Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

The point is that Richardson would have been aware that had he sat in a certain way, facing a certain way with the door at a certain angle the door could possibly have concealed a body. He understood that but dismissed it because he knew that those circumstances hadn’t occurred. That due to either how far that he initially opened the door and/or the position that he’d sat in combined with the position of the door that he’d have seen the body.

If he hadn’t seen the body later and had just been told that she’d been found in the yard then it’s possible that he might have ignored the possibility of the door thinking that she’d have been somewhere in front of him. But as we know, that wasn’t the case.

This is why I say that he’d have had to have been stupid to a remarkable degree to not have known that the body ‘might’ have been hidden by the door if that was the case.

Richardson could well have sat in a position that meant that he could not say if he should have seen her or not, and simply felt embarrased by the idea that he had missed a corpse. It isnīt any more difficult than that. And although it makes him quite human it does not make him stupid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson could well have sat in a position that meant that he could not say if he should have seen her or not, and simply felt embarrased by the idea that he had missed a corpse. It isnīt any more difficult than that. And although it makes him quite human it does not make him stupid.

Where you smiling when you typed that Fish?

I don’t buy it for a second. If it was possible for the body to have been concealed he’d have known it.

[harry]

I see now that what Cadosch is supposed to have heard was a scuffle,a heavy fall against the fence and an exclamation of 'No'.Taken that the 'No" came first,there is then a period where nothing is known to have happened,then a scuffle,then a fall.Without her screaming or saying anythig?It started off many moons ago,that the killer took her by surprise,and she was unable to do anything,or cry out.Now she is scuffling with the killer.Very soon we will have the killer acting in self defence.

[harry]

Just to clarify this supposed clash between the evidence of Cadosch and Long.The evidence of Cadosch does not prove a killing took place at a time before he left for work.The sounds that he heard could have been made by a person or persons who departed the yard just after Cadosch departed his,and just before the couple that Long saw,and then Long herself arrived.This is not only my surmise,it has been stated by other posters in the past,and is certainly possible.So no conflict.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So Annie Chapman who, like the other poor women at the time charged a pittance to sell themselves, rather than finding some doorway that they could have used for free, goes to use Mrs Richardson’s luxury bordello- basement and gave up a part of her fee as commission?

It was not her usual destination - too upmarket - and that's why she smelt trouble and balked when they got to the backyard, and told Jack 'no'.
It was Jack's idea to go there, and he left a tip in the jar in the back palour when they got there.
That's how it worked, and that's why Amelia spun this little story...

In the back parlour I was cooking on Friday night. I locked it up at half-past nine and took the key up with me. It was still locked when I came down in the morning.

Maybe Mary Kelly was Lapdancing there at the time? Maybe number 29 was known as The Pink Pussycat by locals but no one mentioned it?

You're getting the hang of this Herlock. Keep those fresh ideas coming...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

More fundamental than what Richardson could or might not have seen from the steps, is the question of what he was doing there in the first place.

Amelia: At six a.m. my grandson, Thomas Richardson, aged fourteen, who lives with me, got up. I sent him down to see what was the matter, as there was so much noise in the passage. He came back and said, "Oh, grandmother, there is a woman murdered."

If the young lad were capable of doing that for grandma, why not make checking the cellar padlock one of his daily chores?
Save dad a trip to the house, twice each market day.

JR: You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.
WB: And that was the sole object you had in going there?
JR: Yes, sir.

Bollocks!

[Fisherman]

Where you smiling when you typed that Fish?

I don’t buy it for a second. If it was possible for the body to have been concealed he’d have known it.

Your line of thinking is easy enough to see: If Richardson was not a retard, it is a proven thing that the body was not there, becasue he WOULD have seen it.

May I remind you that we are dealing with a witness who gave two varying versions of his testimony, as per inspector Chandler? May I remind you that the police very clearly doubted him? May I remind you that far from having any proof that the body was not there, we donīt even have prrof that Richardson himself was.

You attitude becomes more of mouth shut, eyes closed, hands over ears with every point against the three witnesses. It is not a serious manner of looking at the evidence.

[Fisherman]

I see now that what Cadosch is supposed to have heard was a scuffle,a heavy fall against the fence and an exclamation of 'No'.Taken that the 'No" came first,there is then a period where nothing is known to have happened,then a scuffle,then a fall.Without her screaming or saying anythig?It started off many moons ago,that the killer took her by surprise,and she was unable to do anything,or cry out.Now she is scuffling with the killer.Very soon we will have the killer acting in self defence.

So you find Cadoschīs testimony illogical, Harry?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was not her usual destination - too upmarket - and that's why she smelt trouble and balked when they got to the backyard, and told Jack 'no'.
It was Jack's idea to go there, and he left a tip in the jar in the back palour when they got there.
That's how it worked, and that's why Amelia spun this little story...

In the back parlour I was cooking on Friday night. I locked it up at half-past nine and took the key up with me. It was still locked when I came down in the morning.



You're getting the hang of this Herlock. Keep those fresh ideas coming...

You can’t really believe this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

More fundamental than what Richardson could or might not have seen from the steps, is the question of what he was doing there in the first place.

Amelia: At six a.m. my grandson, Thomas Richardson, aged fourteen, who lives with me, got up. I sent him down to see what was the matter, as there was so much noise in the passage. He came back and said, "Oh, grandmother, there is a woman murdered."

If the young lad were capable of doing that for grandma, why not make checking the cellar padlock one of his daily chores?
Save dad a trip to the house, twice each market day.

