Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[Sam Flynn]

Only if one was to believe Cadosch and Richardsons testimony would this be true..... i for one do not.

Why should either of them, Cadoche especially, not have told the truth?

[Michael W Richards]

Why should either of them, Cadoche especially, not have told the truth?

Precisely my point Sam. They had no know reasons to embellish, concoct or mislead. The same applies to other witnesses in other alleged Ripper cases. Who had reasons to give stories that were not just personal recollections of the actual event and what they saw and did?

That being said, some people were wrong in what they believed they saw. Or whom.

[JeffHamm]

Only if one was to believe Cadosch and Richardsons testimony would this be true..... i for one do not.

We are all capable of believing things that are true and things that are not true. We are also equally capable of disbelieving things that are true and not true. For the purpose of discussions here, and usually elsewhere, while it is helpful to set the context by stating what one's state of belief is, by itself it provides no input given those first two statements. Where things get interesting is expanding upon the reasons upon which your belief is based. Stating the evidence from which you draw your conclusions, and walking others through the logic of your reasoning, tying it to the evidence where necessary. If you can present an internally consistent line of reasoning starting from evidence that ends up at your conclusion, without having to use the conclusion itself within that line of reasoning, then you may convince people to share your belief. However, if your evaluation of the evidence is based upon aspects of the conclusion, well that's not going to work. For example, if my conclusion was that Annie Chapman was murdered before 4:45 and so I dismiss evidence to the contrary solely in order to clear the path for Phillips estimate to get me to that conclusion, I will probably find my argument will be viewed as less compelling than if I could reference evidence that showed the witness statements were inaccurate. Even then, of course, showing the witnesses to be inaccurate doesn't mean Phillips suddenly becomes accurate - his testimony has to be evaluated on its own merits. And when done so, it is shown to be wanting. The witness statements, being all we have left, have not been shown to be lies, and while some argue the statements change between tellings, they do not do so in a way that negate themselves, rather each telling provides further information, which is typical of repeated questioning on the same topic. In fact, when statements are too similar from one telling to the next, they start to appear more like rehearsed scripts, which does start to become suspicious. Ironically, there are some who have argued that because the statements do not sound like rehearsed scripts, they should be dismissed.

- Jeff

[chameleon1]

Why should either of them, Cadoche especially, not have told the truth?

I have no doubt that Cadosch told what he thought was the truth, he was ,in ''my opinion'' just incorrect in how he interpreted the events of that morning.

''if you put those witnesses in a witness box in a trial they would get torn to shreds'', especially cadosch

[Sam Flynn]

I have no doubt that Cadosch told what he thought was the truth, he was ,in ''my opinion'' just incorrect in how he interpreted the events of that morning.

He didn't interpret anything, but merely reported what he'd heard: a voice saying "No" and the sound of something falling against the fence between him and #29.

[chameleon1]

By his own admission he could not be sure which side the ''no'' came from, there for we cant be sure 100 per cent sure that it came from no 29 . As for the sound of something hitting the fence, yes that part he was sure about, but that was some time after the no was it not, so one should be careful as to conclude that the two were at all related.

[Sam Flynn]

As for the sound of something hitting the fence, yes that part he was sure about, but that was some time after the no was it not

Mere minutes, and whether the "no" was significant or not is less important. Something heavy enough to make a noticeable noise bumped against that fence when Cadoche was out in his back yard. Soon afterwards, Annie Chapman's body was found in close proximity to the other side of that fence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By his own admission he could not be sure which side the ''no'' came from, there for we cant be sure 100 per cent sure that it came from no 29 . As for the sound of something hitting the fence, yes that part he was sure about, but that was some time after the no was it not, so one should be careful as to conclude that the two were at all related.

