Richardson's View

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Herlock

I certainly agree with you regarding whether he would have seen poor Annie's body had it been in the yard and if Richardson sat on the second step to deal with his boots. I can't see any reasonable situation in which he could fail to see her in those circumstances.

I disagree about the reliability of his statements though. They are at best confusing and certainly suspect given the significant changes he made as his statement grew. You are of course right to highlight that there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this and if we were able to question him, he might be able to explain more fully. It could of course go the other way and he might be caught out in embellishing his story. I have checked a number of newspaper reports on this site and none of them report Richardson sitting on the step to work on his boots, nor does he appear to have told Chandler that. The first time I can find it mentioned is at the inquest. Again, there are potential innocent explanations, but it does add to the feeling that he may have embellished.

Richardson's story - complete with boot cutting - was reported in several newspapers on the 10th, well before his inquest appearance. Cadosche's too.

Eg. Echo 10th Sept

"At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, of 2, St. John-street, son of the landlady of 29, Hanbury-street, the proprietor of a packing-case business, as usual went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. A short while before there had been a burglary in this place. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot"

[Fisherman]

Hi Etenguy,

Jon is "Wickerman".

I agree, if looking to discount Richardson, his less than solid story is safer ground than his missing the body because of a combination of lighting and angles.

That is anybody´s choice. What I do is to warn against discarding either possibility, because both may apply.

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure which poster is Jon - but I share his aversion to simply dismissing statements as lies when they are inconvenient.

That will be Wickerman, etenguy. And I too dislike calling people liars with nothing to show for it.

However, the constantly changing nature of Richardson's statement regarding significant factors at the very least undermines his credibility.

Which is why I point to the possibility that he could have been less than truthful. In his case, there IS something to show for the suggestion.

[Fisherman]

His only task was to check the cellar door which would have taken all of two seconds and wouldn’t have required him rigidly facing only in that direction and then never taking his eyes from it after he’d sat down.

Davis saw the body when he opened the door but of course he didn’t open the door slightly then walk down the steps pushing against the door with his body as he went looking only to his right.

Its not remotely realistic or likely but if you’re simply picking the low hanging fruit then fine, it wasn’t impossible. Like it wasn’t impossible that he was scratching his left eye at the time or that he had some kind of door opening phobia. We can only talk in terms of likely/unlikely and this was unlikely taken to extremes.

We can actually talk in terms of "possibilities" too, Herlock. Like it or not. And you may find that we define that term differently, as well as "likely".

[Fisherman]

The original arguement was that the body wouldn't have been seen by Richardson,because the door would block the line of vision.
Cannot see your remark about darkness Fisherman,as Richardson was nearer to the body than from where the photo was taken.

You cannot see my remark? Maybe it´s too dark, Harry?