Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

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

  • Well ill go with Chandler and the coroner at the inquest .I doubt very much Mrs Richardson would know what her sons boots even looked like, shisssssh clutching at straws here with that one.


    The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot?

    Chandler "No." 18

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Aelric View Post
      All of this back and forth about how many degrees the door was open and whether it would have blocked Annie's body from being seen or not is all well and good, but what about the smell of freshly spilled innerds and blood? Unless Richardson was anosmic, there's no way he would have missed that with it being right there next to the steps and his feet on the flagstones.
      Richardson had a heavy cold at the time.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post

        Richardson had a heavy cold at the time.
        Plus an acute case of short-sightedness and tunnel vision
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

          Plus an acute case of short-sightedness and tunnel vision
          I don´t know about the short-sightedness, but you would certainly be the master of all things tunnel vision.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

            Plus an acute case of short-sightedness and tunnel vision
            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 Fisherman View Post

              I don´t know about the short-sightedness, but you would certainly be the master of all things tunnel vision.
              I’m sorry Fish but you’re the one putting Richardson sitting in an unnatural position on the step simply to avoid having him see the body (which he obviously would have done had he opened the door normally, held it open normally as he descended the steps and sat in a normal position on the middle step.)
              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 FISHY1118 View Post
                Well ill go with Chandler and the coroner at the inquest .I doubt very much Mrs Richardson would know what her sons boots even looked like, shisssssh clutching at straws here with that one.


                The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot?

                Chandler "No." 18
                What he didn’t mention earlier is irrelevant. Why do we keep inferring the sinister? Would it have been considered dishonest if Richardson had said to Chandler something like “I looked into the yard at ten to five and there was no body there or I’d have seen it.” What would have been wrong with that? It’s all that Chandler needed to have known. And yes, might he have not have been a little wary about admitting to have been in position with a knife so he decided on a bit of self-editing? He then later had to admit to sitting on the step (and consequently why) because the police realised that he could have just checked the cellar doors by opening the door and looking to his right.

                At the end of the day (and also at the Inquest under oath) Richardson told the full story. He sat on the back step and was positioned in such a way that there was absolutely no chance of a mutilated corpse remaining out of sight. He was 100% convinced. In such a small yard the idea that a ripped up corpse remained out of site to a man sitting less than a foot away from it is preposterous.
                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

                  I’m sorry Fish but you’re the one putting Richardson sitting in an unnatural position on the step simply to avoid having him see the body (which he obviously would have done had he opened the door normally, held it open normally as he descended the steps and sat in a normal position on the middle step.)
                  I'm guessing that by 'normal', you mean that he faced straight ahead as he came through the door, opened the door to at least 90°, and then sat facing forward as he fixed his boot. Why would he have done any of that, though? He was interested in what was to the right of the door, not to the left. He had no need to open the door fully - again, it was what was visible to the right that he had come to see. And sitting straight while fixing his boot is just dysfunctional - the door's going to be trying to shut against his left arm while he works. Ignore the fact that there may or may not have been a corpse by the stairs, and just think about Richardson, and how he'd move to accomplish his goal of checking his mom's door, and fixing his boot. He had no reason to look toward the left or to open the door fully. Sitting straight would have impeded him in fixing his boot.
                  - Ginger

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    In such a small yard the idea that a ripped up corpse remained out of site to a man sitting less than a foot away from it is preposterous.
                    Careful, Herlock, as you're straying into an argument from incredulity. It does sound preposterous, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable, as proven in this murder alone (Long & Cadosch). Now that I think about it, I tend to favour Dr Phillips opinion, married with the fact it would be unusually risky for the killer to strike that late in the morning.

                    Comment


                    • What he didn’t mention earlier is irrelevant. Why do we keep inferring the sinister? Would it have been considered dishonest if Richardson had said to Chandler something like “I looked into the yard at ten to five and there was no body there or I’d have seen it.” What would have been wrong with that? It’s all that Chandler needed to have known. And yes, might he have not have been a little wary about admitting to have been in position with a knife so he decided on a bit of self-editing? He then later had to admit to sitting on the step (and consequently why) because the police realised that he could have just checked the cellar doors by opening the door and looking to his right.

                      At the end of the day (and also at the Inquest under oath) Richardson told the full story. He sat on the back step and was positioned in such a way that there was absolutely no chance of a mutilated corpse remaining out of sight. He was 100% convinced. In such a small yard the idea that a ripped up corpse remained out of site to a man sitting less than a foot away from it is preposterous.

