John Richardson

[GBinOz]

hi Fishy

I am of the view that JR told the essence of his story with all the main points covered and expanded on it later. There are no contradictions, just more detail added, perhaps in answer to a journalists questions initially. it does not leave me with concerns or questions.

Long is more open to question though, I think. I don't get the sense of a bustling street from her testimony though, nor from Cadosch who says he saw neither Long nor her couple when he left at 5.32.

Hi etenguy,

While your post was directed to Fishy, I'll take the liberty of commenting.

Your comments regarding JR are quite reasonable and I'm only slightly on the other side of that contention.

With Long, I didn't get the sense of a bustling street originally, and neither did the coroner I suspect, which was the point of his question to Long. I think even Baxter might have been surprised when she said not only were there "lots of couples", but also that was why she payed them no attention. Added to that, Amelia Richardson's testimony of the "bustle of market day" and the photo of market day in Brick Lane, and some doubt is introduced.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

hi Fishy

I am of the view that JR told the essence of his story with all the main points covered and expanded on it later. There are no contradictions, just more detail added, perhaps in answer to a journalists questions initially. it does not leave me with concerns or questions.

Long is more open to question though, I think. I don't get the sense of a bustling street from her testimony though, nor from Cadosch who says he saw neither Long nor her couple when he left at 5.32.

Hi Et , Thats fine, in your view your certainly welcome to think that way , i merely pointed out that when i read Georges post #3175 and added mind own view, that i do see concerns with Richardsons testimony for thoses reasons mentioned . As for Long and Codosch ,i see more obvious concerns. Just my opinion tho .

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

If he'd just told Chandler his abbreviated version it might be put down to adding details later, but he told the press the same story on the day, and again two days later. However, he also told another journalist on the tenth his new all improved augmented version that he repeated at the inquest. The Echo report on the 19th firmed my opinion on discounting JR's relevance, but it also had the effect of exonerating him, rightly or not. Richardson is an enigma. His presence at the scene of a crime at about the time of the crime qualifies him as a person of interest, but he could also be totally honest and innocent, or somewhere between. I don't think that deviation from a centre position markedly in either direction is justifiable. I lean slightly towards him being mistaken. JMO.

Cheers, George

What abbreviated version of the ''cutting of the boot'' claim do you mean George ? Chandler was very exact and to the point when the Coroner asked if Richardson mentioned it, his answer was ''NO''

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is easy to imagine that Hanbury St was relatively deserted when Elizabeth Long claimed to have observed Annie Chapman and her murderer at 5:30am on Market Day. I discovered this photo of Brick Lane on Market Day in "Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates" by Evans and Rumbelow, in the section on Annie Chapman.



Would the street have been this crowded at 5:30am on Market Day? Possible indications that is was are:

John Richardson was already at work at his market stall by 5:00am.

Amelia Richardson at the Inquest:
"But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle.".

Elizabeth Long at the Inquest:
Did they appear sober? - I don't know, sir. I did not take particular notice of them. I did not see anything that made me think they were the worse for drink.
Was it not unusual to see a man and a woman talking together at that hour? - No; I see lots of them.

So Elizabeth Long was proceeding through the street on her way to work with no idea that a murder was about to take place in the backyard of a house on her route, and out of a crowd of people, and by not taking any particular notice of them, she was able to identify the victim of the murder four days later.

Long's story sounds pretty thin to me, but I accept it has its adherents.

Cheers, George

Unless you’re suggesting that Hanbury Street was as crowded as Brick Lane George I can’t see how that would affect the validity of Mrs Long’s testimony? Yes we know that witnesses can be mistaken and we have to keep that in mind but it doesn’t follow that they are wrong more often that not. We have no reason to suspect her of lying so I see nothing suspicious in the slightest about her statement. We are left in the position of ‘was she mistaken or was she correct’ but it’s worth mentioning that if she was mistaken then she coincidentally saw a woman who was the spitting image of Annie Chapman talking to a man just outside the spot were she was found murdered a few minutes later.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There has been much discussion about the three witnesses in this case: Long who said she saw someone, Richardson who said he saw no-one, and Cadosch who said he heard some things.

The other witness said she heard no-one. Amelia Richardson was adamant that she would have heard anyone passing in the passage, which had a wooden floor. She heard, and spoke to Thompson at about 3:30am, and testified that he went out the front door without visiting the yard, but she seems to have missed five other traversings of that passageway. Two for Jack and Annie going to the yard, one for Jack returning and two for her son. She explained the first three missed detections by saying that at 5:30am there was the bustle of the market day, and they may have tiptoed to avoid detection. The other alternative is that those trips to and from the yard were before 3am, when she was asleep. However, John Richardson was wearing boots, possibly hob-nailed, so it is unlikely that he tripped the light fantastic down the hallway. So why didn't his mother hear him?

