Richardson's View

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[Fisherman]

LetŽs 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 IŽm 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 donŽt like this part of Richardsons testimony much.

[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!

[Herlock Sholmes]

LetŽs 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 IŽm 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 donŽt 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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I should have added to post #402

After Richardson returned to the Inquest with the knife why didn’t the Coroner say “Well go and get the knife that you used then!”

I find it difficult to understand why the Coroner let this pass? An issue about a knife....at an Inquest into an horrific knife murder......questioning a man who was at the scene of that murder?!

[Michael W Richards]

The very act of sitting down on the step implies he had to crouch with his head lower and oriented forward. Past where the door might have blocked his vision. This is a human being were talking about, she was only 5 feet tall but in this situation she is five feet long. I cant seriously entertain the idea that he would get into that sitting position and trim his boot without being aware of a body lying there. As I said before, if you choose to believe that he did miss seeing her there is still the pertinent fact that between 5:10 and 5:25ish a person spoke on the other side of Cadosches fence. He heard the voice when he came back from the loo, at the closest point he would have been from the actual murder spot. Within 10 feet or so. So you have 2 witnesses you need to discredit. Long being wrong is just a by-product of the facts as they are, Annie was dead or being killed when she thought she saw her. This now leaves us with what would have to be a wildly incorrect TOD assumption by the medical personelle. Or does it.

"I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death". "I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood." "The thickening of the tongue would be one of the signs of suffocation? - Yes."

It seems to me that the fact that someone is in that yard between 5:00 and 5:30 and that "no" is the word heard by Cadosche, we have evidence that suggests perhaps he heard the beginning of the killer strangling, or garroting her. That leaves us with about 45 minutes minimum for the body to be examined for the first time by a professional. Her discovery at around 6 means that the killer had left before then. So, we have 30 minutes or so to kill her and mutilate her and then leave unseen. And about 30 minutes or so from the time she is splayed open to the time she will be examined, presuming that the killer left no later than 5:45. "But it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning" and the body would be more apt to cool rapidly".

If youre of the mind to, you can make a sensible scenario from that data. Richardson sat on the steps before Annie had been in the yard, she arrived after that, with her killer, before Cadosche goes to the privy. She is killed between 12:15 and 12:25ish. The killer spends about 15 minutes there. "I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour". He leaves well before Annie is discovered. The medical examiner arrives at 6:15ish, and begins to examine the condition of the body. Annie has been laid open for perhaps 45 minutes now.

If that is the case, then Long was simply mistaken about her id. "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning". At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them." Yet with this couple she did get a good look at them. Seems convenient that on this particular morning she did take specific notice of a couple when it was common to see them about at that time and that she rarely noticed them as a result.

I think she wanted to be a part of this case. Like we see so often in all these events. This was big news stuff, a person might profit from being associated with the crimes as a witness, be the talk of the town, and maybe be seen as an upstanding citizen to boot. I think Mrs Long decided she had seen Annie for whatever motives she had, but I dont think it was anything more nefarious than seeking publicity.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Obviously in error it would seem, which again goes to the actual point of that inclusion in my post. Jack the Ripper was very blatantly not the only killer in England at that same specific point in time that slit ladies throats then mutilated their abdomens. On a weekend no less. If the fact that only 5 of the 12 victims in the Unsolved Murder file are presumed to be by this killer isnt enough.

[The Baron]

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?

Excuses.. excuses.. , thats the only thing we are hearing from the other side of the fence.

And you have a rabbit in your house (which is only an assumption) and you want to feed it, you go to the kitchen, open the drawer, and you choose between all the knives there the broken one and no else to cut the carrot (which cannot be fed directly to the rabbit) and you so happened to forget it in your pocket which you usually don't carry there!


Why the broken Knife?!


The Baron

[Abby Normal]

I should have added to post #402

After Richardson returned to the Inquest with the knife why didn’t the Coroner say “Well go and get the knife that you used then!”

I find it difficult to understand why the Coroner let this pass? An issue about a knife....at an Inquest into an horrific knife murder......questioning a man who was at the scene of that murder?!

i know right? its mind boggling. the coroner, after crafty and deft questioning gets him to admit he actually lied and used a sharp knife, one he probably had with him at the scene of the crime its suddenly dropped with no further questions asked? weird

[Fisherman]

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?

That would be convenient, of course. Then again, many anomalies are left untouched upon, and it is only with hindsight that we realize how dumb it is.

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.

Some would say he would be pretty stupid to return with an eight inch very sharp blade if that was what he used to cut the leather. That is to say IF he cut any leather in the first place. There are drawbacks to both scenarios.

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?

The wording can always be wrong. But truth be told, if you are going to post that whenever the phrase unreliable witness is used, we should replace the word ‘unreliable’ with ‘inconvenient’, that will seriously detract from whatever credibility can be ascribed to the suggestion of errors of understanding. What goes around comes around, sort of. No harm meant.
These are tough calls to make, and personally, IŽd say that it is only when a wording is very unrealistic that it can be thrown forward that there may have been an error of hearing. I have had too many suggestions of how Mizen must would have misheard "a policeman is really needed in Bucks Row" for "a policeman in Bucks Row sent me to fetch you"...

[Fisherman]

I should have added to post #402

After Richardson returned to the Inquest with the knife why didn’t the Coroner say “Well go and get the knife that you used then!”

I find it difficult to understand why the Coroner let this pass? An issue about a knife....at an Inquest into an horrific knife murder......questioning a man who was at the scene of that murder?!

The knife he eventually used was not his own, I believe, it was a knife he supposedly borrowed at the market.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excuses.. excuses.. , thats the only thing we are hearing from the other side of the fence.

And you have a rabbit in your house (which is only an assumption) and you want to feed it, you go to the kitchen, open the drawer, and you choose between all the knives there the broken one and no else to cut the carrot (which cannot be fed directly to the rabbit) and you so happened to forget it in your pocket which you usually don't carry there!


Why the broken Knife?!


The Baron

You keep making faulty assumptions quite intentionally to try a dismiss Richardson. We don’t know that he got the knife from a drawer. It might very well have been kept near to where the rabbit was kept. The fact that it was broken would explain why it might have been left outside. Either way, you’ve posted some complete nonsense about the rabbit about which you appear to have an obsession. He fed a rabbit.....this should be end of. The rabbit has no connection to these events.

What Richardson said about the knife appears not to make sense so.......

1) If we can see that why did no one at the time point that out?

2) Why would Richardson think that he could get away with bringing the wrong knife when asked for the one that he’d used?

3) Why, when he apparently brought the wrong knife to the Inquest, did the Coroner not send him to fetch the correct knife?

Could you try giving a remotely sensible answer to these three questions that doesn’t involve rabbits.