Richardson's View

[The Baron]

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.

To be fair, I am not buying Richardson's testimony completely.


Richardson said:

an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there.


Do we need a knife to feed a rabbit ?!

Do rabbits usually have difficulties eating carrot?!

How did Richardson know he will meet a rabbit, so that he took with him the knife which he usually doesn't carry ?!

Where did he meet the rabbit exactly, near the yard?!

What happened to the rabbit?!



The Baron

[etenguy]

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?

Hey Herlock

I do not know why Richardson might lie about sitting on the step, except to give more credence to his evidence and cement his crucial witness status for the papers et al (that old chestnut). It has been known to happen. Even so, it is a bit convoluted when there are far more simple options, one of which you cite.

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.

I think the second of your explanations is the more likely given later issues with Richardson's statements. However, the reason I struggle with accepting Richardson as a reliable witness is that the step sitting is just one of a number of significant elucidations (and in the case of the knife, contradictions) which undermine, in my view, either his credibility or his power of recall (which might mean he got the time wrong as the police postulated at the time).

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.

I don't have any issue with Cadosch's statements - quite what he heard and where from may be up for question, but nothing about what he said or did gives us a reason to doubt he was telling the truth as he understood it.

I

[Chava]

I don't have any issue with Cadosch's statements - quite what he heard and where from may be up for question, but nothing about what he said or did gives us a reason to doubt he was telling the truth as he understood it.

I agree. I don't think Cadosche is lying. But I also don't think he necessarily heard the murder. He heard someone say 'no' and it may have been from #29. The fact that he's not entirely sure where the noise came from suggests to me that it didn't come from right beside him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be fair, I am not buying Richardson's testimony completely.


Richardson said:

an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there.


Do we need a knife to feed a rabbit ?!

Do rabbits usually have difficulties eating carrot?!

How did Richardson know he will meet a rabbit, so that he took with him the knife which he usually doesn't carry ?!

Where did he meet the rabbit exactly, near the yard?!

What happened to the rabbit?!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree. I don't think Cadosche is lying. But I also don't think he necessarily heard the murder. He heard someone say 'no' and it may have been from #29. The fact that he's not entirely sure where the noise came from suggests to me that it didn't come from right beside him.

He expressed no doubt where the noise came from Chava. He was only cautious about the ‘no’ but his first instinct was that it came from number 29. People say that the ‘no’ could have come from elsewhere but I don’t buy it. If you hear a voice from less than 6 feet away how likely would it be that it came from a distance away. It smacks of wishful thinking imo.

[Abby Normal]

To be fair, I am not buying Richardson's testimony completely.


Richardson said:

an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there.


Do we need a knife to feed a rabbit ?!

Do rabbits usually have difficulties eating carrot?!

How did Richardson know he will meet a rabbit, so that he took with him the knife which he usually doesn't carry ?!

Where did he meet the rabbit exactly, near the yard?!

What happened to the rabbit?!



The Baron

lol! yes id like to know more to about this rabbit. im surprised the coroner wasnt all over it.

Diddles the cat, Richardsons rabbit, burgo the bloodhound. anymore silly beasts in this saga? : )

[etenguy]

I agree. I don't think Cadosche is lying. But I also don't think he necessarily heard the murder. He heard someone say 'no' and it may have been from #29. The fact that he's not entirely sure where the noise came from suggests to me that it didn't come from right beside him.

Has anyone seen how Cadosch described the word 'no' he heard - as a shout or a scream or something else. At the inquest he simply said he heard a voice say no - not even whether it was a male or female voice.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

lol! yes id like to know more to about this rabbit. im surprised the coroner wasnt all over it.

Diddles the cat, Richardsons rabbit, burgo the bloodhound. anymore silly beasts in this saga? : )

That escaped Gorilla?

[Abby Normal]

That escaped Gorilla?

missed that one! whats that from?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

missed that one! whats that from?

It's rattling about in the far reaches of my recall. There was a story about the killings being an escaped Gorilla. Someone will have the details.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

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?

Yes I’m aware of this Fish. Thank you.

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.

Semantics Fish. He was very obviously saying that if it had been there he couldn’t possibly have missed it. Therefore he was saying that it wasn’t there.

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.



As we have no reason to doubt Cadosch he is a persuasive witness to someone being in the yard after Chapman is alleged to have been dead.

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!

Chapmans body would have extended to between 5 and 6 feet from the level of the steps. She was lying with her knees outward. She also had her head turned to the right and with entrails and skin next to her face which seems likely to have extended (at least slightly) past the width of her shoulder. To say that he could have sat on a step 12 inches from the floor and missed seeing the body is stretching credibility to breaking point. But feel free to stretch away Fish it’s always easier to make things fit that way.

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.

And when we assess it without assuming strange behaviour or that the witnesses were cretins then we can come to an opinion as to likelihood without having to resort to “well it’s not impossible that....”

[Wickerman]

This is a very valid point Wick. Richardson’s story obviously came under scrutiny by the police and they found nothing to object to. So why the objections now?

My guess is two-fold.
1 - The ongoing tendency for some to try turn a witness into a suspect.
2 - The fact that the police knew far more about the case in general, and Richardson in particular, than we do today. This lack of surviving information is fuel for the modern theorist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's rattling about in the far reaches of my recall. There was a story about the killings being an escaped Gorilla. Someone will have the details.

I think it may have been an Orang Utan Al? Abby should know that one as his signature includes a quote from Edgar Allan Poe. It’s from A Murder In The Rue Morgue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My guess is two-fold.
1 - The ongoing tendency for some to try turn a witness into a suspect.
2 - The fact that the police knew far more about the case in general, and Richardson in particular, than we do today. This lack of surviving information is fuel for the modern theorist.

[DJA]