For a start George, at her own admission, she was dozing. So she was sleeping on and off. She admitted at the inquest that she might not have heard someone if they had not made much noise. It can’t be a stretch of anyone’s imagination to suggest that a serial killer is hardly likely to want to draw attention to himself whilst he’s leading his victim to her death. The fact that she didn’t hear her son just proves that she wouldn’t have heard anyone who had entered the passageway.

In my recent readings I came across a theory that it was because he wasn't there. The poster postulated that John had long since wearied of checking the lock on a cellar door to humour his mother. What was the point? If burglars had broken in they would likely be long gone, so why couldn't dear old mum check the lock herself each morning in the daylight?

So why would he tell Chandler that he was there that morning to check the lock? Was he dominated by an overbearing mother and afraid that she would find out he was deceiving her? Was he afraid of what his mother had already told Chandler? Suspicion was immediately cast upon him. The house was searched, John's clothes were examined for blood stains and he was searched. Curious that his little blunt dessert knife that he had accidentally put in his pocket that morning wasn't still in his pocket when he was searched. Would anyone have known if he had gone home (he lived just around the corner in John St) to change his clothes and left the knife in his other pocket?

Is it plausible that John Richardson would place himself at the scene of a murder with a knife and then have to deny seeing a body that the police at the time felt must have been lying there just because he was scared of telling his mom that he hadn’t checked the cellar lock that morning. It doesn’t sound remotely plausible to me.

How do you know that he was searched George?

So why add the doorstep cobbling story? Chandler testified that by standing on the step and looking to the right to check the lock, the door would have obscured the body. Richardson, feeling he was in hot water, needed a situation that would put beyond any doubt that he could not have missed the body and therefore could not be suspected of a murder that had yet to happen. A boot repair with a knife that, as Jon said, might as well have been a spoon, in his mind, did the trick.

Chandler said that the door ‘might’ have obscured the body. He wasn’t saying that was what he thought had occurred only that it was physically possible.

If he wanted to ‘prove’ that the body wasn’t there George all he’d have needed to have said was “I pushed the door back against the fence so there couldn’t have been a body there.” No need to introduce a knife.

This is all speculation, but it is new speculation, so could we refrain from repeating again the St John the Honest rebuttals and rusted on opinions and engage in some positive new open minded discussions please?

So you can keep coming up with ways of trying to prove Richardson a liar and it can’t be suggested that this wasn’t the case?

Cheers, George

Nothing is changing George and it’s nothing to do with not being open-minded. It’s a case of an ongoing effort to find ever more intriguing ways to try and show that Richardson was a liar when there’s just no evidence for any of this. It really couldn’t be clearer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed George . Again some interesting points youve brought up, I belive in many of my previous post on this topic ive mention what i belive to be many possible descrepencies when looking at all the witness testimony .

One thing thats always bothered me that as yet had an answer im more than happy with , is the fact that Richardson claimed he came to the back door to check the lock and then went back to work . Chandlers confirms he told him this and nothing else regarding the boot cutting incident.

I just cant understand why Richardson didnt tell Chandler that only 2 hours earlier he sat on the middle step and cut his boot , and by that time he had already seen Chapmans murdered mutilated corpse in plain view!!!. A shocking sight for any person.

99 time out of 100 George one would think the first thing that should have come out of Richardsons mouth when he spoke to Chandler was ''jesus christ inspector i sat on that step 2 hour ago and i can tell you that body was definatley not there''

Which would you do, tell Chandler there and then or wait many hours later and tell a reporter ? .

Some might say, and have the right too of course [as we know nothing can be proven or disproven ] that 1 time Richardson just plain forgot , mentioned it and Chandler for some reason and he didnt report it, Chandler didnt hear him when he said it. Or even chandler could have lied , yes this may well have happened . But for me, and its only my opinion remember, and after reading your previous post i think there is enough evidence to cast suspicion or at the very least some doubt and uncertainty regarding the events of the morning of the Chapman murder .

Why must he have mentioned the boot cutting? I’ve done this before but this is possibly the gist of what was said.

Chandler: Alright Mr Richardson you say that you were here around 4.45?

Richardson: Yes I went to the back door to check the cellar lock.

Chandler: And what did you see?

Richardson: There was nothing there to see.

Chandler: Can you be sure of that? It couldn’t have been very light after all.

Richardson: It was light enough and I could see all over the yard.

Chandler: And you’re absolutely certain that there was no body there and that you couldn’t have missed it?

Richardson: No way. If it had been there I’d have seen it.

…….

