Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Hi George.

    If you don't mind me saying, that's splitting hairs.

    All Richardson meant is he didn't go into the yard, like walk around the yard, he stayed at the steps.
    We can't make a mountain out of a mole-hill, that's my take anyway, sorry.
    Hi Jon,

    Jeff once said that where he came from the steps would not be part of the yard, but in Australia they would be part of the yard. My point is that Chandler, the coroner and the jury were all very interested in this point.

    Chandler:
    I saw John Richardson in the course of the morning. He told me he had been at the house that morning about a quarter to five. He had looked into the yard to see if the cellar was all right. He said he was sure the deceased was not there at that time.
    By a juryman: 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 here. He said nothing to me about it.

    CORONER - He cut the piece of leather off his boot because it hurt him. He took a piece out on the previous day, but that was not sufficient. As a matter of fact that was the only thing he did at Hanbury-street. He did not go into the yard at all. His object principally in going to the house was to see that the cellar was all right, and he looked and found that it was so.
    The CORONER-You do not seem to have taken much trouble to see that it was all right.
    Witness, continuing, said he could see the padlock was on the door. He did not sit upon the top step, but rested his feet on the flags of the yard.

    CORONER: When did you determine to cut something off your boot?-I had cut some off the previous day, and it hurt my foot, and I found after I left the house that it wanted a bit more to be cut off. I looked to see if the cellar door was all right, and, although I did not go down into the yard, I could see that it was all right. I saw the padlock in its proper place. The sole object I had in going there was to see whether the cellar was all right. When I come home at night I go down and try if the cellar is all right.
    Did you sit on the top step? -No, sir, the second step.
    Where were your feet? -On the flags of the yard, sir.
    You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? -She was found lying just where my feet were.


    If he opened the door enough to lean out and check the padlock he may very well have missed the body. Not so if he sat on the middle step. He said he had cut some leather off his boot the previous day, and on the morning of the murder, but when asked to produce the knife admitted that it wasn't sharp enough to cut leather and finished the job at work with a different knife. I have difficulty believing his story.

    Best regards, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
    If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
    Everybody lies - Greg House MD

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      theres more of a chance that richardson was the ripper than there is he missed seeing chapmans body at his feet.
      the options are (in liklihood):
      1. she wasnt there yet. (most likely by a country mile).
      2. richardson killed her..just possible
      3. he missed seeing her...highly unlikely to the point of nearly impossible.
      Hi Abby,

      Richardson probably receives less attention as a suspect than he deserves. He was in the vicinity, his leather apron was washed immediately after a murder, and when asked to produce the knife that he used to attempt boot repairs (twice) he presented a knife obviously not equal to the task. The coroner asked him if he normally carried a knife and Richardson came up with an unlikely story. If Richardson had killed Chapman, he could be expected to swear that there wasn't a dead body there when he left. Even if he didn't kill her, he would have wanted to divert suspicion from himself.

      Abby, if Richardson opened the door and leaned out, looking to his right with the self closing door pressing on his back and then turned again to his right to leave with the door closing behind him, could he have missed seeing a body that was effectively behind him? That is what he told Chandler, and that is what I think happened.

      Cheers, George
      Last edited by GBinOz; 07-06-2022, 06:19 AM.
      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
      If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
      Everybody lies - Greg House MD

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Hi Abby,

        Richardson probably receives less attention as a suspect than he deserves. He was in the vicinity, his leather apron was washed immediately after a murder, and when asked to produce the knife that he used to attempt boot repairs (twice) he presented a knife obviously not equal to the task. The coroner asked him if he normally carried a knife and Richardson came up with an unlikely story. If Richardson had killed Chapman, he could be expected to swear that there wasn't a dead body there when he left. Even if he didn't kill her, he would have wanted to divert suspicion from himself.

        Abby, if Richardson opened the door and leaned out, looking to his right with the self closing door pressing on his back and then turned again to his right to leave with the door closing behind him, could he have missed seeing a body that was effectively behind him? That is what he told Chandler, and that is what I think happened.

        Cheers, George
        Well it looks like we finally agree on something George, when you look at my post on this topic its not that hard to imagine just as you and i have described the possibility Richardson did just that .

        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          theres more of a chance that richardson was the ripper than there is he missed seeing chapmans body at his feet.
          the options are (in liklihood):
          1. she wasnt there yet. (most likely by a country mile).
          2. richardson killed her..just possible
          3. he missed seeing her...highly unlikely to the point of nearly impossible.
          I must say Abby your point 3 is a bit strange if you ask me , did you realize just how easy it would be for what
          George has posted to have happened? [Bare in its not as if someones asking us to believe a dog carried the blood soaked apron and dropped it off below GSG. Buts thats another story.

