John Richardson

[Wickerman]

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.

Whether he 'could have' lied is not the point, so could Phillips, so could Cadoche, or Long.
If you choose to invent the idea then the onus is on you to justify the claim, it is your claim, no-one else's.

Phillips guessed the murder took place two or more hours before he arrived, so 4:30 or earlier.
Richardson arriving at 4:40-5 is placing himself, as Herlock says, at the crime scene while the body was 'assumed' (by medical testimony) to be there.
Therefore Richardson is placing himself in jeopardy by offering the story that he did.

Swanson wrote that Richardson was interrogated particularly well over this so they knew they had to prove he was wrong, but they couldn't.

So, it does no-one any credit today to try sell the "he lied" theory when the police at the time tried to turn every stone to find justification for him being wrong, lying or mistaken, yet they failed.
At the end of the day Phillips admitted he could have been wrong, that the ambient temperature, including the cold stones of the yard, could have drained the body of it's heat thereby influencing the medical opinion concerning a time of death.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Jon,

That is the ideal, in theory. But with JtR we are always confronted with conflicting and/or incomplete evidence and language interpretation which inevitably leads to repeated discussions of the same differences of opinion. Seldom is there new evidence to discuss.

There is an interesting contrast between the Chapman and MJK cases. For Chapman the witnesses, with their changing stories, are used to discredit the ToD of Phillips as unreliable, but the police favour the doctor's opinion. For MJK, those who were singing from the unreliable ToD songbook suddenly favour the reliability of the medical ToD over the witnesses, Maurice Lewis and the rock solid Maxwell, and the police favour the daylight murder theory. To ask Herlock's question, why would Maxwell lie? Take the answer to that question and apply it to Maxwell.

Best regards, George

[Abby Normal]

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.

agree herlock. as I said before-theres more of a chance he was the ripper, and lied because he killed her, than an innocent truthful witness that missed seeing a dead mutilated body at his feet.

[Trevor Marriott]

agree herlock. as I said before-theres more of a chance he was the ripper, and lied because he killed her, than an innocent truthful witness that missed seeing a dead mutilated body at his feet.

But killers dont as a rule kill in their own backyard !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott,co,u

[GBinOz]

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?

Hi Herlock,

If Richardson did what he told Chandler (Doc's scenario), then the truth is he wouldn't have known whether or not there was a body there at that time. By adding the step sitting story he thinks he is clearing himself of being alone at the scene of a brutal murder with a knife. But he came under suspicion anyway. I don't see how he was perpetrating a dangerous lie when the step sitting story would have been designed to show that no murder had been committed at that time, so he couldn't have done it. His story of an unsuccessful boot repair the day before, followed by another unsuccessful attempt, sitting in the dark, on a damp step, with a knife that wouldn't cut leather, has all the hallmarks of an attempt at creating an alibi. JMO

ToD estimates of the time may be considered unreliable by today's methods, but the ToDs for Nicolls, Stride and Eddowes were accurate within minutes, and the physical circumstances were almost identical for Chapman and Eddowes. Are you nominating Chapman as the only unreliable C5 ToD, or do think the ToD of MJK was also unreliable?

If Chapman were killed a little before 4AM, it would bring Lechmere into consideration, but considering all circumstances, Richardson has more points in favour of being a suspect than Lechmere, or most other suspects.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Whether he 'could have' lied is not the point, so could Phillips, so could Cadoche, or Long.
If you choose to invent the idea then the onus is on you to justify the claim, it is your claim, no-one else's.

Phillips guessed the murder took place two or more hours before he arrived, so 4:30 or earlier.
Richardson arriving at 4:40-5 is placing himself, as Herlock says, at the crime scene while the body was 'assumed' (by medical testimony) to be there.
Therefore Richardson is placing himself in jeopardy by offering the story that he did.

Swanson wrote that Richardson was interrogated particularly well over this so they knew they had to prove he was wrong, but they couldn't.

