Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[moonbegger]

Evening All

The Voice of reason is still a voice riddled with conjecture non the less !
Time is the one thing that can, and should be relied upon without fail. The combination of medical science and time are the tools we should be using to unearth this monster . Not people , People make mistakes , no matter how observant or truthful or in control we think we are .. we crash cars , forget birthdays , anniversaries , names , we think we see Big Foots , and UFO's and the loch ness monster ( and all that is just me ) And so in light of such compelling Medical and Time Evidence at hand , lets not just disregard it and rely solely on what someone thinks they may have seen, or what they think they may have heard , at a time they thought it was .

cheers
moonbegger

[Ginger]

One more thing occurs to me - the contemporary newspaper drawings seem to indicate that the cellar door was a shallow one, set almost flush against the end wall of the house, while the later photographs show it to be quite deeply set.

Given that Mrs. Richardson was known to have had problems with thieves breaking into that cellar, I wonder if the 1888 door was replaced at some point, perhaps with one set deeper into the doorway to allow for a different, more secure type of mounting?

[Archaic]

Thanks, Observer!

I try.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Observer]

Hi Archaic

The voice of reason at long last !!!

Regards

Observer

[Archaic]

Death Wish?

Absolutely. And to think that he would lie about being there when he was not. A lie that would put him at the scene of the crime at approx time of death with a knife in his hand. Dont think so.

Hi Abby, I agree with you. I don't think anybody in their right mind would have lied that they were at #29 in the early morning with a knife in their hand if they were not!

Hmmm, lets weigh it in the balances...

Would a man who didn't go to #29's backyard early that morning and sit on the step with a knife in his hand [I]lie[/I] and [I]say[/I] he did, just because he didn't want his mom to be annoyed with him for not bothering to check the lock that day- despite the fact that such a lie could possibly backfire by getting him named as a Ripper suspect and maybe even lynched by his nervous neighbors??

Yeah, I don't think so.

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Thanks Hunter.

[Hunter]

Well said, Bunny. I'd imagine when he was finally let back onto the premises after the body had been taken away, and Chandler started asking him questions, his mind was running a thousand miles an hour.

Much has been made over a solicitor naturally preferring a layman witness over a medic...I don't believe it...if for no other reason that the professions generally accorded each other mutual respect, in public at least...that much was self preservation (As an example look at the Guilds and their customs).
There must have been some reason why this was not the case here...is there somehing we're not picking up on? Is it, for example, Baxter's antipathy towards the police damning Bagster Phillips by association, or is there something else going on?

Hi Dave,

Wynne Baxter - for the lack of a better analogy- marched to the beat of his own drummer. He respected Phillips' medical abilities despite the contentious exchange between them on giving details of the mutilations. He even took the surgeon's belief that the killer targeted the victim's uterus and displayed anatomical knowledge in doing so and shaped it into his own theory - albeit one that backfired on him.

He also, had been a coroner long enough to understand the variables involved in ascertaining time of death, which the practical Phillips readily admitted. Phillips was not adament in his belief and this very experienced solicitor saw that. If he had only Richardson's testimony to contradict the surgeon's findings on that matter, he probably would have sided with Mr. Phillips. But he had three witnesses who - while off in their own timings to some degree... and Baxter mentioned that - were all in some proximity that, when pieced together, were reasonable to him. Whether he was right or wrong on this will always remain unsolved.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Dave and Bridewell.

The more I think about it, the more I realize what an incredible scary position Richardson found himself in.

There's a mutilated body found in his mother's backyard- and Richardson actually saw the grotesquely mutilated body before it was taken away.

If the body was there was Richardson checked the lock earlier that morning, then he was in close proximity to a knife-mutilated woman while, by his own testimony, using a knife. That kind of coincidence would scare the hell out of anybody! He obviously has to worry whether he will become a suspect.

Then there's his leather work apron left lying in the backyard- after all the earlier "Leather Apron" excitement, he also has to be afraid that a simple work garment will somehow incriminate him- and not just in the eyes of the police, but in the eyes of the public... Who wants to get lynched?

Worst of all, he has to worry about his mother's safety. Does the killer know his mother? Does he frequent her street and even her house? Will the killer harm Mrs. Richardson if her son testifies?

I believe Richardson was a decent man who wanted to do the right thing, but just imagine the combined weight of all those shocks and worries on the shoulders of a single human being- and an uneducated and probably unsophisticated working man at that. No one can envy his position. It's a living nightmare.

All this would have made anybody nervous, and could well have resulted in what seems to be confused testimony. I think that's perfectly natural under the circumstances.

Best regards,
Archaic

Absolutely. And to think that he would lie about being there when he was not. A lie that would put him at the scene of the crime at approx time of death with a knife in his hand. Dont think so.

[Archaic]

Richardson's Situation

Hi Dave and Bridewell.

The more I think about it, the more I realize what an incredible scary position Richardson found himself in.

There's a mutilated body found in his mother's backyard- and Richardson actually saw the grotesquely mutilated body before it was taken away.

If the body was there was Richardson checked the lock earlier that morning, then he was in close proximity to a knife-mutilated woman while, by his own testimony, using a knife. That kind of coincidence would scare the hell out of anybody! He obviously has to worry whether he will become a suspect.

Then there's his leather work apron left lying in the backyard- after all the earlier "Leather Apron" excitement, he also has to be afraid that a simple work garment will somehow incriminate him- and not just in the eyes of the police, but in the eyes of the public... Who wants to get lynched?

Worst of all, he has to worry about his mother's safety. Does the killer know his mother? Does he frequent her street and even her house? Will the killer harm Mrs. Richardson if her son testifies?