          Given what both inspector Chandler and Richardsons claims were , is it really that difficult to believe the possibility of such a thing happening?

          And yes i know no one puts any importance of Dr Phillipps t.o.d as two hours probably more for Chapmans body lying there , but could he just, even the slightest chance been correct ?

          In my opinion i dont see to much of a problem with this scenario at all , others may and will disagree thats fine.
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Well it looks like we finally agree on something George, when you look at my post on this topic its not that hard to imagine just as you and i have described the possibility Richardson did just that .
            Hi Fishy,

            It does seem like we are always at loggerheads.

            I am always suspicious about witnesses who change their story as they go along. In Cadosh's initial statement to police there was only one visit to the toilet. By the time he testified at the inquest it had become two trips. Hearing a cry of distress and a thump against the fence at the same time and failing to even glance over (or through) the fence does seem a little negligent, as the coroner intimated. Long testified there were plenty of people in the street but somehow she managed to zone in on Chapman, even though she had never seen her before.

            I put more stock in Phillip's estimate of the ToD, and the surmise that there was too much light at 5:30AM and too many people who could have looked out a window and obtained a good view of Jack in that much light - not Jack's M.O.. JMO.

            Cheers, George
            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
            If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
            Everybody lies - Greg House MD

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              Abby, if Richardson opened the door and leaned out, looking to his right with the self closing door pressing on his back and then turned again to his right to leave with the door closing behind him, could he have missed seeing a body that was effectively behind him? That is what he told Chandler, and that is what I think happened.
              Hi George

              The police disagreed:
              Swanson: “If the evidence of Dr. Philips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 a.m.”

              Of course, Richardson himself stated that he could not have missed seeing the body, had it been there.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Hi Fishy,

                It does seem like we are always at loggerheads.

                I am always suspicious about witnesses who change their story as they go along. In Cadosh's initial statement to police there was only one visit to the toilet. By the time he testified at the inquest it had become two trips. Hearing a cry of distress and a thump against the fence at the same time and failing to even glance over (or through) the fence does seem a little negligent, as the coroner intimated. Long testified there were plenty of people in the street but somehow she managed to zone in on Chapman, even though she had never seen her before.

                I put more stock in Phillip's estimate of the ToD, and the surmise that there was too much light at 5:30AM and too many people who could have looked out a window and obtained a good view of Jack in that much light - not Jack's M.O.. JMO.

                Cheers, George
                Totally agree , That Chapman murder at that time of the morning just doesnt sit well with me either , again for all the reasons you just mentioned .

                Footnote , Its ok to be at Loggerheads George, nothing wrong with that. We, like others will disagree on a lot of things JtR related, just as long it Never, Ever gets personal where insults are flung around left right and centre as weve seen recently. No ones deserves that , this isnt Facebook .[ reply optional]
                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Abby,

                  Richardson probably receives less attention as a suspect than he deserves. He was in the vicinity, his leather apron was washed immediately after a murder, and when asked to produce the knife that he used to attempt boot repairs (twice) he presented a knife obviously not equal to the task. The coroner asked him if he normally carried a knife and Richardson came up with an unlikely story. If Richardson had killed Chapman, he could be expected to swear that there wasn't a dead body there when he left. Even if he didn't kill her, he would have wanted to divert suspicion from himself.

                  Abby, if Richardson opened the door and leaned out, looking to his right with the self closing door pressing on his back and then turned again to his right to leave with the door closing behind him, could he have missed seeing a body that was effectively behind him? That is what he told Chandler, and that is what I think happened.

                  Cheers, George
                  hi george
                  totally agree with your first paragraph, and totally disagree with your second paragraph.if she was there i find it hard to believe he missed her for all the reasons ive mentioned before. both the police and richardson said he would have seen the body had it been there. ill go with who was actually there.
                  Last edited by Abby Normal; 07-06-2022, 10:02 AM.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    I must say Abby your point 3 is a bit strange if you ask me , did you realize just how easy it would be for what
                    George has posted to have happened? [Bare in its not as if someones asking us to believe a dog carried the blood soaked apron and dropped it off below GSG. Buts thats another story.

                    Given what both inspector Chandler and Richardsons claims were , is it really that difficult to believe the possibility of such a thing happening?

                    And yes i know no one puts any importance of Dr Phillipps t.o.d as two hours probably more for Chapmans body lying there , but could he just, even the slightest chance been correct ?