                      Far from it irrelevant Herlock,we cant just discount what chandler said, and he was adamant when asked a second time . Its not about anything sinister either, only that i think Richardson simply took a quick glance to his right at the cellar door and turned and went to work not noticing Chapman to his left . when he later realized that he completely missed her, as not to look the fool he needed the ''i sat on the step to cut the leather off my boot'' story to convince people that there was no way he could have not seen her under those circumstances . So in his mind she mustn't have been there .Just my opinion of what happen where John Richardson is concerned.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ginger View Post

                        I'm guessing that by 'normal', you mean that he faced straight ahead as he came through the door, opened the door to at least 90°, and then sat facing forward as he fixed his boot. Why would he have done any of that, though? He was interested in what was to the right of the door, not to the left. He had no need to open the door fully - again, it was what was visible to the right that he had come to see. And sitting straight while fixing his boot is just dysfunctional - the door's going to be trying to shut against his left arm while he works. Ignore the fact that there may or may not have been a corpse by the stairs, and just think about Richardson, and how he'd move to accomplish his goal of checking his mom's door, and fixing his boot. He had no reason to look toward the left or to open the door fully. Sitting straight would have impeded him in fixing his boot.
                        But Ginger the overwhelming point is surely the fact that Richardson himself, after seeing the body in situ, was absolutely adamant that he couldn’t have missed it. If he’d sat facing right, with the door against the left side of his back, how could he not have been aware that there was an area behind the door that was out of sight to him and where a body might have remained hidden?
                        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 Harry D View Post

                          Careful, Herlock, as you're straying into an argument from incredulity. It does sound preposterous, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable, as proven in this murder alone (Long & Cadosch). Now that I think about it, I tend to favour Dr Phillips opinion, married with the fact it would be unusually risky for the killer to strike that late in the morning.
                          Well spotted Harry. Just checking to see if you were paying attention for logical fallacies.

                          Not impossible of course. But I’d echo my response to Ginger. I’d express it as exceedingly unlikely imo.
                          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 FISHY1118 View Post


                            Far from it irrelevant Herlock,we cant just discount what chandler said, and he was adamant when asked a second time . Its not about anything sinister either, only that i think Richardson simply took a quick glance to his right at the cellar door and turned and went to work not noticing Chapman to his left . when he later realized that he completely missed her, as not to look the fool he needed the ''i sat on the step to cut the leather off my boot'' story to convince people that there was no way he could have not seen her under those circumstances . So in his mind she mustn't have been there .Just my opinion of what happen where John Richardson is concerned.
                            Why would he have looked a fool by missing her if he’d only glanced to his right without opening the door fully? No blame could have been attached to him or criticism levelled. So what benefit did Richardson gain by putting himself in that yard? 15 minutes of fame? Not impossible of course. But why didn’t he just say - I went out into the yard to check the cellar door so as I walked back to the door I could see fully where the body lay and she wasn’t there. - Simple. Why didn’t he say - I sat on the step and smoked my pipe for 5 minutes and the body wasn’t there. - Again, simple. But no he puts himself in that yard with a knife. Why? The fact that he originally didn’t mention the knife and the shoe to Chandler doesn’t affect his Inquest testimony unless we have the Sinister Goggles on.

                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • Why would he have looked a fool by missing her if he’d only glanced to his right without opening the door fully? No blame could have been attached to him or criticism levelled. So what benefit did Richardson gain by putting himself in that yard? 15 minutes of fame? Not impossible of course. But why didn’t he just say - I went out into the yard to check the cellar door so as I walked back to the door I could see fully where the body lay and she wasn’t there. - Simple. Why didn’t he say - I sat on the step and smoked my pipe for 5 minutes and the body wasn’t there. - Again, simple. But no he puts himself in that yard with a knife. Why? The fact that he originally didn’t mention the knife and the shoe to Chandler doesn’t affect his Inquest testimony unless we have the Sinister Goggles on.
                              Ok perhaps this is how it went down , Chandler pulls john Richardson aside on the morning of the murder. He interviews John Richardson at about 6:45 that morning and was told "he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work. Chandler then informs Richo ''hey John ive just talked to Dr Phillips he said that Chapmans been dead for up to 2 hours about 4/4.30, you know what that means john dont you.....? yer you were just inches away from the body and you didn't even know it'' john give a shrugs of the shoulders and gives a nod . That is the end of that . Now two days later john then makes his statement about sitting on the step to cut his boot , why on earth would he need then to say that ?

                              ''The fact that he originally didn’t mention the knife and the shoe to Chandler doesn’t affect his Inquest testimony''

                              it affects it a lot i believe.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Well spotted Harry. Just checking to see if you were paying attention for logical fallacies.

                                Not impossible of course. But I’d echo my response to Ginger. I’d express it as exceedingly unlikely imo.
                                There can be no arguments, if Phillips was right that he saw signs of onset Rigor, then he has to be believed, and she was killed much earlier, which if it was the same killer is in line with the TOD of the other victims.

                                Witness testimony throughout these murders has now been proven to unreliable, and unsafe, that still applies to this case.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X