Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[John G]

Even if she wasn't, then we still have Prater and Lewis's evidence pointing to Kelly having been killed at 4AM, which lies between Nichols' probable time of death and the 5:20-ish TOD suggested for Chapman. Seen in light of these three murders, perhaps it's the "Double Event" that is the outlier.

Yes, very good points Sam. And further considering time differentials, a 3:40ish time of death for Nichols would represent around 2 hours difference from Eddowes- in contrast to just over an hour and half gap between, say, Nichols and Chapman based upon a 5:15/ 5:20 time of death.

[Michael W Richards]

We dont know the time Nichols was murdered !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yeah, we sort of do. If the witness is to be believed. Its reported that she was first found at 3:15 and faint breathing was apparent. She also had some body heat. So...she was killed just before then. 15 minutes, half an hour earlier..something to that effect. Just like we know within 45 min to 1 hour when Annie was killed, between 5:15 and 6am.

[Fisherman]

Yeah, we sort of do. Its reported that she was first found at 3:15 and faint breathing was apparent.

Sigh. She was found at 3.45 or thereabouts. And faint breathing was not apparent, but a possibility only. Paul said he thought she was perhaps breathing, but only little if she was.

She also had some body heat.

She had a lot of it. "Quite warm" was the verdict.

So...she was killed just before then.

Absolutely.

15 minutes, half an hour earlier..something to that effect.

Or three minutes - there was still blood running from the neck when Neil and Mizen looked at her.

Just like we know within 45 min to 1 hour when Annie was killed, between 5:15 and 6am.

Well, since you did not get the rest right ...

[Fisherman]

I realize you have a different take on it, however, despite your conclusion I have, in fact, looked at it in detail. Also, I didn't say he didn't cut any leather from his boot, I said he worked on his boot and went to work, and later claims he had to do more repairs because the knife wasn't sharp enough.

He never said he "worked on his boot", though. That expression is used for ine reason only and that reason is to make it look as if he said the same thing throughout. And he didn´t. he changed his story materially.

From that it is clear the repair wasn't complete, apparently because the knife was too dull and it didn't do the job fully, but that doesn't mean he failed to remove anything at all. Do try and understand what I'm saying rather than simply trying to find a way to misinterpret it.

Do try and keep to the truth and you will find me much more compliant.

And no, I'm not going to go into the Phillips distraction again here, as that's for another thread. I see no need to simply repeat the whole thing again. There's no need to suggest logic is being thrown to the wind simply because someone doesn't agree with your interpretation by the way.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me per se, and everything to do with how the factual content is abused in a long line,beginning with Baxter. Let´s discuss the factual content instead of peddling a picture of how I cannot stand being disagreed with. It´s simplistic and wrong.

We have very different approaches to how to evaluate the evidence, and what works for you doesn't work for me, and vice versa.

- Jeff

There you go.

[Michael W Richards]

Well, since you did not get the rest right ...

Sorry, I see that I wrote 3:15 instead of 3:45. My mistake. As for Annie, no amount of pouting changes the facts there Fisherman, its a certainty she dies between 5:15 and 6am. We have a witness to that spot before a silent dead body is there, one who hears what is likely the murder, and one who finds the body when it is deceased.

[Fisherman]

Can anyone give us a convincing reason why Richardson might have lied about the knife?

Id suggest that if we cannot come up with a plausible reason then this would considerably reduce the chances of it being a lie and increase the chances of it being some kind of misunderstanding.

What do you refer to when you speak about lying about the knife? We already know that he did just that, since he knew full well that it could not be used to cut leather from his boot. He admitted that the story he had told was not correct and altered it when the knife was put in front of the coroner and found too dull to cut leather.

You now want us to regard this as some kind of "misunderstanding". Did Richardson actually beleive that he had cut the leather from his boot with the dull knife? Or? What misunderstanding can there be? All the papers quote him as saying that he sat down and cut leather from his boot, and some papers quoote him as saying that once he had cut the leather off, he laced up his boot and left for the market. Did Richardson misundertstand this himself? Or did the papers misunderstand him, together with the coroner and jury who were all under the impression that Richardson had actually said that he cut the leather from his boot? Was that not what he told them?

Whatever it is, it is no misunderstanding. It can perhaps be a case of Richardson inititally not remembering that he had to abort the cutting and go in search for a sharper knife, and correcting himself when he suddenly remembered this. Which was in combination with the coroner pointing out to him that the knife he exhibited could not cut boot leather. Or that he thought "Let´s not go into the finer details of what happened, because it does not alter my story in a way that influences my testimony as such".

Those are the only two explanations I can find - and I find both of them very strained and strange. But there you are. Whatever it was, it was no misunderstanding.

An explanation that has been thrown forward in times passed is that perhaps Richardson had cut his boot with another knife, a much sharper one, but that he wanted to keep that from the inquest becasue he was afraid to be looked at with suspicion - a man in the backyard at a time perhaps consistent with the time Chapman was killed, and with a sharp knife; that sounds like a dangerous combination.

I find that explanation a possibility, albeit not a possibility that would make me vote reliabale on the poll...