I believe Richardson was a decent man who wanted to do the right thing, but just imagine the combined weight of all those shocks and worries on the shoulders of a single human being- and an uneducated and probably unsophisticated working man at that. No one can envy his position. It's a living nightmare.

All this would have made anybody nervous, and could well have resulted in what seems to be confused testimony. I think that's perfectly natural under the circumstances.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Bridewell]

Seeing the Lock

Hi everyone.

The little wooden "roof" erected over the cellar steps was a very small, worn and rickety affair if the newspaper illustrations are at all reliable. The sketches I have seen show it with open sides and 2 slim supports.

Probably all Richardson had to do to see the lock on the other cellar door was to look over, under, through, or past the primitive little roof-structure. Maybe this involved him leaning his head out a little from his position on the steps. If the door he was checking was set into the wall at a similar height to the other one, Richardson could easily see it right through the open sides of the roof-like structure.

Best regards,
Archaic

My guess, from the image, is that you would see the lock if you were sitting on the steps, but not if you were standing because the roof would block the necessary line of sight. Having said that, wouldn't it be easier to take a couple of paces into the yard than to sit on the step? I'm leaning towards (Dave's I think?) view that Richardson didn't bother to check that particular morning.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Just out of curiosity, do those of you questioning Richardson's testimony suspect him of being the killer?

Not for my part...but the way he keeps unconvincingly modifying his story suggests to me that a tiny fib ("of course I checked the lock mum") has by necessity (via "I sat on the step and trimmed some leather off my boot") turned into a whopper ("The knife's blunt yer 'onor? Well I sat on the step, tried to trim some leather off my boot, but the knife was blunt, so I had to wait until I got to work") by the end of the Inquest...I think the Coroner was far from convinced by the way his tale was developing, and that's why he was sent away to fetch the knife...I think he's a weak and easily-led character and hence a poor witness.

By contrast, Cadosch and Long, notwithstanding the time discrepancy, clearly impressed the Coroner, so much so that he preferred them over the Police Surgeon...I ask myself why?

Much has been made over a solicitor naturally preferring a layman witness over a medic...I don't believe it...if for no other reason that the professions generally accorded each other mutual respect, in public at least...that much was self preservation (As an example look at the Guilds and their customs).

There must have been some reason why this was not the case here...is there somehing we're not picking up on? Is it, for example, Baxter's antipathy towards the police damning Bagster Phillips by association, or is there something else going on?

Just wondering...

All the best

Dave

[Archaic]

Line of Sight

Hi everyone.

The little wooden "roof" erected over the cellar steps was a very small, worn and rickety affair if the newspaper illustrations are at all reliable. The sketches I have seen show it with open sides and 2 slim supports. (Please see attached image.)

Probably all Richardson had to do to see the lock on the other cellar door was to look over, under, through, or past the primitive little roof-structure. Maybe this involved him leaning his head out a little from his position on the steps. If the door he was checking was set into the wall at a similar height to the other one, Richardson could easily see it right through the open sides of the roof-like structure.

Checking the locked door was part of his daily routine; I'm sure he had his "method" of checking the lock down pat. It sounds like he only did the minimum, eyeballing the lock rather than going into the yard to actually test it, but I expect that he did it in the same way every day.

We don't know the height of the door he was checking or the position of its lock, but I don't think we can really say that it was difficult or impossible for him to see from the steps- if it was, surely the police who were on the scene would have noticed? After all, they were there and we are not.

Personally, I trust the police to have checked out all the basics of Richardson's story, and apparently they were satisfied.

- Just out of curiosity, do those of you questioning Richardson's testimony suspect him of being the killer?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Cogidubnus]

Repeating myself but...

Hi all

Hello Abby. And that is the crux of the matter--If he had looked left, would he have seen the body? I don't think so.

But to be fair, 1. he stood; 2. he sat and cut; 3. he sat but did not cut. Worst performance until Packer.

And then, of course, the elephant in the room:

I'm not sure you could see down the stairs to the cellar entrance from the top of the back door steps...despite Mrs Richardson's odd inquest testimony...the contemporary drawings in the press show the cellar entrance roofed by a structure which surely blocked that particular view...I think to view the cellar door, he'd have had to descend into the backyard and look down the cellar stairs...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

crux

Hello Abby. And that is the crux of the matter--If he had looked left, would he have seen the body? I don't think so.

But to be fair, 1. he stood; 2. he sat and cut; 3. he sat but did not cut. Worst performance until Packer.

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Hi Abby

"The whole problem with trying to cast Richardson as lying or not seeing the body is that you have to once again(like Lech as suspect) bend over backwards to do it."

The thing is Abby, Richardson changed his story three or four times ! in a modern day court of law his testimony would have not made it past a committal hearing , let alone being a pivotal piece of evidence .. the only bending over backwards going on here is in believing his " cobblers" story

Cheers
Moonbegger .

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.

Remember there was an open privy just a few feet away from the steps, and privies in all the adjoining yards, in addition to the noxious smells of chamber pots, garbage, fish, slaughter houses, etc...

I expect that people in Whitechapel had long ago learned to "tune out" offensive smells. They would have had to, just to get through life!

Best regards,
Archaic

Hi Archaic and LC

or they got really good at it (as in being able to distinguish the smells). And I have a feeling that Annie Chapmans guts probably were pretty smelly. Also, I doubt that WC was in a constant fog of ill smells that was so bad that they were constantly drowning out other bad smells.( its almost like the argument that people would not have taken notice of people with blood on them because there were alot of butchers, fishmongers etc.) Anyway the smell thing is really a far second to the sight thing.

The whole problem with trying to cast Richardson as lying or not seeing the body is that you have to once again(like Lech as suspect) bend over backwards to do it.