Richardson's View

[Joshua Rogan]

Tempting as it may be, and frustrating as it is, I don't think we can take newspaper report wording as gospel. The Daily News described irichardson"s knife as a" small table-knife with half the blade broken off"
whereas the ELO said it was a
"rusty little table knife without a handle"

That doesn't leave much knife. ..Maybe it didn't exist at all?

[Fisherman]

Tempting as it may be, and frustrating as it is, I don't think we can take newspaper report wording as gospel. The Daily News described irichardson"s knife as a" small table-knife with half the blade broken off"
whereas the ELO said it was a
"rusty little table knife without a handle"

That doesn't leave much knife. ..Maybe it didn't exist at all?

Good question! The handle on a table knife is typically mounted on the back end of the metal that makes up both blade and handle support. Perhaps that was it: a table knife where the handle had come off, leaving only the metal part that runs through the handle and supports it, and with half the blade gone. That is the only way I can see my way through to the papers being correct. Then again, why mention a missing handle and not mention a halved blade...?
I think it would be wise to accept that we may be dealing with sloppy reporting here. Any which way, it does. ot seem like a knife that lent itself well to cutting leather.

[etenguy]

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!

Thanks Al - really interesting post.

[etenguy]

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?!

You'd think. Not Richardson's fault of course, but leaves us with a confusing story from Richardson.

[etenguy]

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?

Hi Herlock

You're absolutely correct, we could speculate scenarios, and reasonable ones at that, that would clear up the confusion above about the knife. We could also do that around Chandler who reported that Richardson initially said he did not go down the steps. And we could probably do that too about how he expressed himself to suggest he successfully cut his boot before later saying he did it at the market in the end. But we do see a pattern of behaviour in his communication, either contradicting himself or being very unclear. I think there are too many examples in what is a relatively short narrative to conclude anything other than the issue, whatever it was nerves, shock, poor communication skills, deliberate obfuscation etc... arose from Richardson. Hence caution about the other parts of his narrative.

Given the way he communicated about other elements of his statement, I could quite imagine that if after quite clearly saying he would definitely have seen the body had it been there, if someone asked 'are you sure?' he might have contradicted himself again and said something else.

[Fisherman]

Hi Herlock

You're absolutely correct, we could speculate scenarios, and reasonable ones at that, that would clear up the confusion above about the knife. We could also do that around Chandler who reported that Richardson initially said he did not go down the steps. And we could probably do that too about how he expressed himself to suggest he successfully cut his boot before later saying he did it at the market in the end. But we do see a pattern of behaviour in his communication, either contradicting himself or being very unclear. I think there are too many examples in what is a relatively short narrative to conclude anything other than the issue, whatever it was nerves, shock, poor communication skills, deliberate obfuscation etc... arose from Richardson. Hence caution about the other parts of his narrative.

Given the way he communicated about other elements of his statement, I could quite imagine that if after quite clearly saying he would definitely have seen the body had it been there, if someone asked 'are you sure?' he might have contradicted himself again and said something else.

Lawyers typically divide witnesses up in good witnesses and bad witnesses, going on the impression they are likely to make on a jury. I think it is safe to say that John Richardson would have been referred to the "bad witness" category. And actually, it does not necessarily say anything about his veracity. It only says that he was never going to be able to convince a jury about being correct, and as such, he would be likely to do more damage than good to the cause he was championing.

[Michael W Richards]

For the sake of accuracy,....A table knife of that era would have wood/bone/ivory and to a lesser degree plastic handles which would be screw mounted to the knifes' tang. Missing a handle could mean as little as one of those 2 attached panels on the tang, or both, missing.

[The Baron]

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.

Richardson:

"I kept the knife upstairs at John-street"



Does 'upstairs' mean 'outside' to you?

He fed a rabbit.....this should be end of. The rabbit has no connection to these events.

I have to disappoint you, but this is not the end of it.

The rabbit is connected to the testimony of Richardson which is connected to the TOD.

