John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Doc,

Trevor may care to comment on this, but I believe that it is not unusual for witnesses to embellish or adjust their evidence to create for themselves a larger role in proceedings than that which would be achieved by a strictly accurate narration of their role. I could role out the old "he was mistaken about the day of his boot cutting" excuse....but I won't.

It could have been done just after Richardson left.....or while he was there? Nah, he couldn't have done it because he said the body wasn't there when he was there, and serial killers never lie.

Cheers, George

Sadly with these inquests the questioning of witnesses was very minimal and any conflciting evidence was not challenged as it would have been in a criminal trial, and it frustrates me because we can now see flaws in witness testimony, and witness conflicts and as in the case of Richardson he should have been questioned in more detail having regards to what he is alleged to have said to Chandler. But a coroners court is there to establish how a person died and not who killed that person

What is the saying about 15 mins of fame?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

It is fully acknowledged that IF Richardson sat on the steps he would have seen the body, had it been there. The question is, could he have seen the padlock if not going in the yard or sitting on the steps, and Richardson supplies the answer for every market day other than Sep 8.

[Coroner]: I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?
[Richardson]: Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

Amelia Richardson: My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.

Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

Richardson did a number of interviews with the press, and I haven't been able to find one that varied from the story he told Chandler, or mentioned any step sitting...Have You?

I have noticed over time that you are quite fond of the word "nitpicking"...........good word.

Cheers, George

You mean like this one George


'' Daily news 10th sept '' '' The landlady's son, who is engaged in Spitalfields Market, is said to have looked round the yard before going to his business at ten minutes to five, as there had been some sort of robbery there recently, and at that time there was nothing noticeable.

So in fact we have press reports ''do'' and ''dont'' mention the boot incident ,

[GBinOz]

Try the Echo 10 Sept;

"At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, of 2, St. John-street, son of the landlady of 29, Hanbury-street, the proprietor of a packing-case business, as usual went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. A short while before there had been a burglary in this place. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot. The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. The man is quite clear that he saw nothing to attract his attention before he left. "

Hi Joshua,

Thank you for that reference. I have resorted to saying that I just haven't found a quote because this invariably happens - someone comes up with what I have not found and I stand corrected.

Interesting that just below your extract is the following from the same publication:

About twenty-five minutes past five Albert Cadosch, living at No. 31, the next house on the left hand side, entered the yard adjoining that of No. 29. He states that he heard some talking on the other side of the palings, and he distinguished the word "No." There was then, he fancied, a slight scuffle, with the noise of something falling, but he took no notice, thinking that it was from his neighbours.

This is quite different to his inquest testimony.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Sadly with these inquests the questioning of witnesses was very minimal and any conflciting evidence was not challenged as it would have been in a criminal trial, and it frustrates me because we can now see flaws in witness testimony, and witness conflicts and as in the case of Richardson he should have been questioned in more detail having regards to what he is alleged to have said to Chandler. But a coroners court is there to establish how a person died and not who killed that person

What is the saying about 15 mins of fame?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Daily news 11th sept


I enter the police office, where there is some considerable bustle about people who as I am told are giving evidence as to the man who has been arrested in Gravesend. the officer in charge tells me that nothing is known definitely about him as yet. Intending to call again, I walk up Hanbury street to the scene of Saturday morning's murder, No 29. A great crowd stood in front of it, extending a considerable way up and down the street. Nearly one half of the persons in it were women, most of them bareheaded and unwashed, and a great many with children in their arms. From the windows of upper storeys on both sides of Hanbury street other women leant out, their elbows or outstretched palms resting on the window sills. Not a man could I see in any of those windows, only women, grown up girls and children. They had the air of people who thought their quarter of the world invested with a new importance. What were the crowds gaping and staring at? Nothing. At any rate, at nothing which they could "take in" in a couple of minutes. There stood the dingy house in the backyard of which the crime took place, the ditto of its dingy neighbours. A mangling house, with the yellow paint peeling off its wall like skin disease, flanks it on one side; an ordinary dwelling house on the other. To reach the backyard of No 29, you must traverse the "hall" and passage of the house; there is no back entry, for, as already said, the houses flank each other closely, leaving no intervening space. On traversing the passage, you reach a backdoor, from which three steps lead downwards - that is, to the level of the ugly, little, stony, slimy backyard. ''This backyard is separated from the next neighbour's by a paling so low that one may vault over it with the utmost ease''. In the narrow level space between the steps and the paling was found the murdered body.

Trevor one might like to know how Albert Cadosch could not have seen the ripper in full flight from the top of his step ?

[Wickerman]

Imagine a canopy in place that came just below the windowsill. There’s no way that woman would have been able to have seen the door to check the lock.

Even the man, standing on the step down and further across, would only have seen a fraction of it.

