Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[Fisherman]

No one can confirm or corroborate that Chandler was correct and that he didn’t mention sitting on the steps either though.

True - but it is - at least to my. mind - less likely that Chandler would intentionally misinform. He did not need to look for fifteen minutes of fame, becasue his role in the drama was secured by his role in it. However, Chandles may of course have misunderstood or misheard Richardson, but that is secondary to the question asked in the thread: was Richardson reliable. The one answer we can offer is that we don´t know. There is evidence that he did not (at least initially) tell the truth about the leather cutting business, and once there is such evidence, the scales tip over somewhat in the "no, we cannot rely on him" direction, but since we don´t know WHY this false information was offered, we really cannot establish how deep the rot goes, or even if there WAS any real rot.


Obviously we disagree on this one. It’s asking too much to suggest that he walked through a door and went down two steps without pushing the door open easily wide enough to have seen the body. Or that he then sat on the step facing to his right with the door resting against the left hand side of his body. And even if he did do these things it’s simply unthinkable that he wouldn’t have realised the possibility that the body might have remained hidden. Especially considering the fact that he actually saw the body. He was absolutely certain that he couldn’t have missed a corpse had it been there.

Yes, we disagreee, because I do not acknowledge that the dorr must have been opened enough to allow for him to see the body, and I do not agree that Richardson cannot have had his body angled to the right in a pronounced way. There are no physical or logical obstacles for it. And I have already pointeds out that since we cannot establish whether Richardson was reliable or not, no full trust can be put in how he said that he should have seen the body if it was there.

[Sam Flynn]

He was absolutely certain that he couldn't have missed a corpse had it been there.

...and said so, consistently and unequivocally, from the very day of the murder: "There was nobody there. Of that I am sure" (The Star, 8th Sept 1888).

[Herlock Sholmes]

But were they genuine. If you know you have provided false information whether that be deliberate or accidentally and you have been found out you are going to try to rectify the situation.

He shou'd have been asked "Did you tell Insp Chandler ___________________________?

That might have given a clearer picture. People do lie on oath !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Richardson never got a chance to respond because he testified before Chandler. As no one could corroborate what Richardson did or didn’t say to Chandler in the passageway it’s one man’s word against another. Chandler could have been mistaken, Richardson might have not mentioned sitting on the steps because he didn’t feel that that bit of detail was necessary. Perhaps the conversation was interrupted and ended prematurely by the arrival of Dr Phillips? Richardson gave a fuller version at the Inquest and let’s remember it wasn’t due to prompting. No one said to him “did you stand or sit on the steps?” He mentioned sitting on the steps entirely of his own volition.

People do lie on oath Trevor but when we ask which is likelier to have been correct, a) Chandler’s uncorroborated, unrecorded version, taken from an impromptu conversation in a passageway at the outset of the investigation into a sensational murder, or b) Richardson’s unprompted statement under oath?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But surely he did take the same risks again, i.e. if you accept Eddowes was murdered by the same individual. Thus, the latter victim was killed in a location that was regularly patrolled by two police officers, and he therefore risked being caught at any time. Moreover, even being seen entering the square, by three witnesses, didn't dissuade him.

Exactly John. At that time of the morning people were on the way to work or else lounging in the street with no reason to be paying attention to anyone. So, unless the killer was dripping with blood, why would anyone have paid him any greater attention?

[Fisherman]

The problem for me is that if someone invents a ‘bogus’ story they must have had a reason for doing so. The only suggestion that has been put forward, as far as I’m aware, about why he said what he did was to add weight to his story of sitting on the steps (after the Coroner pointed out the bluntness of his own knife) to repair his shoe. But the story of the second knife doesn’t help him because nowhere does he suggest that he borrowed the second knife from someone at the market and then returned to number 29 and the back step. So why would he make this up?

I don´t think it is much use to present a number of possibilities and then have you dismissing them becasue you don´t like them. That is not how these kinds of things are best resolved. Let´s just admit that people Do make things up, and sometimes when they do so they have a very good reason for it that we cannot see.

This is why I suggest the possibility that he might have done some work on his shoe at number 29 but he needed a sharper knife to complete the job. And as Etenguy has suggested, maybe Richardson just wasn’t one of life’s great communicators? Maybe the Press made errors.

Yes, maybe. And that is the one thing we need to keep in mind. Maybe he was there. Maybe he was not. Maybe he lied. Maybe he did not. Maybe he sat on that step. Maybe he did not. Maybe he was reliable. Maybe he was not. And since he may have missed out on the body even if he was telling the truth, maybe the whole discussion is in vain.

And as for the shoe cutting, maybe he did try with the blunt knife and "did some work" with it, only to realize that he needed a sharper tool. But it is on record that he initially said that the blunt knife did the work, and he spoke of how "after he had cut the leather from his boot", he rose and walked out of the yard.

Maybe that is all very innocent. Maybe it is not. But we do know that it comprises information that was not compatible with the truth, and as such, this is the one and only established item we have to lean against when we try to answer the question about Richardsons veracity.

[Fisherman]

...and said so, consistently and unequivocally, from the very day of the murder: "There was nobody there. Of that I am sure" (The Star, 8th Sept 1888).

The problem is that there are millions of examples of people who have been dead certain of things - and dead wrong. Long said she was certain that the woman she saw was Chapman, but apparently more doubt is allowed in her case? Isn´t that strange? Should not an observation count for MORE than the lack of one? Especially since we have no record at all of Richardson saying "I looked behind the door too!"
The thing is that we know full well that the police reasoned that he could have missed the body. And they must have asked whether he looked behind the door or not. And since they opted for accepting that he could have missed out, we have our answer to the question whether he was asked about looking behind the door or not - he wasn´t.