                    In my opinion i dont see to much of a problem with this scenario at all , others may and will disagree thats fine.
                    i dont think it would have been easy for it to happen re georges scenario. i think it would have darn near impossible for him to miss her had she been there. richardson and the police both were pretty adament they would have seen her.so i will go with people who were actually there at the time.
                    plus full disclosure, im not one whos prone to doubt every witness. unless there is serious and numerous issues with their statement. richardson is actually one, but only in a scenario if hes the ripper. like i said theres more of a chance he was the ripper than an innocent witness who missed seeing her imho.
                    Last edited by Abby Normal; 07-06-2022, 10:37 AM.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      i dont think it would have been easy for it to happen re georges scenario. i think it would have darn near impossible for him to miss her had she been there. richardson and the police both were pretty adament they would have seen her.so i will go with people who were actually there at the time.
                      plus full disclosure, im not one whos prone to doubt every witness. unless there is serious and numerous issues with their statement. richardson is actually one, but only in a scenario if hes the ripper. like i said theres more of a chance he was the ripper than an innocent witness who missed seeing her imho.
                      Yes, tru they were there , but as George pointed out , then we have to accept whether Richardson actually said what he claimed was true , did he sit on the step or not ? [ now im not playing the ''oh lets just say the witness lied to make a point'' line] in this case we have a witness saying one thing and a police inspector saying another . So who do we choose to believe ? ,mind you Chanders claim about Richardson was made on the morning, 1 hour after the body was discovered. Cant get more first hand information than that. Surely it counts for something ? When was the first mention of Richardsons claim he sat on the step to cut his boot? Was it at the inquest on the 12th Sept ? or earlier in the press somewhere im not sure . Its a big gap time frame wise if its the inquest .

                      Im not sure what you mean by ''and the police were pretty adament they would have see her'' can you explian what you mean by that ? thanks
                      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        hi george
                        totally agree with your first paragraph, and totally disagree with your second paragraph.if she was there i find it hard to believe he missed her for all the reasons ive mentioned before. both the police and richardson said he would have seen the body had it been there. ill go with who was actually there.
                        Hi Abby,

                        I agree that if the boot trimming episode is accepted there is no way he would not have seen the body. Question is, why did he make no mention of it to Chandler, specifically telling him that he had not gone down the steps? If you accept what he told Chandler and look at what he added later as polished testimony, then IMO he could have missed the body.

                        Cheers, George
                        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
                        If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                        Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                          Hi George

                          The police disagreed:
                          Swanson: “If the evidence of Dr. Philips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 a.m.”

                          Of course, Richardson himself stated that he could not have missed seeing the body, had it been there.
                          Hi Kattrup,

                          I can see how Swanson's statement could be interpreted in different ways, but I read it as him preferring Phillip's evidence and questioning that of Richardson.

                          Cheers, George
                          Last edited by GBinOz; 07-06-2022, 01:11 PM.
                          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
                          If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                          Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                            Yes, tru they were there , but as George pointed out , then we have to accept whether Richardson actually said what he claimed was true , did he sit on the step or not ? [ now im not playing the ''oh lets just say the witness lied to make a point'' line] in this case we have a witness saying one thing and a police inspector saying another . So who do we choose to believe ? ,mind you Chanders claim about Richardson was made on the morning, 1 hour after the body was discovered. Cant get more first hand information than that. Surely it counts for something ? When was the first mention of Richardsons claim he sat on the step to cut his boot? Was it at the inquest on the 12th Sept ? or earlier in the press somewhere im not sure . Its a big gap time frame wise if its the inquest .

                            Im not sure what you mean by ''and the police were pretty adament they would have see her'' can you explian what you mean by that ? thanks
                            hi fishy
                            he didnt tell the pc in the beginning he sat on the step to cut leather from his shoe, because it was a detail at the time he just didnt mention to him. its not like it was a full interview or official inquest statement. he probably thought it was important to add later when it was, especially to help show she wasnt there.

                            the police (and richardson) both said he would have seen her had she been there. I agree.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Forget about not seeing her, I would imagine the smell would have been imense. I just cant imagine Richardson being anywhere near the yard with the body in situ. Unless of course he had something to do with it. Which seems unlikely to me. As with so much in this case I think this come down to errors in timing.
                              Best Regards,

                              Tristan

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                Hi Abby,

                                I agree that if the boot trimming episode is accepted there is no way he would not have seen the body. Question is, why did he make no mention of it to Chandler, specifically telling him that he had not gone down the steps? If you accept what he told Chandler and look at what he added later as polished testimony, then IMO he could have missed the body.

                                Cheers, George
                                because he probably didnt think it was important at the time. later giving full inquest testimony he thought it was probably important to include, especially if there were questions about when she died and if she was there.

                                like i said, hes either an innocent witness who didnt see the body because it wasnt there yet (most probable), or the ripper whos lying about it. very very little chance hes an innocent witness who didnt see the body IMHO.

                                added to that two other witnesses corroberate a later encounter/TOD (5:30ish)and its a near certainty her body wasnt there yet when richardson was.
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X