Richardson's View

[Fisherman]

Although it causes issues with TOD etc, I have always felt that Richardson's story is likely to be (at least mostly) true, simply because of its implications.

There has been a gruesome murder. It doesn't seem very logical that Richardson would tell police he had sat on the back steps, pootling about with a knife of all things, unless it was true. If he had never been in the yard that morning, surely it would have been far better to say as much.

But instead he admits he was right next to where the body was found, with a knife.

The bit about the knife not being sharp enough may have been an embellishment to his account, to try to stop the whole "in the yard, with a knife" bit sounding so potentially damning.

I can't think of a good reason he would want to tell the police he had been there, knife and all, if he hadn't, when he must have known how suspicious such an admission was probably going to sound.

You are perfectly correct - Richardson really had no business at all to do anything but tell the truth. That is the kind of world we want.

Sadly, though, the kind of world we have is one where high profile murder cases attract enormous amounts of people who want to inject themselves into the picture. Some say they are the killer (heaps of people did so in the Ripper case), while others find alternative ways to get their share of the buzz, one such way being to offer fake evidence in order to establish a role in the drama. The by far most likely witness to have done so in this particuylar business is Albert Cadosch, who more or less said that he overheard the murder at the exact spot where it took place, scuffle, the word "No" being thrown out by a woman, heavy fall against the fence, thud against the ground and all. Then he backpedalled totally at the inquest once it was known that John Richardsons testimony had suffered a lot of distrust from the police, causing the police to interrogate Richardson as the possible killer. Suddenly he did not know where he had heard the word "No" from, and he certainly never heard any scuffle or heavy fall, he just heard a sound as if somebody had "suddeny touched the fence". And he had definitely not heard any ensuing thud or anything else after that sudden touching, no Sir!

That is exactly how these things work. Not how they SHOULD work, how we would want them to work, mind you - but instead how they DO work. I cannot say that Richardson lied, but I can say that the fact that he really shouldnīt have does not reassure me that he didnīt.

[harry]

How would Cadoche know anything about police interrogating Richardson as the possible killer,for him to back peddal.It was not known then,and it is not known now,that Richardson was interrogated in that respect.He was treated as a witness,not anything else.Why do you pedall such lies,Fisherman.

[Curious Cat]

Funnily, it's the steps.

The middle step--which he says he sat on--is shallow and quite low. It's possible I'm sure to balance on it and then bring one leg over the other to cut the leather off the boot. But I doubt anyone would do it if they just sat down naturally rather than trying to prove a point. You'd have to balance & it wouldn't be comfortable even for me--and I'm 5'2". If he sat on that step he would certainly see the body. If he sat on the step above--and was cutting leather off his right boot--he may not because of the location of the door and the angle of his body. I pointed this out when I began the thread. Richardson may of course have been there and the body wasn't. But I think it's possible either he wasn't there at all or that he just waltzed in, opened the door, looked down to his right at the cellar door and waltzed out. There is something else I never noticed before. But that I think is another thread...

It doesn't look so narrow that it couldn't be sat on. It seems the width of the step is about a length of a typical brick, certainly wider than a bench at a London bus stop and I've sat on plenty of those. Richardson was only there a couple of minutes so not even sat on the step for very long.

[DJA]

Using bricks as measuring devices,which is also handy re Millers Court and GSG,the step is at least 36" wide and 12" ( to 16") deep.

[Fisherman]

How would Cadoche know anything about police interrogating Richardson as the possible killer,for him to back peddal.It was not known then,and it is not known now,that Richardson was interrogated in that respect.He was treated as a witness,not anything else.Why do you pedall such lies,Fisherman.

Harry, you know that I donīt want to talk to you, so Iīd appreciate if youīd keep away from posts like this one.

John Richardson testified on the 12:th.

Albert Cadosch testified on the 19:th.

On the 14:th - which, if you tale a look, is BETWEEN the 12:th and the 19:th -, the Star wrote that "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."

As you will see if you look at my post, I am saying that "it was known that John Richardsons testimony had suffered a lot of distrust from the police", and I add that it caused the police to suspect Richardson. To which degree Cadosch knew about how the thumbscrews were applied on Richardson I cannot say, but I CAN say that his veracity was doubted, seemingly on account of his failure to meet the demands posed by Phillipsī verdict on the TOD.

Three pieces of advice:

1. Itīs peddle, not pedal.

2. Rinse you mouth with soap.

3. Try not to derail every thread you participate in. Stick with the topic instead of insane accusations.

Now please disappear.

[DJA]

Kettle ..... black!

[Fisherman]

Kettle ..... black!

You are welcome to expand on this.