So, it does no-one any credit today to try sell the "he lied" theory when the police at the time tried to turn every stone to find justification for him being wrong, lying or mistaken, yet they failed.
At the end of the day Phillips admitted he could have been wrong, that the ambient temperature, including the cold stones of the yard, could have drained the body of it's heat thereby influencing the medical opinion concerning a time of death.

I have mentioned this before in relation to the coldness of the morning as decsribed by Phillips.

Well the date was Sept 8th not midwinter so although the morning might have been cool it was not midwinter. But he does say rigor was starting to set in but that process does not start to take effect until after two hours of death and this i belive is the deciding factor which proves Phillips TOD to be near the mark and not as late as 5-6am.

The weather for whitechapel for that day wasa max of 60 degrees with a min of 46 degrees

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But killers dont as a rule kill in their own backyard !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott,co,u

Crippen? Fred West? John Wayne Gacy? HH Holmes? Gary Ridgeway? That’s 5 off the top of my head Trevor.

That’s said, when I started my thread on Richardson as a suspect I did it to say that he was as good as or a better suspect than Lechmere imo.

[GBinOz]

Phillips guessed the murder took place two or more hours before he arrived, so 4:30 or earlier.
Richardson arriving at 4:40-5 is placing himself, as Herlock says, at the crime scene while the body was 'assumed' (by medical testimony) to be there.
Therefore Richardson is placing himself in jeopardy by offering the story that he did.

Swanson wrote that Richardson was interrogated particularly well over this so they knew they had to prove he was wrong, but they couldn't.

At the end of the day Phillips admitted he could have been wrong, that the ambient temperature, including the cold stones of the yard, could have drained the body of it's heat thereby influencing the medical opinion concerning a time of death.

Hi Jon,

I might be a little obtuse on these points but:

1. I'm not seeing how Richardson was placing himself in jeopardy by offering a story that assured that the body wasn't there, so the murder hadn't been committed, so he couldn't have been the murderer.

2. Maxwell was interrogated particularly well by Abberline as they knew they had to prove she was wrong, but they couldn't, but her story is doubted.

3. Whether Phillip's ToD comment is viewed as a factor or a contingency, Eddowes had the same cold stones and massive blood loss, but the ToD was accurate. Don't we have to maintain a level of consistency on our views on this subject?

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

That’s said, when I started my thread on Richardson as a suspect I did it to say that he was as good as or a better suspect than Lechmere imo.

Hi Herlock,

I missed your original statement, but, Hoorah, we finally agree on something.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

But he does say rigor was starting to set in but that process does not start to take effect until after two hours of death and this i belive is the deciding factor which proves Phillips TOD to be near the mark and not as late as 5-6am.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree Trevor. Furthermore, cooler temperatures can delay the onset of Rigor, which was probably the reason for Phillip's qualification of "or more".

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

If Richardson did what he told Chandler (Doc's scenario), then the truth is he wouldn't have known whether or not there was a body there at that time. By adding the step sitting story he thinks he is clearing himself of being alone at the scene of a brutal murder with a knife. But he came under suspicion anyway. I don't see how he was perpetrating a dangerous lie when the step sitting story would have been designed to show that no murder had been committed at that time, so he couldn't have done it. His story of an unsuccessful boot repair the day before, followed by another unsuccessful attempt, sitting in the dark, on a damp step, with a knife that wouldn't cut leather, has all the hallmarks of an attempt at creating an alibi. JMO

ToD estimates of the time may be considered unreliable by today's methods, but the ToDs for Nicolls, Stride and Eddowes were accurate within minutes, and the physical circumstances were almost identical for Chapman and Eddowes. Are you nominating Chapman as the only unreliable C5 ToD, or do think the ToD of MJK was also unreliable?

If Chapman were killed a little before 4AM, it would bring Lechmere into consideration, but considering all circumstances, Richardson has more points in favour of being a suspect than Lechmere, or most other suspects.