They are those small details that tell the tails.


No wonder you don't feel them important.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson:

"I kept the knife upstairs at John-street"



Does 'upstairs' mean 'outside' to you?






I have to disappoint you, but this is not the end of it.

The rabbit is connected to the testimony of Richardson which is connected to the TOD.

They are those small details that tell the tails.


No wonder you don't feel them important.



The Baron

I don’t feel them important because they aren’t important. He had a rabbit....so what......how he acquired it or how long he’d had it or what colour it was or why Richardson fed it chopped up carrots or in which area he kept the knife are only relevant issues to someone trying to twist them to try and make them appear sinister.

Youve already tried to dismiss Richardson by using a joke quote about him having one good eye, long hair and a body twisted to the right.

Then you tried to dismiss him on the grounds that he ‘might’ have suffered from epilepsy.

And of course you’ve tried to make it sound weird that a man should keep a rabbit.

Instead of looking at the issues reasonably you are simply trying any desperate measure to try and dismiss Richardson as a witness.

~~~~

It’s pretty obvious Baron that your bunny obsession is simply a distraction. We’re all aware of the issue with the testimony regarding the knife but it’s noticeable that you make no attempt to respond to the 3 questions below.

. 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?

We can’t answer based on known facts but we can postulate. As we know that reporting wasn’t always accurate the issues with the 3 questions above would all cease to be issues if those at the time were aware of an explanation.

Or then again perhaps the rabbit switched the knives?

[Fisherman]

Herlock, if I may?

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

When Lechmere testified, there were things that should be examined closer, but werenīt. Like how he supposedly said that another PC was in place ( a juror asked about it, had it denied, and that was it), like how he had taken twice as long time as he should have to reach Bucks Row from Doveton Street and so on. Basically, I think that we must weigh in that an inquest aimed to establish the cause of death and not to find the killer. Anomalies were more likely to be brushed to the side. One example is how Baxter amended the timings for Long and Cadosch in retrospect. After that, it was the task of the police to decide which path of investigation to go down, and they chose not to buy Baxters suggestion.
In essence, they may have thought the knife business odd, but their task was another one.

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

It may (whether we think so or not) be that Richardson actually did sit down on the steps and that he actually did try and cut leather with the scrappy knife - and failed. Up until the moment he was sent off to fetch the knife, it had not been established that he had not been able to cut the leather with it, and so the coroner could not tell him to get the knife he actually used when slicing the leather away, could he?
Richardson fetched the knife he had spoken of, because that was the knife he was asked to fetch. Apart from Richardson, noone knew of the other knife at this stage.

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

Because Richardson could not fetch it. It was not his own knife, he had borrowed a knife at the market. And, of course, I donīt agree that Richardson had fetched the wrong knife - he had fetched the correct knife, the only one that was at play at the murder site, courtesy of Richardson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, if I may?

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

When Lechmere testified, there were things that should be examined closer, but werenīt. Like how he supposedly said that another PC was in place ( a juror asked about it, had it denied, and that was it), like how he had taken twice as long time as he should have to reach Bucks Row from Doveton Street and so on. Basically, I think that we must weigh in that an inquest aimed to establish the cause of death and not to find the killer. Anomalies were more likely to be brushed to the side. One example is how Baxter amended the timings for Long and Cadosch in retrospect. After that, it was the task of the police to decide which path of investigation to go down, and they chose not to buy Baxters suggestion.
In essence, they may have thought the knife business odd, but their task was another one.

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

It may (whether we think so or not) be that Richardson actually did sit down on the steps and that he actually did try and cut leather with the scrappy knife - and failed. Up until the moment he was sent off to fetch the knife, it had not been established that he had not been able to cut the leather with it, and so the coroner could not tell him to get the knife he actually used when slicing the leather away, could he?
Richardson fetched the knife he had spoken of, because that was the knife he was asked to fetch. Apart from Richardson, noone knew of the other knife at this stage.

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

