Richardson's View

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let´s take a look at that knife again, the one Richardson claimed he had cut away leather from his boot with. Here is the business, as per the Daily News:

"Was the front door open on Saturday morning.

The Witness-No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot.

What sort of a knife did you use?-One four or five inches long.

What do you usually use that knife for?-I had been using it to cut up a piece of carrot for the rabbit, and I afterwards put it in my pocket.

Do you generally keep it in your pocket?-No.

Why did you put it there on this occasion?-I suppose it was a mistake on my part.

When you had cut the piece of leather off your boot did you leave the house?-Yes. I tied my boot up and went out. I did not close the back door. It closes itself. I shut the front door. I was not in the house more than two minutes at the most. It was not quite light, but enough for me to see.

Did you notice any object in the yard?-No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.

You have heard where she was found?-Yes, I saw the body.

How came you to see it?-A man in the market told me there had been a murder in Hanbury-street. He did not know at which house. I saw the body from the adjoining yard.

When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.

Then all you did at Hanbury-street was to cut your boot?-That's all, sir."

Once the inquest was told about the knife, it was decided that Richardson should go and fetch it so that it could be presented to the inquest. When Richardson returned, this was what played out, once again as per the Daily News:

"John Richardson, re-called, handed to the Coroner a small table-knife with half the blade broken off. At the request of the Coroner he had been home to fetch it. It was the one with which he cut a piece off his boot last Saturday morning while sitting on the back doorstep at 29, Hanbury-street, and appeared to be a very ineffective weapon."

A small table knife. With half the blade broken off. Was that the knife Richardson had just described as being four or five inches long? Had the blade of that small table knife been 8-10 inches long before it broke off...?

Furthermore, we know from the Daily Telegraph that this knife was not able to cut away the leather Richardson said hurt his toe:

"John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market."

What I´m thinking here is that any leather that hurt the toe would have been situated inside the boot, and so it would be a fiddly exercise to cut it out. You would have to put the knife inside the boot and feel your way to the part you needed to cut out. And to be able to do the cutting, would you not need a sharp and pointed knife?

Would anybody even try that operation with a small table knife where the blade was broken off ...?

The only other option is that there was already a hole in the boot where the toe was, and that Richardson cut from the outside of the boot. Whichever applies, why is it that Richardson does not tell the inquest that the operation failed? Why does he go on to say that once he had cut the boot, he laced it up and went on his way? When he had not cut the boot at all?

I really don´t like this part of Richardsons testimony much.

. Furthermore, we know from the Daily Telegraph that this knife was not able to cut away the leather Richardson said hurt his toe:

"John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market."

Im not claiming to have an answer but I still can’t help wondering why no one at the time jumped on this very blatant anomaly unless a satisfactory explanation had been given somewhere?

The above quote says the he ‘cut’ his boot followed by ‘it was not sharp enough.’ The only way that I could suggest to try and explain is that, like the previous day, he either cut some leather or tried to, but it wasn’t sufficient and so he had to complete the operation with a sharper knife from the market. After all he’d have had to have been pretty stupid to have, after being sent to fetch the knife that he’d used, only to return with a completely different one.

An error of wording or understanding of what he might have actually said seems a possible, though obviously not conclusive, explanation for me. That he used his own knife but didn’t fully achieve the task resulting in him completing the task with a knife at the market makes sense as an action. The wording doesn’t fit though. So could the wording be wrong?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I wasn't aware he might have had epilepsy - but other than a few minutes of dazed confusion immediately following a seizure, I don't think it has lasting effects. Not a medic, but not heard of a link between epilepsy and general confusion.

Hi

Epilepsy is a multi faceted condition. The stereotypical seizures that people imagine are Tonic/Clonic seizures. Given that his morning routine was not disrupted, it's unlikely he'd had a seizure that morning, the after effects of such a seizure being more than a general confusion.

Absence epilepsy is a preferable option, the momentary loss of awareness. These only last a matter of seconds, often the sufferer is unaware of having had an absence. This type of epilepsy is far more common in children.

The other varieties would be unlikely to have affected Richardson unless he point blank lied about falling (Tonic and Atonic), either of which could have him falling down the cellar steps. A Myoclonic seizure is a short jolt action and would have no bearing.

Simple partial seizures are twitches and the like. Complex partial (discognative) seizures are a far more interesting proposition as the sufferer can be mobile and communicative, interestingly, fidgeting with clothes is a really common feature. But again, he got to work as usual, so it seems unlikely.

Any epilepsy will disqualify you from military service, same then as today. What bearing that has on being called as a witness, I don't know. I don't see it has any personally.

There you go. Don't say I never learned you nothing!

[Fisherman]

Let´s take a look at that knife again, the one Richardson claimed he had cut away leather from his boot with. Here is the business, as per the Daily News:

"Was the front door open on Saturday morning.

The Witness-No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot.