Cheers, George

There are problems with this for me George. I’m still of the belief that with that canopy being at around Richardson’s knee height he wouldn’t have been able to have seen the lock from the doorway but either way I think that we have to at least admit to doubt. For example, we can’t be certain which side the lock was on. But let’s say that, as per Doc, he could just about see the lock to check it by leaning outwards and that was the way that he usually checked it, we still have to consider that circumstances were different on that particular day because Richardson need to repair his boot which meant him sitting on that step.

Yes, by employing the ‘Doc method’ he wouldn’t have known if the body was there or not, so he wouldn’t have needed to have elaborated by inventing a story about sitting on the step. To be honest I don’t understand this point George?

By adding the step sitting story he thinks he is clearing himself of being alone at the scene of a brutal murder with a knife

But by sticking to a story about checking from a standing position on the step he would have been avoiding placing himself at the scene with a knife. By adding the story about sitting he’s introducing the idea of him being there with a knife. Why would he have done that?
He was creating a problem for himself with absolutely no reason. If he wanted to ‘prove’ that there was no body there whilst avoiding any mention of a knife all that he would have had to have done was to either a) say that he opened the door narrowly to check the lock, or b) that he opened the door back to the fence and saw no body or c) that he’d stepped into the yard to check the lock and the door had swung shut revealing no corpse. All options are simpler and less incriminating than the one that he actually said.

George, there’s no real point in comparing times when doctors got TOD’s wrong or right. The fact is that TOD estimations were unreliable. This isn’t my opinion it’s a fact. Modern day medical experts tell us this. If I recall correctly ( and I might be wrong on this specific example because there were so many posted) Jason Payne-James who was the expert on the Lechmere documentary said something along the lines of rigor mortis shouldn’t be used because it’s so inaccurate. Phillips TOD estimate is pretty much neutral. He might have been wrong he might have been right. But we just can’t be any way near confident enough in his estimation to dismiss witness on those grounds.

[Trevor Marriott]

Crippen? Fred West? John Wayne Gacy? HH Holmes? Gary Ridgeway? That’s 5 off the top of my head Trevor.

That’s said, when I started my thread on Richardson as a suspect I did it to say that he was as good as or a better suspect than Lechmere imo.

But they all disposed of the bodies not left them liying around to be found

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But they all disposed of the bodies not left them liying around to be found

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

True.

[Dickere]

For MJK, those who were singing from the unreliable ToD songbook suddenly favour the reliability of the medical ToD over the witnesses, Maurice Lewis and the rock solid Maxwell, and the police favour the daylight murder theory. To ask Herlock's question, why would Maxwell lie? Take the answer to that question and apply it to Maxwell.

Is there lying involved though ? Maxwell and Lewis may have been certain themselves but got the wrong day. Much easier for that error to apply like that, than to be certain there was no body there when there was. I don't see the two as similar situations really.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

That is the ideal, in theory. But with JtR we are always confronted with conflicting and/or incomplete evidence and language interpretation which inevitably leads to repeated discussions of the same differences of opinion. Seldom is there new evidence to discuss.

There is an interesting contrast between the Chapman and MJK cases. For Chapman the witnesses, with their changing stories, are used to discredit the ToD of Phillips as unreliable, but the police favour the doctor's opinion. For MJK, those who were singing from the unreliable ToD songbook suddenly favour the reliability of the medical ToD over the witnesses, Maurice Lewis and the rock solid Maxwell, and the police favour the daylight murder theory. To ask Herlock's question, why would Maxwell lie? Take the answer to that question and apply it to Maxwell.

Best regards, George

Hi George.

It's not a good comparison though, with Chapman we are talking about a difference of between 4:15-30 (Phillips) to 5:45 (Richardson, Cadoche, Long), but with Kelly the difference is much greater, between 3:00am (Phillips) to 9:00-10:00am (Maxwell, Lewis).

It is justifiable to question a discrepancy of 1:00-1:30 hrs, otherwise Phillips wouldn't have questioned his own estimate. But you are asking us to accept a difference of 6-7 hrs, which makes for an unreasonable argument.
1-1.5 hrs is not the same a 6-7 hrs.

Sorry George, were are still miles apart.