Richardson's View

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The Three Stooges Dizzy Detectives E69 - video dailymotion

Bundified version

Cheers Dave, I love you too...

[DJA]

The Three Stooges Dizzy Detectives E69 - video dailymotion

Bundified version

[Wickerman]

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

Rush to Judgement perhaps?

It always pays the researcher to do a little investigating first, for instance note the date - 13th Sept.
We know from other published accounts that the Star reporter would leave an inquest before it had ended in order to meet the deadline for the afternoon press.

As this was the afternoon of the 13th, and it was Day 3 of the inquest, and Dr. Phillips was the last witness, and... his opinion on a time of death was given past half-way through his testimony, it is very likely the reporter missed this part of the doctor's testimony, if not his entire testimony.
The reporter had also not heard the testimony of Mrs. Long, nor that of Cadosche, who both only gave their evidence on 19th Sept.

The Star was jumping the gun, as they say. They published a conclusion before hearing all the evidence - but then again, this was only the Star, a paper for whom accuracy was never their call to fame.

[DJA]

Murders In The Rue Morgue (1932) - (Crime, Drama, Horror, Mystery) [Edgar Allan Poe, Bela Lugosi] - video dailymotion

[Herlock Sholmes]

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


Richardson said:




Do we need a knife to feed a rabbit ?!

I used to have a rabbit when I was young and I can remember my dad cutting carrots into pieces.

Do rabbits usually have difficulties eating carrot?!

I don’t think that Richardson was suggesting that his rabbit used cutlery Baron.


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

I think it unlikely that Richardson expected to bump into a rabbit on the street. He fed the rabbit at home (his home not the rabbits) then put the knife in his pocket.

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

Where does a man usually go for a rendezvous with a rabbit? Maybe a Harehouse?

What happened to the rabbit?!

I’d hazard a guess though, I’m no zoologist, that he spent the rest of his days twitching his nose and eating various vegetables?

The Baron

Its yet another example of police incompetence that the rabbit wasn’t questioned further. Like Schwartz it’s suspicious that he was never called to the Inquest.

[Wickerman]

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 see not everyone is familiar with the Star and their tendency to stir controversy.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

That's him! That's the man!

[DJA]

[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.

[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.

[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]

.

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....”

[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.

[Abby Normal]

That escaped Gorilla?

missed that one! whats that from?

[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?