What sort of a knife did you use?-One four or five inches long.

What do you usually use that knife for?-I had been using it to cut up a piece of carrot for the rabbit, and I afterwards put it in my pocket.

Do you generally keep it in your pocket?-No.

Why did you put it there on this occasion?-I suppose it was a mistake on my part.

When you had cut the piece of leather off your boot did you leave the house?-Yes. I tied my boot up and went out. I did not close the back door. It closes itself. I shut the front door. I was not in the house more than two minutes at the most. It was not quite light, but enough for me to see.

Did you notice any object in the yard?-No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.

You have heard where she was found?-Yes, I saw the body.

How came you to see it?-A man in the market told me there had been a murder in Hanbury-street. He did not know at which house. I saw the body from the adjoining yard.

When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.

Then all you did at Hanbury-street was to cut your boot?-That's all, sir."

Once the inquest was told about the knife, it was decided that Richardson should go and fetch it so that it could be presented to the inquest. When Richardson returned, this was what played out, once again as per the Daily News:

"John Richardson, re-called, handed to the Coroner a small table-knife with half the blade broken off. At the request of the Coroner he had been home to fetch it. It was the one with which he cut a piece off his boot last Saturday morning while sitting on the back doorstep at 29, Hanbury-street, and appeared to be a very ineffective weapon."

A small table knife. With half the blade broken off. Was that the knife Richardson had just described as being four or five inches long? Had the blade of that small table knife been 8-10 inches long before it broke off...?

Furthermore, we know from the Daily Telegraph that this knife was not able to cut away the leather Richardson said hurt his toe:

"John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market."

What I´m thinking here is that any leather that hurt the toe would have been situated inside the boot, and so it would be a fiddly exercise to cut it out. You would have to put the knife inside the boot and feel your way to the part you needed to cut out. And to be able to do the cutting, would you not need a sharp and pointed knife?

Would anybody even try that operation with a small table knife where the blade was broken off ...?

The only other option is that there was already a hole in the boot where the toe was, and that Richardson cut from the outside of the boot. Whichever applies, why is it that Richardson does not tell the inquest that the operation failed? Why does he go on to say that once he had cut the boot, he laced it up and went on his way? When he had not cut the boot at all?

I really don´t like this part of Richardsons testimony much.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

hmm interesting. but would the ripper actually kill on his own doorstep? I think not.

Well technically it wasn't his own doorstep, but I take your point.
On the hand, would the Ripper kill during daylight? I assume it was quite light by 5:30. Why kill then?

so you think richardson was the ripper?

No, but I'm still piecing it all together, in my own mind.
Maybe you could help me with this...

Joseph Chandler, By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

I wonder why Richardson, having decided to sit on the step to cut his boot, doesn't just take the few extra steps to the cellar door, rather than just peering at it from the top doorstep as he normally does?

Anyway, as Chandler says, the door could swing outwards toward the fence palings.
So which of the following might be true?...

1. JR sat on the step with the door bumping up against his left side. The door closed of its own accord when he got up to leave.
2. JR pushed the door out wide enough that it did not swing back of its own accord when he got up. This meant he had to give it a tug for it to close, but otherwise the door is not obstructing his work.
3. When pushing the door out wide, the leading edge came into contact with the fence. It was this sound that Cadosch later heard, and not the sound of Annie falling.
4. JR actually walked completely outside, at least as far as the bottom step (the ground). The door then closed behind him. After observing the padlock was okay, he then sat down to tend to his boot, and of necessity, on the middle step. Once done, he got up and reopened the door, and it closed behind him as he walked back down the corridor.

[Abby Normal]

This is going to sound like a stupid question Abby but what did you type in?

richardson. it pulls up links including the witness page one and disertations and such

[etenguy]

Debs' discovery that Richardson might've been discharged from the army with Epilepsy may explain all his confusions.

If he was discharged from the army, it is safe to discharge him as a reliable witness too.

The Baron

I wasn't aware he might have had epilepsy - but other than a few minutes of dazed confusion immediately following a seizure, I don't think it has lasting effects. Not a medic, but not heard of a link between epilepsy and general confusion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Debs' discovery that Richardson might've been discharged from the army with Epilepsy may explain all his confusions.

If he was discharged from the army, it is safe to discharge him as a reliable witness too.



The Baron

You just can’t help yourself can you. First you try to dismiss Richardson with some laughable rabbit-related twaddle. Now you’re trying to dismiss him on the basis that he might have been discharged from the army with Epilepsy!

Your desperation shows through yet again Baron. Even if he did have epilepsy (and he might have) it didn’t stop him working. I have a friend with epilepsy who’s Operations Manager of an Engineering Company. Does that make him an unreliable manager?

What are you going to try next? His star sign perhaps?