Thankyou Herlock, your pic in post 148 demonstrates the fact admirably.

[Wickerman]

Looking at this photo, there can be seen a trapezoidal recess in the bricks into which could have fitted the timber bearer (in green) for the canopies shown in the sketches in Fishy's Post # 145.....

In all fairness George, any padlock on the cellar door should be at the left side, as we look at it. The house door handle/latch is at the left side when the door closes, so we must expect the cellar door to be mounted in the same way.
I'm assuming the red line is intended to indicate line of sight?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sadly with these inquests the questioning of witnesses was very minimal and any conflciting evidence was not challenged as it would have been in a criminal trial, and it frustrates me because we can now see flaws in witness testimony, and witness conflicts and as in the case of Richardson he should have been questioned in more detail having regards to what he is alleged to have said to Chandler. But a coroners court is there to establish how a person died and not who killed that person

What is the saying about 15 mins of fame?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So Chandler differs slightly from Richardson and you assume that Richardson was lying and completely ignore the other very plausible explanations (like Chandler being mistaken, for one?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thankyou Herlock, your pic in post 148 demonstrates the fact admirably.

No problem Wick. The canopy would have obstructed the view no doubt. But, as we know, Richardson sat on the step unless we resort to accusing an inconvenient witness of lying.

[FISHY1118]

Looking at this photo, there can be seen a trapezoidal recess in the bricks into which could have fitted the timber bearer (in green) for the canopies shown in the sketches in Fishy's Post # 145. In those same sketches the cellar door and jamb is shown as flush with the brickwork, so the bolt and padlock, which were large in those days would be protruding and clearly visible to someone standing on the top step. In Scott's photo, the fence has been replaced, the canopy removed and it appears that the flagging may have been taken up. As Jon commented, there's nothing to say that the cellar door and jamb wouldn't also have been removed.

The story Richardson told Chandler and the press was not important, but when he testified at the inquest he became a crucial witness. He must have known that his step sitting story would achieve that result, and was that him aim? But what explanation could he offer? Early breakfast sitting in the dark on a cold damp stone....no....resting from his brisk 3 minute walk from home....no....boot repairs...yes....big mistake. Now questions are being asked as to how it was that he was at the murder scene around the time of the medical ToD, with a knife and his freshly washed leather apron found in the yard. Could anyone corroborate his time of arrival or departure, or his arrival at his market stall? Solution...produce a knife not capable of the murder or the mutilations.....or cutting leather.

While Jon and others have offered viable opinions and options, for me, at this time, the preponderance of evidence points to a ToD between 2AM and 4:30AM, which is consistent with the police view at the time. JMO.

Cheers, George

Very good post George , clearly this shows just how easy a man on the edge of the step would have an even better view of the cellar door and lock from that position . Id even go as far as saying the red line could stretch on more of an angle towards the lock on the left side, as the canopy according to the sketchers did not pertude past the window sill . Nice one .

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the question of how Cadosch didn’t see Chapman and the ripper?

1. Chapman was dead when he came into the yard and on the floor with the killer kneeling beside her.

or even

2. They heard Cadosch opening the back door and ducked below the level of the fence to avoid being seen.

Simple.

[Trevor Marriott]

Daily news 11th sept


I enter the police office, where there is some considerable bustle about people who as I am told are giving evidence as to the man who has been arrested in Gravesend. the officer in charge tells me that nothing is known definitely about him as yet. Intending to call again, I walk up Hanbury street to the scene of Saturday morning's murder, No 29. A great crowd stood in front of it, extending a considerable way up and down the street. Nearly one half of the persons in it were women, most of them bareheaded and unwashed, and a great many with children in their arms. From the windows of upper storeys on both sides of Hanbury street other women leant out, their elbows or outstretched palms resting on the window sills. Not a man could I see in any of those windows, only women, grown up girls and children. They had the air of people who thought their quarter of the world invested with a new importance. What were the crowds gaping and staring at? Nothing. At any rate, at nothing which they could "take in" in a couple of minutes. There stood the dingy house in the backyard of which the crime took place, the ditto of its dingy neighbours. A mangling house, with the yellow paint peeling off its wall like skin disease, flanks it on one side; an ordinary dwelling house on the other. To reach the backyard of No 29, you must traverse the "hall" and passage of the house; there is no back entry, for, as already said, the houses flank each other closely, leaving no intervening space. On traversing the passage, you reach a backdoor, from which three steps lead downwards - that is, to the level of the ugly, little, stony, slimy backyard. ''This backyard is separated from the next neighbour's by a paling so low that one may vault over it with the utmost ease''. In the narrow level space between the steps and the paling was found the murdered body.

Trevor one might like to know how Albert Cadosch could not have seen the ripper in full flight from the top of his step ?

Thats a very good point

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

On the question of how Cadosch didn’t see Chapman and the ripper?