What else could the noise have been? According to Phillips TOD Annie was lying dead when Cadosch was in the yard. Dead bodies don’t usually move around and people don’t usually move around in yards containing mutilated corpses without noticing them. The fact that he was cautious about the word “no” points to him being an honest witness (if he was simply an attention seeker he could have been totally confident as there was no one to contradict him.)So it’s overwhelmingly likely that he heard Annie and her killer imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no doubt that Cadosch told what he thought was the truth, he was ,in ''my opinion'' just incorrect in how he interpreted the events of that morning.

''if you put those witnesses in a witness box in a trial they would get torn to shreds'', especially cadosch

This quote is from Trevor I think. It’s nonsense when directed at Cadosch. No one could find fault with his testimony. There would have been grounds for Richardson to have been grilled of course but, as ever, Trevor is only looking at it from a negative point of view. We might equally say that if Richardson had been grilled about his passageway interview with Chandler he might simply have said “no, Inspector Chandler is mistaken, I did tell him that I’d sat on the steps.” We can’t assume, as Trevor does, that Richardson would have been exposed as a fantasist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson walks into the yard. He is horrified to see the body. Just then he sees the Ripper of whom he knows as a bad hombre in the hood. The ripper points a gun at him and says. "You know me and I know your mother. If you want her to not end up like this whore you will keep your mouth shut." Richardson makes up a story to protect his mother and the Ripper. He is protecting the Ripper/Mother when he contradicts his mother at the inquest.

Why then at The Inquest would Richardson have been stupid enough to have put himself on the back step with a knife? It’s been suggested that he might have felt it necessary to admit to having been to number 29 in case someone had seen him entering the premises. This is a valid point of course but Richardson didn’t have to mention the yard or the knife. He could easily have said “I went to my mom’s house to pick up my....whatever”

[Herlock Sholmes]

So what if who Long saw were two married people having an affair? They go into the yard, she sees the body and says no. He opens the back door to get a closer look and the door hits the fence. They say nothing because they dont want to expose the affair. Thats one scenario. I wont argue. If you think Long saw the Ripper then you have your man.

The problem is how hard we have to work to get to an alternative theory. An illicit couple conducting their courtship in random backyards. Then they happen to choose a yard with a mutilated corpse. They’re also unlucky enough for the woman to look so much like Annie Chapman that she’s id’d by Long. Neither of your two scenarios are impossible LA but for me they are unlikely. Overall, and based on the witnesses I have to say that I feel confident that we can say that Annie died at around 5.25-5.30.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

By his own admission he could not be sure which side the ''no'' came from, there for we cant be sure 100 per cent sure that it came from no 29 . As for the sound of something hitting the fence, yes that part he was sure about, but that was some time after the no was it not, so one should be careful as to conclude that the two were at all related.

Seems likely though? I mean, there wasn't much else going on and a woman turns up dead in the same spot?
And if one was to believe the Phillips TOD, Annie was there when the fence was touched. By whom? And who said "no" in that case? Assuming it came from 29.
Very littles 100%, but the whole 'no, TOD, noisy fence' business was debated as nauseum in other threads, usually leading to them being shut down when they devolve into Stephen Knight fantasy land.
Worth a read though, all the same.

[chameleon1]

If the thud was at 5.28 then death at 5.30 makes sense , however the mutilations and organ removal over the next 15 minutes [ according to one doctor ] means that the killer was still in the yard at 5.43 / 5.45 . Verrry risky to be on that spot in the now daylight .

Also how is it that if death was at 5.30 that the doctor who arrived at 6.30 she had been dead for two hours probably more ? how could he have got it so wrong , you would think that it would have been a lot easier for him to make a more accurate call after just an hour . why was he so far out

[Trevor Marriott]

If the thud was at 5.28 then death at 5.30 makes sense , however the mutilations and organ removal over the next 15 minutes [ according to one doctor ] means that the killer was still in the yard at 5.43 / 5.45 . Verrry risky to be on that spot in the now daylight .