[Joshua Rogan]

sidebar- When I was looking at some of reports I came across a story I dont recall seeing before.."Munster News and Limerick and Clare Advocate, Sept 26.......about nine o'clock on Sunday morning the body of a woman named Jane Savage, aged 26, was found on a railway siding near Butley, five miles south of Newcastle. She had evidently been dead some hours. Her throat was cut from side to side and there was a horrible gash in the abdomen. The woman lived with her stepfather and her mother, and when last seen was leaving a publichouse where she had been drinking. There were no signs of a struggle."

I think that speaks to some other threads who claim that the throat slitting/abdomen cutting murders of women during this period, on a Saturday night no less, were all "Jacks" work. Jack must have taken a road trip I guess. Ill just say that before others do...and take the blame for a silly, baseless claim. The rest who were assigning all such victims to one man can take the rest of any blame due when they post similar sentiments.

Er, Dr Phillips headed straight up there to view the body. So yes, it was thought a possibility that Jack had taken a road trip.

[The Baron]

When a witness behaves like that, it makes it difficult to believe other parts of their statement. That does not of course mean he lied about not seeing the body, but it is more difficult to rely on what he says in the circumstances.

Debs' discovery that Richardson might've been discharged from the army with Epilepsy may explain all his confusions.

If he was discharged from the army, it is safe to discharge him as a reliable witness too.



The Baron

[Michael W Richards]

Why do many press articles describe the voice heard from the other side of the fence as a womans? The Times, Sept 15th, The Irish Times, Sept 15th, St James Gazette Sept 15th, ..all perpetuating a myth, or did Cadosche give interviews outside of the Inquest that suggested he heard a woman?

sidebar- When I was looking at some of reports I came across a story I dont recall seeing before.."Munster News and Limerick and Clare Advocate, Sept 26.......about nine o'clock on Sunday morning the body of a woman named Jane Savage, aged 26, was found on a railway siding near Butley, five miles south of Newcastle. She had evidently been dead some hours. Her throat was cut from side to side and there was a horrible gash in the abdomen. The woman lived with her stepfather and her mother, and when last seen was leaving a publichouse where she had been drinking. There were no signs of a struggle."

I think that speaks to some other threads who claim that the throat slitting/abdomen cutting murders of women during this period, on a Saturday night no less, were all "Jacks" work. Jack must have taken a road trip I guess. Ill just say that before others do...and take the blame for a silly, baseless claim. The rest who were assigning all such victims to one man can take the rest of any blame due when they post similar sentiments.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten and Abby,

I think that this is one of many that we will never get an explanation that satisfies all. As I said earlier - why did no one point this obvious discrepancy out unless it was, in some way, explained at the time? I don’t know? I looked at the report in The Telegraph and thought how much adding two words might make to a report?

or The Times

Whatever the true answer is I don’t think it calls into question his testimony about the body not being there.

It is unlikely the transcript and newspapers all missed out the 'tried to' because the inquest asked to see the knife and when he returned it seemed to be the first the inquest heard he had actually used another knife. I fall short of calling him a liar - but he was at best confusing or else deliberately opaque for whatever reason. When a witness behaves like that, it makes it difficult to believe other parts of their statement. That does not of course mean he lied about not seeing the body, but it is more difficult to rely on what he says in the circumstances.

I don't know why all three witnesses were not asked more about their information, to clear up discrepancies and to better understand what they saw or heard. It seems a poorly executed inquest in that respect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Abby and Herlock

I agree with you Abby, he contradicts himself at the inquest and then brings a knife that he apparently didn't use instead of bringing the one he did use, which is what was asked for. It could be he was worried about bringing a sharp knife to the inquest or some other reason - but the fact that he appears to have lied at the inquest from discrepancies in his own statements means his credibility is in question.

I would add, his keeping a rabbit and feeding it before he goes to work does not cast any shade on his character.

Hi Eten and Abby,

I think that this is one of many that we will never get an explanation that satisfies all. As I said earlier - why did no one point this obvious discrepancy out unless it was, in some way, explained at the time? I don’t know? I looked at the report in The Telegraph and thought how much adding two words might make to a report?

John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had (tried to) cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market

or The Times

. He stood on the steps and tried to cut a piece of leather off one of his boots.

Whatever the true answer is I don’t think it calls into question his testimony about the body not being there.

[etenguy]

Yep. My point exactly. It's certainly possible the voice he heard was Chapman. But it comes from 'the yard' of 29. Maybe. She would have been right by him at that moment. I can't believe he wouldn't have mentioned that. His evidence suggests he heard a voice from in the yard, not right beside the fence he is also right beside...

Indeed. I'm surprised he wasn't pressed more about what he heard.

[Joshua Rogan]

Rabbits were not kept exclusively as pets, they were also kept for their meat. Richardson may have kept a rabbit for that purpose.

Yes. It's unlikely he would personalise it as "my" rabbit if he was only fattening it up for Sumday lunch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

yup. do a search instead-worked for me

This is going to sound like a stupid question Abby but what did you type in?