1. Chapman was dead when he came into the yard and on the floor with the killer kneeling beside her.

or even

2. They heard Cadosch opening the back door and ducked below the level of the fence to avoid being seen.

Simple.

Do you not think the killer would have been on a heightened state of alert, and at the first sign of him likely to be discovered would have not hung around and as we keep saying at that time of the morning and in a confined location the risk would have been too great for the killer to kill at that time of the morning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

In all fairness George, any padlock on the cellar door should be at the left side, as we look at it. The house door handle/latch is at the left side when the door closes, so we must expect the cellar door to be mounted in the same way.
I'm assuming the red line is intended to indicate line of sight? Yes.

Hi Jon,

There are really too many variables and unknowns for us to be able to reconstruct the way the cellar door and canopy were that morning. I think that two factors are being combined in these discussions, and I think they should be separated.

Factor 1: Richardson had been checking the padlock for 2 months on market days. Here's what Doc suggested in his post #151:
If Richardson was in the habit of regularly checking the cellar door lock, which we know he was, he would have had a simple routine way of doing it. He probably every time did something like, went down one step, took hold of the canopy for support, and bent down a little, glanced across, and then satisfied, he would leave. It would have been a simple routine taking a few seconds.

I think this is close to the mark with no more than sight variation, but with the point being he was facing the opposite direction of the place where the body was found. This from the Times 14 Sept:
Witness saw young John Richardson a little before 7 o'clock in the passage of the house. He told witness he had been to the house about a quarter to 5 that morning, that he went to the back door and looked down at the cellar to see that all was right. He then went away to his work in the market. He did not say anything to witness about cutting his boot, but said he was sure the woman was not there at the time.
By the Foreman. -The back door opened outwards into the yard, on the left-hand side. That was the side on which the body was lying. Richardson might not have seen the body if he did not go into the yard. If he went down the steps and the body was there at the time he was bound to see it. Richardson told witness he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boots.

Factor 2: This from the Star 8 Sep reflects what Richardson told Chandler:
John Richardson, of 2, John-street, E.C., said to a Star reporter: - I am a porter in Spitalfields Market. I always go round to mother's (Mrs. Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street) on market mornings just to see that everything is right in the back-yard, where her underground packing-case workshops are. The place was burgled a short time back. This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure. I heard in the market at 6.20 a woman had been found murdered at mother's, and went round and saw the body. The police, by the doctor's order, took possession on my leather apron and knife that were on the premises, and also a box of nails, as well as three pills found near the body.

It is interesting to note that Richardson says the police took possession of his leather apron and his knife, but when asked by the coroner he produced a(nother) knife retrieved from his home.
By Sep 10 the Star is reporting:
At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, son of the landlady, of 29, Hanbury-street, as usual, went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot. The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. This man is quite clear that he saw nothing to attract his attention before he left.

It seems that the evolution of Richardson's story at the inquest did not escape the notice of the Star Sep 13:
Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and no signs of the murder were then apparent. It is now beginning to be believed that the woman was brought to the backyard in Hanbury-street some time earlier. Another link in the chain of evidence which the police are trying to establish is as to the whereabouts of the murdered woman between the time when she was last seen and when she was found murdered.

I see no reason to believe that Richardson could not have seen the padlock without going down the house stairs into the yard, which he testified he didn't. So was he lying, or mistaken? After four days could he have merged the boot cutting evening (the day before perhaps) with Sep 8?

While looking at the account by The Times for Sep 14, I noticed this:
Dr. Phillips's positive opinion that the woman had been dead quite two hours when he first saw the body at half-past 6, throws serious doubt upon the accuracy of at least two important witnesses, and considerably adds to the prevailing confusion.

As always we have to endure the conflicting press reports, lost records and language open to interpretation, and general confusion so I suppose we will each make up our own minds while respecting other's right to differ.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

On the question of how Cadosch didn’t see Chapman and the ripper?

1. Chapman was dead when he came into the yard and on the floor with the killer kneeling beside her.

or even

2. They heard Cadosch opening the back door and ducked below the level of the fence to avoid being seen.

Simple.

3. Chapman had been murdered hours earlier and Cadosh was hearing a domestic conversation between some residents, and a door closing.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you not think the killer would have been on a heightened state of alert, and at the first sign of him likely to be discovered would have not hung around and as we keep saying at that time of the morning and in a confined location the risk would have been too great for the killer to kill at that time of the morning.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Neither of us are serial killers though Trevor (hopefully?) We can’t assume to know what he would have been thinking. If he’d already killed Chapman, then he’d heard Cadosch in the yard next door, he might have just assumed that he was using the outside loo and would have gone back inside in a minute or two. When you think about it anyone could have gone into the yard of number 29 at any time to use the outside loo, whether it was light or dark, but she was still killed there.