John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor's thinking

1. Apron piece was a makeshift sanitary towel. Trevor = yes ok, perfectly logical
2. No organs were taken, it was a rogue mortician. Trevor = yes ok, perfectly logical
3. JtR was up and about at 5.30 am. Trevor = YOU'RE 'AVIN A LARF YOU GREAT BUFFON THAT IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I EVER HEARD!

It was a humorous post but its clear you nor herlock has any sense of humor

and I take exception to your comment

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

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

Very well presented post George . There can be surely no doubt as to the reasonable argument that John Richardson stood on the step to check the lock on the cellar door .

[harry]

Just another 'What if'
What if Richardson did see the body and mistook it for someone 'sleeping rough'.Realising his mistake by the time he is spoken to by Chandler,he takes the line of least resistence,and says there was no body there,and reinforces this by stating he sat on the middle step,and from that posistion a body could be seen.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Just another 'What if'
What if Richardson did see the body and mistook it for someone 'sleeping rough'.Realising his mistake by the time he is spoken to by Chandler,he takes the line of least resistence,and says there was no body there,and reinforces this by stating he sat on the middle step,and from that posistion a body could be seen.

A possibility - something similar happened in the Tabram case. However, the obvious tale for Richardson, if he didn't sit on the step, was that he had just done what he always did, glance across to the cellar door, check it was ok, and leave - it was quite dark and he didn't go into the yard or look around it, as he had no need to do so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?


Best regards, George

Hello George,

The point is that he did say that he’d sat on the doorstep that day though. So even if it was physically possible for him to have leaned out to check the lock and that this is what he’d usually done it wasn’t the case that he needed to fix his boot every time he visited so circumstances on that particular morning were different. On that particular morning he’d sat on the step. So we’re still in a position where Richardson is being accused of lying or being mistaken.

The ‘lying’ option - I still see absolutely no reason for him to have lied. Even if we suggest that he wanted to ‘prove’ that he wasn’t there at the same time as a corpse the ‘lie’ makes no sense.

1. He could very simply have said that he’d stood on the top step, pushed the door back to the fence, looked around and there was no corpse.
2. He could equally simply have said that he’d step into the yard and across to the cellar and the door had either swung open to the fence or closed, leaving him with a clear view that there was no body.
3. Why would he have wanted to ‘prove’ that the body wasn’t there when later evidence from the killer could have shown that it was?
4. He could simply have said that he’d opened the door slightly, checked the box, but looked nowhere else.
5. Why tell a stupid, involved lie that placed him alone at the scene of an horrific murder with a knife?

The suggestion that he lied really does hold no water and imo can very safely be dismissed.

The ‘mistaken’ option - Richardson himself said that he saw all of the yard and couldn’t possibly have missed a badly mutilated corpse inches from his left foot had it been there. He later saw the body from next doors yard so he was fully aware of how much floor space the body took up and whether it was possible for him to have missed it and he was absolutely certain that he couldn’t have.

The suggestion that he ‘missed’ a severely mutilated corpse a matter of a very few inches from his left foot near a door that you could have driven a horse a cart under really should be dismissed as about as unlikely as could be.

……

So for Richardson neither the ‘lying’ nor the ‘mistaken’ suggestions hold water and I think that these facts are what we should remember not to lose sight of. We need to remember what we actually have that causes some to support the ‘lying’ or ‘mistaken’ options (and I’m not criticising any honestly held opinions btw) - it’s the TOD estimation from Phillips (with modern day medical experts informing us repeatedly about the unreliability of these estimations and how far wrong they could be) and Inspector Chandler telling the inquest that Richardson hadn’t mentioned fixing his boot (note that he he didn’t accuse Richardson of not sitting on the step, only of not mentioning his reason for doing so) I’ve listed the possible, plausible, innocent explanations for this.

So all that we have is an unreliable TOD estimate and one sentence from Chandler which doesn’t actually change the story. And to favour these two we either have to accuse Richardson of telling a needless, poorly thought out, motiveless lie or we have to accuse him of gross stupidity in that he didn’t understand that a door has the potential to obscure someone’s view of something.

Then of course we not only have to dismiss Richardson to make this happen, we have to dismiss 2 other witnesses.

There’s simply no competition for me. The evidence massively favours Chapman dying after Richardson left the yard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just another 'What if'
What if Richardson did see the body and mistook it for someone 'sleeping rough'.Realising his mistake by the time he is spoken to by Chandler,he takes the line of least resistence,and says there was no body there,and reinforces this by stating he sat on the middle step,and from that posistion a body could be seen.

People don’t usually sleep with their intestines on the floor over their right shoulder though Harry. He couldn’t possibly have missed the mutilations.

[harry]

And you Herlock,will not accept the possibility that Richardson lied,that he did not sit on the steps.
But supposing he did,would he see the shoulders?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you Herlock,will not accept the possibility that Richardson lied,that he did not sit on the steps.
But supposing he did,would he see the shoulders?

People usually have a reason for lying Harry but I can see none that make sense for Richardson. Some people do lie for their ‘15 minutes of fame’ of course but for Richardson to have done that it would have meant falsely placing himself alone at the scene of a brutal murder with a knife. Why would anyone do that when there was absolutely no need? There are much easier, safer ways of getting your fifteen minutes. So why should we suggest that he lied, based on nothing, just to legitimise a doctors TOD estimate when we know that TOD estimates were unreliable?

[FISHY1118]

[Coroner] Was it light? - John Richardson'' It was getting light, but I could see all over the place''.

I think its important to mention this phase by Richardson. For those that would advocate the possibilty [and as weve seen with fair reason] that he stood on the step to check the cellar door lock, its certainly not out of the question he was talking about ''all over the place'' that his sight was not hampered by the angle of the door would permit . Example, he looked out over the yard but not past the point of the door on that angle .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson’s statement is unequivocal. He could see the whole of the yard and couldn’t possibly have missed the body had it been there. Therefore it clearly wasn’t there. Even if it was possible that he could have seen the lock from standing in the doorway - and the presence of the canopy makes that extremely unlikely unless it was transparent - this still doesn’t mean that this is what he did. The lock could also have been seen by stepping into the yard but no one is suggesting that option - understandably. There was no reason for him to have lied and if he had wanted to lie he had three childishly simple options available to him and yet it’s being suggested that he made up a story that placed him at the scene with a knife. I can’t help thinking that a lot of effort is being made to defend an unreliable TOD estimate.

[harry]

But Herlock,he is not placing himself at the scene of a murder,if the murder had not yet taken place,and this is what his evidence suggests.However he could have lied.Me not knowing the reason for lying,does not invalidate that statement.

[FISHY1118]

Based on the pros and cons put forward for both senarios its clear that the body was there and richardson failed to see it, just as if it was not there if he sat on the step to cut his boot leather .

I think thats been well established by now , one does not prove the other couldnt have happened .

[Wickerman]

It isn't clear at all, which is why this suggestion keeps surfacing every few years, and why you still struggle to make the case.

[Wickerman]

A successful theory is one that suits all the evidence as it stands, we cannot change the evidence to suite the theory, which is what the "lying witness" is intended to do.

[FISHY1118]

It isn't clear at all, which is why this suggestion keeps surfacing every few years, and why you still struggle to make the case.

Well your entitled to think that way , but for reasons that have been already discussed , i think is is abundantly clear .

The struggle is not whether a case can be made ,thats obvious. It whether people who evaluate the evidence can decide that the two possiblities could indeed have taken place . Thats where to problem of the Richardson riddle lies , an all to common pattern with every murder in the JtR series .