Richardson's View

[Kattrup]

You like the third person record more than the first person's, huh Joshua?!

Good, so explain this from your quote:

He went to the top



The Baron

There were two sets of stairs, or steps rather. One leading from the passageway down into the courtyard. And a second set leading from the courtyard into the cellar.

As Joshua Rogan's quote makes clear, and as Richardson himself made clear, Richardson did not go into the cellar or down the stairs leading into the cellar.

He sat down on the steps leading into the courtyard, from which place he could not have failed to see Chapman's body, had it been there. It was not.

[The Baron]

There were two sets of stairs, or steps rather. One leading from the passageway down into the courtyard. And a second set leading from the courtyard into the cellar.

As Joshua Rogan's quote makes clear, and as Richardson himself made clear, Richardson did not go into the cellar or down the stairs leading into the cellar.

He sat down on the steps leading into the courtyard, from which place he could not have failed to see Chapman's body, had it been there. It was not.

Thanks Kattrup, but that doesn't answer my question.


The Baron

[Kattrup]

Thanks Kattrup, but that doesn't answer my question.


The Baron

Ok. I thought it did, but perhaps I missed something.
never mind then

[harry]

The Baron.
What Chandler said was,"If he (Richardson ) were on the top step".Take note of the'if',it doesn't equate,or conflict, with the evidence of Richardson,or of anyone else.
Richardson's evidence is that he (Richardson) sat on the middle step.Richardson states it as fact .Chandler is offering a situation that isn't supported by evidence.
Now although Chandler may be correct, I doubt it as most of the body would have extended well beyond the door's edge,Richardson's evidence supports a line of vision that is well below a person standing at the yard entrance,and that supports Richardson's claim there was no body there.

[Fisherman]

No, you don't have to accept that this sighting was of Chapman. This story has several issues, after all. But the fact that - without even knowing what the evidence was - you declared that she was already dead by 5am shows that you are not open even to the possibility that she was still alive.

Openmindedness is a good thing when it keeps fruitful paths of investigation open, Joshua. When it allows for completely unlikely scenarios to take oxygen away from the investigations, it is a less good thing.

To a degree, there is a sort of comradery out here, in spite of all the disagreements we have. In a way, thatīs good. But I have never endorsed the idea that anybodyīs theory is as good as anybodyīs else, other than on a very general level. Once we look into these ideas we will find that some of them are not very good and likely ideas. The idea that Annie Chapman would have exhibited four different kinds of medical deviations that allowed her body to react in a way that is in total opposition to how it should have reacted is one such idea. It originated with coroner Baxters desire to be able to make ends meet and be able to serve up some sort of "truth" that involved all of the witnesses being correct and the doctor supposedly allowing for Chapman having cooled down totally during her fall from an upright to a lying position. Baxter had to bend and distort and even lie to reach his aim, and I think he did the Ripper research field a great disservice when succumbing to this desire of his.

Now, I could tell you that my joke about dead people being served in a pub was nothing more than a diversion, meant to put a smile on your face. And it would be true to a degree. But when it comes to the question about whether I have a made up mind about the possibility that Long and Cadosch saw and heard Chapman, the answer is a thunderous yes; I am a hundred per cent certain that they never saw or heard Chapman alive.

Of course, that was 5.20-5.30, and so when we step back in time, the hundred per cent certainty that Chapman was dead tapers off alongside that process. Was she dead at 2 AM? I dont think so. 3 AM? Possibly, but not necessarily. 4 AM? Yes, I think she was dead at that stage, but I am not a hundred per cent. And so on. However, once we move to 5 AM, I would say that I have no doubt at all that she was dead. Whoever the people at the Ten Bells saw, it was not Annie Chapman drinking. You will be aware that Phillips said that he was convinced that Chapman had not had any strong alcohol for some hours before her death. If she had had a beer half an hour before she died, Phillips would have known. So this becomes yet another point where Chapmans body would supposedly have reacted medically in a way that is totally unexpected, if she was somehow able to spirit away (excuse the pun) any alcohol without any traces. Presumably, this very point will lie behind why the idea that she was partying at the Ten Bells at 5 Am never gained any traction.

So there you have it, Joshua. Iīm happy to keep an open mind on most things, I consider it each and everybodyīs duty to do so - but we are absolved from that duty when there is evidence enough to allow for it. In this case, I find there is. Those who disagree will call me hypocritical, those who agree will call the ones who call me hypocritical wrong. Thatīs how it goes and I am prepared to live with it. In the end, we must all make our own calls.

[Fisherman]

A cursory glance at the cellar door from the top step, might have resulted in Richardson missing the body.
It's possible, but then the boot cutting exercise would have to be a lie, or at best, "borrowed" from a prior day.
It seems to be a lie to some extent regardless, as Richardson admits the knife wasn't sharp enough to do the job he had said it did.

