Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
When it’s suggested that people can lie why is it only ever suggested that this applies to witnesses? Everyone can lie (unless we perhaps discount those suffering from conditions like autism of course) so why is a police officer exempt from this suggestion? I’m talking of Chandler of course.
I’m not saying that he did lie of course but it’s noticeable that no one appears prepared to even consider the possibility. Apart from the tired old ‘15 minutes of fame’ point neither Richardson, Cadosch or Long had any reason to lie and any lie by Richardson would have served no purpose and would have made the situation worse for himself. Chandler however might have had a reason for lying about what Richardson told him in the passage way. If Chandler hadn’t pushed Richardson for more detail then his superiors might have criticised his handling of events at the crime scene. Or if he’d misheard ‘sat’ on the step for ‘stood’ on the step as another example.
So isn’t it at least possible that Chandler might have been indulging in a bit of a**e covering by saying saying that Richardson said nothing about sitting on the step? Again, I’m not claiming that this is what happened but if it can be suggested that the witnesses lied for no reason why should the possibility be ignored that Chandler lied to cover his own backside in the face of criticism from his superiors?
My personal opinion is that Richardson probably didn’t mention sitting on the step to fix his boot but there’s nothing suspicious or deceitful about this. The interview was unlikely to have been very in depth due to the circumstances. So imo the following is entirely reasonable..
C - So tell me what you did Mr Richardson.
R - I went to the back door at about 4.45 to check my mothers cellar.
C - And what did you see?
R - Nothing. There was nothing in the yard.
C - Are you sure? It couldn’t have been very light after all.
R - It was just getting light so I could see everything.
C - Are you absolutely certain that you couldn’t have missed seeing the body? Couldn’t it have been hidden by the door?
R - Absolutely not. I could see all over the yard from where I was and couldn’t possibly have missed it. It wasn’t there.
Yes, I just made up that conversation before anyone accuses me of manipulation, but that conversation or something very like it would have been entirely plausible and possible. We also know that a day or so after the murder the story about him sitting on the step to repair his boot was already in the papers. So it’s not as if Richardson somehow invented it for the inquest and the press certainly couldn’t have invented so specific a story.
So Richardson ‘could’ have lied but he gained no benefit from doing so (the opposite in fact) Chandler ‘could’ have lied but might have had a reason for doing so. And Richardson not mentioning the boot repair is entirely inconsequential and can’t be viewed as sinister.
The only other point that’s weirdly used against him is the talk of the knife at the inquest. He didn’t mention the sharpness of the knife or the second knife because he wasn’t asked about these things. The Coroner wasn’t interested in a knife that he’d used at the market, he was interested in the knife that he used at the yard. When the coroner points out that the knife looks blunt Richardson tells him that he had to use a sharper one at the market. Yes, the way that it’s worded it sounds like Richardson was saying ‘I cut a piece of leather with my knife but I couldn’t cut a piece of leather with my knife because it wasn’t sharp enough.’ But clearly that would have been complete gibberish and it’s impossible that the coroner wouldn’t have pulled him up on it - “hold on Mr. Richardson that doesn’t make sense!” Or any of the jury either. But nothing is said. Clearly Richardson would have said anything as blatantly nonsensical as this but this is what is being claimed in an obviously desperate attempt to incriminate. This is all that they have on Richardson. Eliminate this transparent piece of gobbledegook and what’s left. Nothing. There’s not a single, solitary thing that even implies dishonesty on the part of Richardson. The only thing left is to imply that he was so colossally, mind-numbing oh dim that he didn’t know that you can’t see through a wooden door!
When you weigh up Richardson fairly and sanely we have nothing against him. He was a strong witness then and he’s a strong witness now. He alone points overwhelmingly to a later TOD.
I’m not saying that he did lie of course but it’s noticeable that no one appears prepared to even consider the possibility. Apart from the tired old ‘15 minutes of fame’ point neither Richardson, Cadosch or Long had any reason to lie and any lie by Richardson would have served no purpose and would have made the situation worse for himself. Chandler however might have had a reason for lying about what Richardson told him in the passage way. If Chandler hadn’t pushed Richardson for more detail then his superiors might have criticised his handling of events at the crime scene. Or if he’d misheard ‘sat’ on the step for ‘stood’ on the step as another example.
So isn’t it at least possible that Chandler might have been indulging in a bit of a**e covering by saying saying that Richardson said nothing about sitting on the step? Again, I’m not claiming that this is what happened but if it can be suggested that the witnesses lied for no reason why should the possibility be ignored that Chandler lied to cover his own backside in the face of criticism from his superiors?
My personal opinion is that Richardson probably didn’t mention sitting on the step to fix his boot but there’s nothing suspicious or deceitful about this. The interview was unlikely to have been very in depth due to the circumstances. So imo the following is entirely reasonable..
C - So tell me what you did Mr Richardson.
R - I went to the back door at about 4.45 to check my mothers cellar.
C - And what did you see?
R - Nothing. There was nothing in the yard.
C - Are you sure? It couldn’t have been very light after all.
R - It was just getting light so I could see everything.
C - Are you absolutely certain that you couldn’t have missed seeing the body? Couldn’t it have been hidden by the door?
R - Absolutely not. I could see all over the yard from where I was and couldn’t possibly have missed it. It wasn’t there.
Yes, I just made up that conversation before anyone accuses me of manipulation, but that conversation or something very like it would have been entirely plausible and possible. We also know that a day or so after the murder the story about him sitting on the step to repair his boot was already in the papers. So it’s not as if Richardson somehow invented it for the inquest and the press certainly couldn’t have invented so specific a story.
So Richardson ‘could’ have lied but he gained no benefit from doing so (the opposite in fact) Chandler ‘could’ have lied but might have had a reason for doing so. And Richardson not mentioning the boot repair is entirely inconsequential and can’t be viewed as sinister.
The only other point that’s weirdly used against him is the talk of the knife at the inquest. He didn’t mention the sharpness of the knife or the second knife because he wasn’t asked about these things. The Coroner wasn’t interested in a knife that he’d used at the market, he was interested in the knife that he used at the yard. When the coroner points out that the knife looks blunt Richardson tells him that he had to use a sharper one at the market. Yes, the way that it’s worded it sounds like Richardson was saying ‘I cut a piece of leather with my knife but I couldn’t cut a piece of leather with my knife because it wasn’t sharp enough.’ But clearly that would have been complete gibberish and it’s impossible that the coroner wouldn’t have pulled him up on it - “hold on Mr. Richardson that doesn’t make sense!” Or any of the jury either. But nothing is said. Clearly Richardson would have said anything as blatantly nonsensical as this but this is what is being claimed in an obviously desperate attempt to incriminate. This is all that they have on Richardson. Eliminate this transparent piece of gobbledegook and what’s left. Nothing. There’s not a single, solitary thing that even implies dishonesty on the part of Richardson. The only thing left is to imply that he was so colossally, mind-numbing oh dim that he didn’t know that you can’t see through a wooden door!
When you weigh up Richardson fairly and sanely we have nothing against him. He was a strong witness then and he’s a strong witness now. He alone points overwhelmingly to a later TOD.
Comment