Because Richardson could not fetch it. It was not his own knife, he had borrowed a knife at the market. And, of course, I donīt agree that Richardson had fetched the wrong knife - he had fetched the correct knife, the only one that was at play at the murder site, courtesy of Richardson.

Fair points Fish. I still think that it might be a possibility that those at the time heard something that explained the discrepancies though as clarification wasn’t sought. It would only need a couple of words here or there to be omitted. It’s not really an issue that we can get further forward with though.

[Trevor Marriott]

Fair points Fish. I still think that it might be a possibility that those at the time heard something that explained the discrepancies though as clarification wasn’t sought. It would only need a couple of words here or there to be omitted. It’s not really an issue that we can get further forward with though.

So to conclude all these exchanges we can safely say that having regards to the unsafe testimony of Richardson and Cadosh the TOD cannot be firmly established.

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

So to conclude all these exchanges we can safely say that having regards to the unsafe testimony of Richardson and Cadosh the TOD cannot be firmly established.

Hi Trevor

From my perspective, I think Richardson's testimony is sufficiently confusing that there is reason to question what he told the inquest. However, he was really clear about two important issues, that he could see the whole yard and there was no body there while he was working on his boots. Some are content that the clarity on those two issues is sufficient, but I, like you, approach his statement with caution. I have no issue with Cadosch and Long. I find them both reliable and have no reason to question their honesty or integrity. Just what they saw and heard though is up for question. So I think there is sufficient doubt that I would prefer to rely on the professional opinion of an experienced medic - (but I concede that he could have made a mistake given the inherent difficulties in estimating the time of death). I think that is a long way of saying I agree with you that the TOD cannot be firmly established.

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This, I think is quite compelling. We know that JTR took risks, but in a yard of a house with only one exit and with multiple residents who would have been starting to go about their business is exceptionally risky. Though having said that, Stride's murder was in the yard of a busy club while people were in there.

[Fisherman]

Fair points Fish. I still think that it might be a possibility that those at the time heard something that explained the discrepancies though as clarification wasn’t sought. It would only need a couple of words here or there to be omitted. It’s not really an issue that we can get further forward with though.

Thatīs true enough. On the whole, though, I think that inquests avoided going into too much details that were unrelated to the deaths, and that this may well be not only the explanation to why many obviously odd matters were not followed up on but also to whether we are being deprived of any wordings that would have cleared things up. Again, and as you say, we will not be able to find out, but thatīs my take on things anyway.

[Michael W Richards]

So to conclude all these exchanges we can safely say that having regards to the unsafe testimony of Richardson and Cadosh the TOD cannot be firmly established.

However, I would say that one pointer as to what the correct time of death was, is the fact that no other murders were committed as late as 5am when it was almost light in a location where he was likely to have been seen from a window, or disturbed by another from the house who was looking to use the WC. At a time when others were getting up and moving about, and when street prostitutes plying their trade would have likely as not been off the streets by then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't think that either Richardson or Cadosche have been shown to be untrustworthy Trevor, all that has been demonstrated in these exchanges is that people will try and discredit witnesses whose statements don't conform with their own preferred choices. Setting those accounts aside, 2 witnesses that were within 10 feet of the murder site within a half hour of each other in the critical time frame, with no known reasons to fabricate or misrepresent, means you lose valuable data. Data which can in fact give you an approximate TOD. Read Phillips comments again and tell me if he would be greatly surprised that her temperature dropped dramatically, perhaps misleading any attempts to determine when the injuries were inflicted, during the 45 minutes from when she was cut open until he arrives. He includes that very scenario in his remarks.

So, showing that the TOD estimate given at Inquest could have been incorrect due to the massive blood loss and splayed open condition of the body..acknowledged by the attending physician,..and taking into account that Mrs Long may well have seen Annie with someone but it would not be possible at the time she gives, the only statement that really needs to be nullified is Longs.

All the others work together.