So what's going on here? Why is Richardson putting himself "in the thick of it", by telling the rabbit/knife/stairs/boot story?
Why does he not just say he only glanced at the cellar from the top step, and therefore probably missed the body?
A plausible explanation might be; embarrassment - Richardson is too embarrassed to admit that he came within a few feet of the body, but did not notice it.
He needs a story that keeps him at the steps a while longer, and in a position from which he cannot possibly miss the body - the middle step - so that the world knows he wasn't the dunce that missed seeing a mutilated body, when in close proximity to it.

The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable.

So Baxter determined Richardson's reliability as a witness, by reading the tone and manner of the inspector who questioned him.
Does that sound odd to you?

The whole sentece as such sounds odd to me. It produces a picture of Baxter doubting Richardson, and Chandler pushing the idea that Richardson was a truthful guy. But what Chandler was told deviates from what Baxter was told, and that opens up a gap that should never open up with truthful guys testifying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know that it did happen!


Chandler:

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.


Under oath Sir.. under oath!


The Baron

Richardson was under oath too when he said that he sat on the step. Why is that Chandler must be believed but Richardson must be lying?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And what about the possibility that Richardson actually saw the body of the murdered woman there, and stole the rings from her fingers?!

The normal thing for him to tell in the inquest then, is that the body was not there, and no one will suspect him of stealing.

You see in such complex cases, you cannot know what happened exactly based on your feelings or merely on what witnesses say.

You cannot prove that Richardson didn't steal the rings =

You cannot prove the body was not there.



The Baron

And you cannot prove that the body was there. Or that Chapman hadn’t sold her rings days before or that she hadn’t been robbed.

[Chava]

For the police, though, there not only could be doubt - there WAS doubt. That, however, seems not to worry you one little bit...? He must have been there, and he must have done things the way he said he did them. The second time he told the police what he did, that is. We know from Chandler that he told it in anither fashion the first time he gavce his story.

How Richardson can inspire belief within anybody with a discerning mind is beyond me.

I agree completely.
As for Hutch I'm happy to continue this fascinating discussion...in the Hutch threads.

[Chava]

bingo. I like the way your analytical mind works curious. again you are correct. as i posted earlier, if anything she probably would have been releived if her son had skipped checking the cellar that day.

I can't argue about this. Because I am in no position to know what Mrs Richardson's thoughts are on the issue.
And neither are you.

[Chava]

You will be aware that Phillips said that he was convinced that Chapman had not had any strong alcohol for some hours before her death.

OK. At roughly 2.00 am she's last seen leaving the dosshouse to get her bed rent. She's described as having had enough but could walk straight so she wasn't roaring drunk at that point. She had been to the pub on the corner earlier and was eating a potato. If Philips is correct that likely means she'd had nothing since the pub. Because otherwise it would definitely show up in her system even if she were killed right at Cadoche-Time of 5.20 am which is still only 3 hours out from her last sighting.
I find this really interesting. However she met her killer, Chapmen didn't meet him in a pub. He didn't ply her with drink & then waltz her out of there. She might have led him though that hallway to the back yard. However it's possible that he suggested that location, strangled her as soon as he got across the threshold and then dragged her or carried her into the back. It's also possible that he scopes locations out and then chooses victims close to there rather than finding victims and allowing them to choose the location. I still think the physical appearance of those locations are very important to him. But I wonder if he makes the choice rather than killing women who make that choice for him. This could be someone who is highly organized & prepared. His actions appear chaotic. But his thought-process isn't.

[Fisherman]

This could be someone who is highly organized & prepared. His actions appear chaotic. But his thought-process isn't.

Bullīs eye, Chava!

[Curious Cat]

bingo. I like the way your analytical mind works curious. again you are correct. as i posted earlier, if anything she probably would have been releived if her son had skipped checking the cellar that day.

I just go where the logic points to.

Each murder has its own elements that don't appear to make sense but the best we can do is join the dots that are there. Sometimes the dots may be joined in the wrong order but adding dots without substance is what screws with the logic.

[Curious Cat]

I can't argue about this. Because I am in no position to know what Mrs Richardson's thoughts are on the issue.
And neither are you.

And yet you're sure that Mrs Richardson's reaction to her son possibly not checking the padlock that morning would've been to the extent that he felt compelled to lie about not seeing a dead body near his feet.

[Chava]

And yet you're sure that Mrs Richardson's reaction to her son possibly not checking the padlock that morning would've been to the extent that he felt compelled to lie about not seeing a dead body near his feet.

No. I'm not sure. I'm not sure about anything in this case. But I am questioning Richardson's testimony. Because having looked at pix of the business end of the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street I don't think its particularly credible. And one possible reason for him making up an elaborate story is that he didn't want to tell his ma that he hadn't been there.

I don't deal in absolutes in the Whitechapel Murders. I deal in possibilities. And I think we should question everything.