[Fisherman]

You mean that it irritates you that I won’t just agree with everything you say.

No, that was not what I meant. It was more along the line of how you are always willing to answer in the inflammatory manner you just did.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, I see that I wrote 3:15 instead of 3:45. My mistake. As for Annie, no amount of pouting changes the facts there Fisherman, its a certainty she dies between 5:15 and 6am. We have a witness to that spot before a silent dead body is there, one who hears what is likely the murder, and one who finds the body when it is deceased.

Don´t be silly, Michael. You know full well that it is anything but a certainty. Medically, it is nigh on impossible, and the witnesses were all over the place. End of.

[Abby Normal]

Can anyone give us a convincing reason why Richardson might have lied about the knife?

Id suggest that if we cannot come up with a plausible reason then this would considerably reduce the chances of it being a lie and increase the chances of it being some kind of misunderstanding.

Hi HS
well he probably didn't think the details were that important and didn't feel like getting into it. so perhaps a simple lie by omission.
neverthe less there could be other explanations, but still he has a discrepancy with his story-which could be a red flag. or at least a yellow flag.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can anyone give us a convincing reason why Richardson might have lied about the knife?

Id suggest that if we cannot come up with a plausible reason then this would considerably reduce the chances of it being a lie and increase the chances of it being some kind of misunderstanding.

We are not hear to wildly speculate, only to assess and evaluate what evidence we have to work with. To much wild speculation has found its way into ripperology

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

What do you refer to when you speak about lying about the knife? We already know that he did just that, since he knew full well that it could not be used to cut leather from his boot. He admitted that the story he had told was not correct and altered it when the knife was put in front of the coroner and found too dull to cut leather.

You now want us to regard this as some kind of "misunderstanding". Did Richardson actually beleive that he had cut the leather from his boot with the dull knife? Or? What misunderstanding can there be? All the papers quote him as saying that he sat down and cut leather from his boot, and some papers quoote him as saying that once he had cut the leather off, he laced up his boot and left for the market. Did Richardson misundertstand this himself? Or did the papers misunderstand him, together with the coroner and jury who were all under the impression that Richardson had actually said that he cut the leather from his boot? Was that not what he told them?

Whatever it is, it is no misunderstanding. It can perhaps be a case of Richardson inititally not remembering that he had to abort the cutting and go in search for a sharper knife, and correcting himself when he suddenly remembered this. Which was in combination with the coroner pointing out to him that the knife he exhibited could not cut boot leather. Or that he thought "Let´s not go into the finer details of what happened, because it does not alter my story in a way that influences my testimony as such".

Those are the only two explanations I can find - and I find both of them very strained and strange. But there you are. Whatever it was, it was no misunderstanding.

An explanation that has been thrown forward in times passed is that perhaps Richardson had cut his boot with another knife, a much sharper one, but that he wanted to keep that from the inquest becasue he was afraid to be looked at with suspicion - a man in the backyard at a time perhaps consistent with the time Chapman was killed, and with a sharp knife; that sounds like a dangerous combination.

I find that explanation a possibility, albeit not a possibility that would make me vote reliabale on the poll...

The questions that I’m asking are why he apparently changed his story? Does it imply that he lied about sitting on the step?

I don’t see how it affects whether he sat on the step or not because he wasn’t claiming to have borrowed a sharper knife and then returned to the step. So the second knife work was away from number 29 which doesn’t back up his story. So why did he say this unless there was an explanation. Like he might have done some work on his boot with his own knife and then more work with the sharper one. If people lie they usually have a good reason (in their mind at least) for doing so. The story of the second knife doesn’t benefit Richardson. So why are we assuming a sinister motivation when there could be an innocent explanation?

[Herlock Sholmes]

We are not hear to wildly speculate, only to assess and evaluate what evidence we have to work with. To much wild speculation has found its way into ripperology

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There’s nothing ‘wild’ about questioning the second knife story because it makes no sense as a lie for Richardson. Though I realise that it’s much more convenient to persistently dismiss inconvenient witnesses.

[Michael W Richards]

Don´t be silly, Michael. You know full well that it is anything but a certainty. Medically, it is nigh on impossible, and the witnesses were all over the place. End of.

Fisherman, the witness are not all over the place...your confusing that with your morphing killer running around killing everyone in a variety of ways. Richardson establishes that she wasn't dead before 5 in that specific spot, Cadosche establishes that someone was on that spot and alive at 5:15, and Davis establishes that the victim was found on that spot before 6am.

I frankly don't care if people want to ignore the obvious witness established facts, but please just don't pester me with the complaints that it doesn't fit your own theories.

[Michael W Richards]

We are not hear to wildly speculate, only to assess and evaluate what evidence we have to work with. To much wild speculation has found its way into ripperology

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No **** sherlock. Annies TOD can be roughly established, within 1 hour, just using the facts I just posted, that should be the end of that.

[Sam Flynn]

To much wild speculation has found its way into ripperology

...such as the idea of someone being warped enough to disembowel a woman on the street and just leaving it at that, only for someone else to crudely remove one or two of her organs later, for example.