Alfred Long was adamant that the rag in Goulston Street was NOT there the first time he passed. He was sure. Certain.
But in HIS case, that certainty is conveniently brushed aside. I amounts to nothing. One has to wonder how these things come about. If Richardsons assertions of having been able to establish a lack of something are condoned, then why would Long not be equally able to establish a lack of something else? And he did not have a door between himself and the rag!

[Fisherman]

A useful read for those who think that being certain equials being certain - and correct. This is about a rape victim who picked out a man from a line-up and claimed in court that she was positive that he was the rapist. He was sent down, and in jail, he found another man he thought may have been the real rapist. When shown this second man, the raped woman said that she had never before seen him in her entire life.
And guess what...?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...s-to-jail.html

[Trevor Marriott]

Richardson never got a chance to respond because he testified before Chandler. As no one could corroborate what Richardson did or didn’t say to Chandler in the passageway it’s one man’s word against another. Chandler could have been mistaken, Richardson might have not mentioned sitting on the steps because he didn’t feel that that bit of detail was necessary. Perhaps the conversation was interrupted and ended prematurely by the arrival of Dr Phillips? Richardson gave a fuller version at the Inquest and let’s remember it wasn’t due to prompting. No one said to him “did you stand or sit on the steps?” He mentioned sitting on the steps entirely of his own volition.

People do lie on oath Trevor but when we ask which is likelier to have been correct, a) Chandler’s uncorroborated, unrecorded version, taken from an impromptu conversation in a passageway at the outset of the investigation into a sensational murder, or b) Richardson’s unprompted statement under oath?

He could have been recalled to clear up the ambiguity, and whether you or others like it or not these witnesses testimonies from an evidence perspective do not stand up to close scrutiny, and are therefore unsafe to totally rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly John. At that time of the morning people were on the way to work or else lounging in the street with no reason to be paying attention to anyone. So, unless the killer was dripping with blood, why would anyone have paid him any greater attention?

Is seems Mrs Long did ! if she is to be beleived

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But surely he did take the same risks again, i.e. if you accept Eddowes was murdered by the same individual. Thus, the latter victim was killed in a location that was regularly patrolled by two police officers, and he therefore risked being caught at any time. Moreover, even being seen entering the square, by three witnesses, didn't dissuade him.

But not as late as the Chapman murder when it was getting light

And did he know the square was patrolled by two policemen, did he know he had been seen ? Questions that cannot be answered.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The problem is that there are millions of examples of people who have been dead certain of things - and dead wrong. Long said she was certain that the woman she saw was Chapman, but apparently more doubt is allowed in her case? Isn´t that strange? Should not an observation count for MORE than the lack of one? Especially since we have no record at all of Richardson saying "I looked behind the door too!"
The thing is that we know full well that the police reasoned that he could have missed the body. And they must have asked whether he looked behind the door or not. And since they opted for accepting that he could have missed out, we have our answer to the question whether he was asked about looking behind the door or not - he wasn´t.

Alfred Long was adamant that the rag in Goulston Street was NOT there the first time he passed. He was sure. Certain.
But in HIS case, that certainty is conveniently brushed aside. I amounts to nothing. One has to wonder how these things come about. If Richardsons assertions of having been able to establish a lack of something are condoned, then why would Long not be equally able to establish a lack of something else? And he did not have a door between himself and the rag!

The red section should of course read: The thing is tht we know full well that the police reasoned that he could have missed the body. And they must have asked whether he looked behind the door or not. And since they opted for accepting that he could have missed out, we have our answer: Richardson WAS asked whether he looked behind the door or not, and he must have answered that he never looked behind it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d ask a general question:

If Richardson lied about the knife....why did he lie?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The red section should of course read: The thing is tht we know full well that the police reasoned that he could have missed the body. And they must have asked whether he looked behind the door or not. And since they opted for accepting that he could have missed out, we have our answer: Richardson WAS asked whether he looked behind the door or not, and he must have answered that he never looked behind it.

I don’t know why such a question had to have been specifically asked if Richardson had simply told them that he’d had a view of the entire yard and that he simply couldn’t have missed a body? Why would they have needed to have pursued the matter?

[Sam Flynn]

Is seems Mrs Long did ! if she is to be beleived

Mrs Long saw a man talking to a woman outside the door to 29 Hanbury Street. She did not see a man walking along on his own.

[Fisherman]

I don’t know why such a question had to have been specifically asked if Richardson had simply told them that he’d had a view of the entire yard and that he simply couldn’t have missed a body? Why would they have needed to have pursued the matter?

Because, of course, their own surgeon, Bagster Phillips, had offered evidence that seemingly ruled out that Richardson could be right. Therefore, they must have asked him exactly where he sat and exactly what he could see from there.
The very fact that the police entertained the idea that Richardson could have missed out on account of the body being hidden behind the door must rest on the fact that he was asked about it and denied having looked there. Otherwise, there could be no case made for Richardson having missed out.

The police knew that the entire yard was not visible from the stairs, and they knew that what WAS visible hinged on the position of Richardson and the door. Therefore, there is not a chance that he was not asked about these things. And therefore, the fact that the idea that Richardson could have missed the body will have rested on how his position and the doors ditto may have allowed for it.

Of course, they would also have pursued the errand becasue they would not lightheartedly just accept that if Richardson said that he could not have missed a body if it was there. No police force worth their salt would do that - they would ask themselves "is this correct, CAN all of the yard, and specifically the recess berween the fence and the stairs, be seen from where he sat?
It is exactly in line with what we should do too, instead of saying "If he said so, then that must be true". And as I pointed out earlier, IF we are to adapt such a careless attitude, then it should at least go for every witness who says something and claims to be sure (see LONG, Alfred - PC).