Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Can we think of a plausible, sinister reason why Richardson would have deliberately withheld information?
    Do I smell a "Chandler Scam" brewing?
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
      Interesting points from Fisherman & Trevor.

      It really flags up John Richardson's testimony. IMO, there's no way he would have missed the body. He was there to check the yard and make sure no one was trespassing. It's impossible that his head was cranked permanently to the right and he failed to spot (or even smell!) the rotting corpse a few feet away from him. There were other witnesses who immediately saw the body from the top of the steps. So, we have a man with a knife who was in the yard and failed to see a corpse that, according to the medico, should have been there.

      I'm surprised he did not become a suspect/POI.
      Hi harry
      yup-seems like he should have been looked at a little more closely. I think so, that's for sure.
      and yes, he would have seen the body if it was there. it was literally at his feet, which he happened to be looking at!
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        Nope. Didn´t find it. But its there.
        Fish, your sketch is in the Lechmere Was Jack The Ripper thread at post #244 and others.

        You even drew one with me on the step.

        Aah, memories.
        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-14-2019, 02:07 PM.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

          Do I smell a "Chandler Scam" brewing?
          You never know Sam
          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            It’s no use because you have Richardson sitting with the door in a certain position. What about when he first opened the door? The natural inclination would be to open the door wider and to hold it open as he descended the steps. Then he sits down inches from the body.
            Hi HS

            From memory, didn`t the door close shut on it`s own, unless fully opened on it`s hinges ?
            Richardson would know this, and if planning to sit on the step, he would naturally push it fully open so it wouldn`t swing shut whilst he`s sitting there.
            I know I should have checked the above before posting, perhaps someone else can confirm ?

            Comment


            • Am I reading this right? In John Richardson's testimony he says - Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
              Does that mean the front door of 29 was locked? So in other words the murder couldn't have been committed before John Richardson lifted the latch almost certainly from the inside.
              Regards Darryl

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                Am I reading this right? In John Richardson's testimony he says - Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
                Does that mean the front door of 29 was locked? So in other words the murder couldn't have been committed before John Richardson lifted the latch almost certainly from the inside.
                Regards Darryl

                John Davies: "The house faces Hanbury-street, with one window on the ground floor and a front door at the side leading into a passage which runs through into the yard. There is a back door at the end of this passage opening into the yard. Neither of the doors was able to be locked, and I have never seen them locked. Any one who knows where the latch of the front door is could open it and go along the passage into the back yard."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                  Am I reading this right? In John Richardson's testimony he says - Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
                  Does that mean the front door of 29 was locked? So in other words the murder couldn't have been committed before John Richardson lifted the latch almost certainly from the inside.
                  Regards Darryl
                  Interesting, but closed doesn't necessarily mean locked.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    And yet again, Richardson was absolutely adamant that he couldn’t have missed a mutilated corpse. Why does this count for nothing against a diagram? He was there. Eyes and a half a brain beat a diagram any day of the week I’m afraid.

                    " 8:30 AM: Caroline Maxwell, a witness at the inquest and acquaintance of Kelly's, claims to have seen the deceased at around 8:30 AM, several hours after the time given by Phillips as time of death. She described her clothing and appearance in depth, and adamantly stated that she was not mistaken about the date"

                    According to your methodology, we MUST accept Maxwell's testimony any day of the week and reject the time of death given by Phillips, she was there, she has two eyes and a brain too!



                    The Baron
                    Last edited by The Baron; 08-14-2019, 03:47 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post

                      Hi HS

                      From memory, didn`t the door close shut on it`s own, unless fully opened on it`s hinges ?
                      Richardson would know this, and if planning to sit on the step, he would naturally push it fully open so it wouldn`t swing shut whilst he`s sitting there.
                      I know I should have checked the above before posting, perhaps someone else can confirm ?
                      From the inquest: The Telegraph 11th Sept
                      John Richardson: I did not close the back door. It closed itself.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post


                        John Davies: "The house faces Hanbury-street, with one window on the ground floor and a front door at the side leading into a passage which runs through into the yard. There is a back door at the end of this passage opening into the yard. Neither of the doors was able to be locked, and I have never seen them locked. Any one who knows where the latch of the front door is could open it and go along the passage into the back yard."
                        Thanks Harry, I guess it is possible then that Annie knew where the latch was since the yard seems to have been used for immoral purposes according to John Richardson.
                        Regards Darryl

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post

                          Hi HS

                          From memory, didn`t the door close shut on it`s own, unless fully opened on it`s hinges ?
                          Richardson would know this, and if planning to sit on the step, he would naturally push it fully open so it wouldn`t swing shut whilst he`s sitting there.
                          I know I should have checked the above before posting, perhaps someone else can confirm ?
                          Certainly in The Telegraph’s Inquest report he said that the door closed by itself so it would have been very natural for him to have pushed it pretty wide open so that he could descend to the ground so that he could sit on the middle step. For him to have not seen the body would have almost had to have been an intentional act for me.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post

                            From the inquest: The Telegraph 11th Sept
                            John Richardson: I did not close the back door. It closed itself.
                            I was too slow to respond Jon. You beat me to it.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post

                              The only thing I find slightly suspicious about Richardson`s story is that he claimed his knife was not sharp enough to cut the leather off his boot, or at least, to do the job to his satisfaction. He would later add to his statement that he had to borrow a sharp knife off someone at the market.
                              As regards that, I'm just about certain that he was lying. A market porter would almost certainly need a sharp sturdy knife at least a few times a day, if not more, to accomplish his duties in the market. It's entirely conjecture on my part, but I suspect that the authorities, completely satisfied for whatever reason that Richardson had nothing to do with the crime, colluded in allowing him to present that rusty, useless knife at the inquest, to be sure that his good knife, which he required for work, wasn't held, even if only for a few days, as evidence. Entirely a guess on my part, but I think a good one.
                              - Ginger

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post

                                Hi HS

                                From memory, didn`t the door close shut on it`s own, unless fully opened on it`s hinges ?
                                Richardson would know this, and if planning to sit on the step, he would naturally push it fully open so it wouldn`t swing shut whilst he`s sitting there.
                                I know I should have checked the above before posting, perhaps someone else can confirm ?
                                It couldn't swing shut as he sat there. It would only go as far as his body. Whether the door could actually be pushed open and STAY open is not something that can be confirmed. It would take some device on the fence, like a string or something. Otherwise the door would slam shut - which by all accounts it apparently did. Richardson never says he used some sort of mechanism to keep the door fully open, all that is said is that he didn't have to shut it because it shut itself.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X