[Chava]

It doesn't look so narrow that it couldn't be sat on. It seems the width of the step is about a length of a typical brick, certainly wider than a bench at a London bus stop and I've sat on plenty of those. Richardson was only there a couple of minutes so not even sat on the step for very long.

It's the height of the step from the ground that concerns me. He's about 15" off the ground and that is actually quite uncomfortable. And in order to cut that leather off his boot he'd have to turn into a pretzel.

[Fisherman]

It's the height of the step from the ground that concerns me. He's about 15" off the ground and that is actually quite uncomfortable. And in order to cut that leather off his boot he'd have to turn into a pretzel.

If he wanted to facilitate that cutting, he should have sat on the floor in the door opening and had his feet two steps down. It would be the dryest and most comfortable position to work in.

Maybe he simply preferred to do it pretzel style ...?

[Curious Cat]

It's the height of the step from the ground that concerns me. He's about 15" off the ground and that is actually quite uncomfortable. And in order to cut that leather off his boot he'd have to turn into a pretzel.

15", you say?

Bent like a pretzel, you say?

This I find interesting. Purely on the basis that the very seat I am currently sitting in as I type this is 15" from floor to seat edge. I regularly sit on the edge and do up my shoe laces with my feet planted on the ground. I have never had to bend myself into a pretzel to do it.

Again, he wasn't there long enough for any discomfort to set in.

Also, what makes you think he was necessarily actually wearing the boot when he was cutting the bit of leather off?

[Chava]

15", you say?

Bent like a pretzel, you say?

This I find interesting. Purely on the basis that the very seat I am currently sitting in as I type this is 15" from floor to seat edge. I regularly sit on the edge and do up my shoe laces with my feet planted on the ground. I have never had to bend myself into a pretzel to do it.

Again, he wasn't there long enough for any discomfort to set in.

Also, what makes you think he was necessarily actually wearing the boot when he was cutting the bit of leather off?

Interesting. Do you habitually sit so close to the ground? And how are you typing this on your laptop? Is it balanced carefully on your knees? Or do you have a teeny tiny very low table specially made for it?

[Abby Normal]

It's the height of the step from the ground that concerns me. He's about 15" off the ground and that is actually quite uncomfortable. And in order to cut that leather off his boot he'd have to turn into a pretzel.

the only thing thats a pretzel is your logic and your arguments are Miniscula ad Absurdum. Seriously, trying to glean any meaningful clues from such insignificant details like the size of steps (and eaten potatoes)in the context your using is patently ridiculous. You actually started a thread called The Potato! now that deserves an LOL.

and you had the gall to say I posted fake news (basically calling me a liar) by saying that Lewis probably saw hutch-which is totally backed up by the evidence, is significant and not even controversial in any way.

I mean your actually arguing the size of the steps is a clue that richardson lied and actually wasnt there?!? good grief.

[Abby Normal]

15", you say?

Bent like a pretzel, you say?

This I find interesting. Purely on the basis that the very seat I am currently sitting in as I type this is 15" from floor to seat edge. I regularly sit on the edge and do up my shoe laces with my feet planted on the ground. I have never had to bend myself into a pretzel to do it.

Again, he wasn't there long enough for any discomfort to set in.

Also, what makes you think he was necessarily actually wearing the boot when he was cutting the bit of leather off?

exactly curious-its a joke of an argument. my chair is about the same height and the benches and chairs around my firepit are even lower and I can assure you even that is quite cozy. but its all a moot point because even if the step was only six inches off the ground he could have sat on it.
Its laughable argument and dont waste anymore time on it. I know im not.

[Chava]

the only thing thats a pretzel is your logic and your arguments are Miniscula ad Absurdum. Seriously, trying to glean any meaningful clues from such insignificant details like the size of steps (and eaten potatoes)in the context your using is patently ridiculous. You actually started a thread called The Potato! now that deserves an LOL.

Oh really.

Well I think that we should take a long suspicious look at every aspect of everything in this case. And question our own theories of the case every step of the way.
If we go by our assumptions & preconceived opinions we won't get very far will we?
That was one reason why the Whitechapel Murderer managed to escape scot-free.
And it's the main reason why Peter Sutcliffe managed to kill at least 13 women and probably more.

[Curious Cat]

Interesting. Do you habitually sit so close to the ground? And how are you typing this on your laptop? Is it balanced carefully on your knees? Or do you have a teeny tiny very low table specially made for it?

Perspective appears to be your issue.

If it helps, the chair is a recliner so when it's in the reclined position the front lifts and is level with the seat. This creates a ledge 15" from the floor. The cat - of average cat size - is able to walk underneath without the need to crouch or dip his head.

And yes, I can comfortably place my laptop on my lap whether the seat is reclined or not. Yoga positions not required.