an horrifically mutilated corpse.

And to dispute that we have Richardson squeezing through a partially open door whilst all the while looking only to his right then sitting facing right with the door against the left hand side of his body and who then doesn’t realise the obstructive power of a door.

Not it much of a choice really.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Richardson said that he entered the yard, and looked behind the door and there was nothing their..

Against the medical report, which was supported by the rigor, digesting time, and the temperature of the body, I will still prefer the TOD giving by Dr. Phillips as the most likly one.

Let alone being unreliable witness, with a door securing the body.



The Baron

I’ve no doubt the YOU would Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

. unreliable witness

I think that whenever this phrase is used we should replace the word ‘unreliable’ with ‘inconvenient.’

[Fisherman]

Optimism isn’t really the word Fish. It’s a simple matter of going for the plausible over the implausible.

Hasnīt it dawned on you yet, Herlock, that:

A/ Not everybody has the same view on what is plausible or not, and
B/ Things that seem implausible (at least to you, that is) are nevertheless possible?

Richardson sat on the step and didn’t see the body because it wasn’t there (as he stated at the Inquest)

He actually never said the body was not there. He said he should have seen it if it was there, which is the kind of wording we use when we havent checked. It is the same as saying that he THOUGHT he should have seen it, nothing else.

This is confirmed by Cadosch (who had no reason to lie) who heard the word ‘no’ and something brush against a fence in a yard where there was, according to you, an horrifically mutilated corpse.

No, it is not confirmed by Cadosch. Unless you claim that Cadosch was a spectator at 4.45...? You see, otherwise he can not confirm that Richardson checked and that there was no body. What Cadosch claims is to have heard a word and a noise that cannot have been Chapman. Because THIS IS CONFIRMED by Long, who saw Chapman outside the yard at a later stage.
So much for confirmations, Herlock.

And to dispute that we have Richardson squeezing through a partially open door whilst all the while looking only to his right then sitting facing right with the door against the left hand side of his body and who then doesn’t realise the obstructive power of a door.

He would not have to squeeze at all, that is your own invention and not a very good one. He could have opened the door to a rather wide angle and sat down straight on the stairs without being able to see Chapman. It hinges on how far out from the facade and from the doorblade his eyes were. All that stuff you keep on spewing here about minimal door openings and Richardson trying his body at contortionism is ridiculous and does not belong in a sound debate, Iīm afraid. Make a simple drawing from above and check what it takes for Richardson to see the area where Chapman was lying instead. Use your time productively, Herlock!

Not it much of a choice really.

When we cannot see all the options, that as what we end up with. Itīs not until we understand the width of a problem that we can assess all the choices.

[Fisherman]

At the risk of repeating myself.

Star, 13th September 1888—

“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.”

I donīt mind, Simon. It is perhaps the most useful post altogether on this thread.

[Chava]

The problem with that Chava is twofold.....it relies on Richardson being incorrect, and for Cadosche to be wrong about which yard he heard the noises from. No-one other than the killer was in that yard with a dead woman lying there at 5:15 to 5:25, and Cadosche heard a female voice say "no".

From Richardson: " I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then"...... Coroner: "You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found?"- Yes, I must have seen her."..... Coroner:"Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard."

Cadosche: "As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29"

Note that he heard the voice when he would be in the closest proximity to where Annie is found, as he re-entered the house.

Forgive me, but I don't see the word 'female' in Cadosche's testimony. He says he heard a voice. No gender provided.
And if you look at the pix of the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street I think you'll be surprised how shallow they are. So I'm not buying the idea that Richardson perched on the second step to do anything to his boot. He'd have to fold himself in half to do that unless he is very very short. That 2nd step is maybe 12" off the ground.