JR: You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.
WB: And that was the sole object you had in going there?
JR: Yes, sir.

Bollocks!

It was Richardson’s decision not his mother’s. He was concerned so he checked on his way to market. It obviously wasn’t out of his way. You keep reading into things and finding mysteries that aren’t mysteries. If you look at the case like that you can imagine suspicious behaviour anywhere. You’ll be able to build some kind of ‘case’ against anyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your line of thinking is easy enough to see: If Richardson was not a retard, it is a proven thing that the body was not there, becasue he WOULD have seen it.

May I remind you that we are dealing with a witness who gave two varying versions of his testimony, as per inspector Chandler? May I remind you that the police very clearly doubted him? May I remind you that far from having any proof that the body was not there, we donīt even have prrof that Richardson himself was.

You attitude becomes more of mouth shut, eyes closed, hands over ears with every point against the three witnesses. It is not a serious manner of looking at the evidence.

I’m not saying that Richardson must have been a regard for missing a body Fish.

Im not trying to put words into your mouth here so you will correct me if I’m wrong but....I think that you might believe that Richardson might not have been aware of the possibility that the door might have obscured his view of the body had it been there?

Im saying that he’d have had to have been a monumental idiot not to have acknowledged this possibility especially as he knew the location of the body and how much floor space it took up.

[DJA]

You can’t really believe this?

Keep feeding him and he won't go away.

Look what happened with Pierre!

[Fisherman]

I’m not saying that Richardson must have been a regard for missing a body Fish.

Okay. But we should keep in mind that he may have felt that OTHERS would have though hima retard if he missed it, and that this possible suspicion on his behalf may have caused him to claim that he would NEVER...

Im not trying to put words into your mouth here so you will correct me if I’m wrong but....I think that you might believe that Richardson might not have been aware of the possibility that the door might have obscured his view of the body had it been there?

Not generally speaking, no. There are numerous layers hidden within this question, letīs begin by acknowledging that. It is not as if I am saying that John Richardson was unaware that an object X between our eyes and an object Y, could hide the object Y from sight. What I am saying is that A/ When we look at the pictures from the backyard of No 29, our first impression (or at least my first impression) is that anybody sitting on the stairs cannot miss a body lying where Chapman lay, but that B/ once we check how various positions (completely natural ones) on the stairs in combination with various degrees of the door being opened (completely natural ones, given that it swung back on itīs hinges towards the opener of the door), we find that there are various combinations of the two that either fully or to a large degree disallow for the person on the steps to see the body. If we combine this with how it was still dark to a significant degree and how Richardsons suggested reason for visiting the backyard was to check on the padlock to the right of the stairs, I think there can be no denying that these factors would not have improved the chances that he would see Chapman.
So itīs a less simple matter than me thinking that Richardson thought that he could see through door blades.

Im saying that he’d have had to have been a monumental idiot not to have acknowledged this possibility especially as he knew the location of the body and how much floor space it took up.

... or somebody who had not checked in the direction and felt that people would think he was a monumental idiot for not seeing the body. And this is only if he DID sit at the middle step - if we ask Joseph Chandler, he will tell us that Richardson never uttered a word about doing so, but instead he claimed to have stood at the top of the stairs. And as far as Chandler goes, Richardson said not a iot about the boot and the leather either.

It is not a very strong testimony, is it? Itīs much the same as Cadosch; present differing versions of your testimony and cynics like me will think it very dodgy.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It was Richardson’s decision not his mother’s. He was concerned so he checked on his way to market. It obviously wasn’t out of his way. You keep reading into things and finding mysteries that aren’t mysteries. If you look at the case like that you can imagine suspicious behaviour anywhere. You’ll be able to build some kind of ‘case’ against anyone.

I said nothing about whose decision it was - you must have read that into what I did say.

Checking the padlock would have been a trivial task, and the lad could have done it just fine.
That would have saved his father the bother of coming around to do it twice most days.

Can you imagine why the father would not have delegated this simple task to his 14 y/o son, who lives there?

There is something not right with John Richardson - why didn't he mention the boot story to Chandler, or admit initially to the coroner that the leather cutting exercise had failed? Richardson is a bit of a mystery and he does need thinking about.

[IT0914] Chandler: If Richardson went down the steps he must have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps at all. I heard him mention cutting his boot there. He said nothing to me about it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I said nothing about whose decision it was - you must have read that into what I did say.

Checking the padlock would have been a trivial task, and the lad could have done it just fine.
That would have saved his father the bother of coming around to do it twice most days.

Can you imagine why the father would not have delegated this simple task to his 14 y/o son, who lives there?

There is something not right with John Richardson - why didn't he mention the boot story to Chandler, or admit initially to the coroner that the leather cutting exercise had failed? Richardson is a bit of a mystery and he does need thinking about.

[IT0914] Chandler: If Richardson went down the steps he must have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps at all. I heard him mention cutting his boot there. He said nothing to me about it.

There’s nothing mysterious about this. He was just checking on his way to work. You might as well say of John McCarthy “why did he send Bowyer to collect rent money from Kelly when he was quite capable of doing it himself?Added to the fact that she was so far in arrears that it might have required a threat of eviction from himself. This must have meant that he’d known that Kelly was dead?”

....

How do you know that it was Richardson that got it wrong? Maybe he had mentioned sitting on the step but Chandler got it wrong?

I see nothing suspicious about Richardson. The knife story makes little sense but I see nothing sinister and suspect that we’re simply missing a piece of explanatory information as no one at the time jumped on this issue.