Also how is it that if death was at 5.30 that the doctor who arrived at 6.30 she had been dead for two hours probably more ? how could he have got it so wrong , you would think that it would have been a lot easier for him to make a more accurate call after just an hour . why was he so far out

You make a good point and in comparison Dr`s Brown and Sequeria in Mitre Square made an estimation which proved to be almost spot on.

Now I know that guess work in estimating TOD in modern day murders is frowned upon, but a guess is a guess. sometimes a person guesses right sometimes not

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Let´s have a closer look, once again, at what Cadosch said. Here is his testimony, from the Daily News:

Albert Cadosch, carpenter, testified that he lived at 27 Hanbury street, next door to the house at the back of which the deceased was found. On that morning he got up about a quarter past five and went into the back yard. As he was returning into the house he heard a voice quite near. He could not be sure that it came from the yard of No. 29. Three or four minutes the witness was again in the yard of the house in which he lived, and heard "a sort of fall" against the fence. He did not look to see what it was.

The Coroner - Had you heard any previous noise? - No, sir.

Did you then leave the house? - Yes, sir, to go to work. It was about two minutes after half past five.

At that time in the morning do you often hear people in these yards? - Now and then. They make packing cases at 29, and I sometimes hear them.

The Foreman - Had you not the curiosity to look over the palings when you heard the fall?

The Witness - Well, now and then a packing case falls against the palings, and I did not think that there was anything wrong.

And this is the Morning Advertiser:

Adolphus Caposch (sic), carpenter, lodging next door to 29, Hanbury street, said - About a quarter past five o'clock in the morning of the 8th inst., I was in the yard. I returned in about five minutes, and heard a voice close to me, but I could not say on which side, or in which yard, say "No." I went in and came back into the yard in three or four minutes, and then I heard a sort of fall against the fence which divides the yard from No. 29.

What sort of noise was it? - Well, as if something had touched the fence suddenly. The voice I heard appeared to come from the yard of No. 29. I did not look to see who it was. Afterwards I left the house on my way to my work, and I saw by the clock it was about half past five o'clock. Do you often hear people in these yards? - Not often, but sometimes I do.

By a Juror - I told the police the same day, within an hour and a half of hearing of the murder. The fence is about five or six feet high. Next door there is a packing case maker's, and I did not think it strange to hear the fall against the fence.

The Coroner - Did you see a man or woman in the street? - No; I only saw workmen passing by to their work.

What is obvious here is that Cadosh is saying that the sound he heard was similar to that of a packing case falling against the fence, a sound he was familiar with. The packing cases were basically wooden boxes. A wooden box falling against a fence does not sound anything like a human body doing so. It produces sort of a sudden knock, and nothing more. A body produces a soft thud, and a fall against a fence will involve either a sloping sound as the body slides down in contact with the fence or - if the body bounces off the fence - there will be first the thud and then a crash as the body lands on the ground. Cadosh took care to point out that there was no other sound, no rustling of clothes etcetera.

So IF Albert Cadosh was not simply fishing for fifteen minutes of fame (which remains a possibility), then whatever he was describing seems not to have been the sound of a person falling against the fence, does it? It is more of a sudden knock, something that "touched the fence suddenly", as he puts it himself.

Another interesting matter is how in the Morning Advertiser clipping, Cadosh first says:
I returned in about five minutes, and heard a voice close to me, but I could not say on which side, or in which yard, say "No."

This is clear evidence that he could not tell which side it came from. Funnily, he thereafter says:
The voice I heard appeared to come from the yard of No. 29.

This is an example of how his testimony looks weak, and there is little doubt that a barrister would have picked up on such things if he wanted to dig holes in Cadoshes story. And although the thread question alludes to Richardson, I think we can say that Cadosh was not a very reliable witness. Going from uncertainty to near certainty in ten seconds flat does not promote any real confidence in my book.

Of course, I remain by my stance that whatever Cadosh heard if he indeed DID hear anything at all, it could not have been Chapman being killed. Phillips would never have been that wrong, and he had more than one parameter to work from.

It´s good to see that there are other posters who realize that.