Now of course anyone can come up with a piece of speculated conversation and none of us could claim to know what was said but this kind of exchange could easily have taken place. So it’s entirely possible that he didn’t mention repairing his boot. It’s even possible that Richardson told Chandler that he’d sat on the step but Chandler might have misheard the word sat for stood?

No suspicion can be cast on Richardson. None was cast on him at the inquest either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi Fishy

I am of the view that JR told the essence of his story with all the main points covered and expanded on it later. There are no contradictions, just more detail added, perhaps in answer to a journalists questions initially. it does not leave me with concerns or questions.

Long is more open to question though, I think. I don't get the sense of a bustling street from her testimony though, nor from Cadosch who says he saw neither Long nor her couple when he left at 5.32.

Exactly Eten, there’s not a smidgeon of doubt to be attached to Richardson. If we don’t have Long and Cadosch, Richardson alone would seal the deal for me.

[FISHY1118]

Why must he have mentioned the boot cutting? I’ve done this before but this is possibly the gist of what was said.

Chandler: Alright Mr Richardson you say that you were here around 4.45?

Richardson: Yes I went to the back door to check the cellar lock.

Chandler: And what did you see?

Richardson: There was nothing there to see.

Chandler: Can you be sure of that? It couldn’t have been very light after all.

Richardson: It was light enough and I could see all over the yard.

Chandler: And you’re absolutely certain that there was no body there and that you couldn’t have missed it?

Richardson: No way. If it had been there I’d have seen it.

…….

Now of course anyone can come up with a piece of speculated conversation and none of us could claim to know what was said but this kind of exchange could easily have taken place. So it’s entirely possible that he didn’t mention repairing his boot. It’s even possible that Richardson told Chandler that he’d sat on the step but Chandler might have misheard the word sat for stood?

No suspicion can be cast on Richardson. None was cast on him at the inquest either.

We can't be sure or speculate for that matter as to what else was said and in what context it was said in between Richardson and Chandler, only that the boot cutting incident "wasn't" according to Chandler . When George made his post 3175 I merely added to his reason why, that the omission of the boot incidents could support that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can't be sure or speculate for that matter as to what else was said and in what context it was said in between Richardson and Chandler, only that the boot cutting incident "wasn't" according to Chandler . When George made his post 3175 I merely added to his reason why, that the omission of the boot incidents could support that.

And I was just saying that we can’t assume anything sinister if he hadn’t mentioned it.

[FISHY1118]

And I was just saying that we can’t assume anything sinister if he hadn’t mentioned it.

Nothing sinister no , just other possibilities of outcomes based on the evidence and its interpretation previously discussed at length on this thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing sinister no , just other possibilities of outcomes based on the evidence and its interpretation previously discussed at length on this thread.

And the evidence tells us that Richardson did exactly as he said that he did.

[FISHY1118]

And the evidence tells us that Richardson did exactly as he said that he did.

As does the evidence that is in conflict with it from Dr Phillips, so in this case, nothing can be said to be certain with all the inquest testimony regarding th Chapman murder.

[FISHY1118]

George ,the brewers clock ,any idea if it chimed at 15 min intervals?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As does the evidence that is in conflict with it from Dr Phillips, so in this case, nothing can be said to be certain with all the inquest testimony regarding th Chapman murder.

Many things are debatable of course but one thing isn’t debatable. That Phillips estimate is neither here nor there. So Phillips can’t be used. We can’t say “Richardson was probably wrong because there’s a chance that Phillips might have been right.”

So the witnesses have to be judged alone and of themselves. So why do we have to start being so creating with the efforts to try and disprove witnesses who give us no reason for doing so.

Yes, Long might have been mistaken but it would have been a pretty sizeable coincidence for her to have seen Annie Chapman’s double with a man at just the right time and just the spot. And although witnesses can certainly be mistaken we can’t just eliminate her on a general point of principle.

Cadosch gives us no reason to suspect him of lying and the fact that he admitted to caution over the ‘no’ points toward honesty rather than dishonesty. And if he had heard a noise then there could be no innocent explanation. It had to be connected to the murder.

And Richardson is a really strong witness who we really have to enter Hans Christian Anderson territory to malign. There’s simply nothing against him. All that gets used is a rather strange sentence in the inquest testimony which neither the coroner or the jury picked up on and which would have been impossible for them not to have. Therefore it’s clear that the transcript, which isn’t verbatim, is at fault.

[Herlock Sholmes]

George ,the brewers clock ,any idea if it chimed at 15 min intervals?

It only needed to have been 5 minutes or so out. We don’t need to be looking at a 15 difference.

Its also worth looking at the other evidence Fishy. There’s a 10 minute gap between when Chandler said that he’d arrived and when Holland said that he’d seen Chandler arrive. Perhaps Holland heard the same clock that Long did….and it was fast?