Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Interesting points you make Hair Bear , although some have suggested, myself included that Richardson could also have just stood on the back door step and looked to his right then turned inward and went back inside . There is evidence that has been shown over this thread that this could have to be the case , and thus should be considered a possibility .
    I'm merely showing what I believe would be the case if we accept his testimony at the inquest. If not, that's a different story of course.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post
      Is this map okay or were you after something else?

      Hi Hair Bear,

      When I click on that link, I get a white page that says "Invalid File Specified" in the upper left corner.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post
        I know Richardson said he did not go into the yard, but I think there is an argument to be made that he was generalising. Bearing in mind he is a "tall, stout" man, I would be surprised if he didn't end up in the position of picture B before sitting down. I think he came to the top step, looked to his right to check the cellar, and then he sat down to mess with his boot. It would be highly unnatural to squat down on the top step and then slither yourself into the position of picture C, so I submit that he walked into a position where his feet were on the flagstones, and then sat back on the second step. Try it yourself. Walk down your stairs with the intention of sitting on step two from the bottom. I found myself walking to the floor, and then lowering myself back into the sitting position. If you are not tall and stout, find someone who is to try it.
        Hello Hair Bear,

        The issue for me is the location of the cellar door. It looks to me as if the cellar door was a few inches into the building and so behind the line of the aperture of the door. If this was the case then it would have been impossible for Richardson to have seen that door (and to have checked the lock) from a position standing in the doorway.

        In my opinion I’d suggest that Richardson probably usually stepped slightly into the yard to check the cellar door (possibly with one hand still holding the door ajar?) But on the morning of the murder he needed to try and repair his boot so he sat on the step knowing that he could check the lock from where he sat.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          ... on the morning of the murder he needed to try and repair his boot so he sat on the step knowing that he could check the lock from where he sat.
          I shyly suggest that the entire 'repairing the boot' story is *a load of crap*.

          M.

          (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

            I shyly suggest that the entire 'repairing the boot' story is *a load of crap*.

            M.
            So you think that Richardson lied, but I don't think that you think that Richardson killed Chapman. If that's the case, then why might he have lied?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

              So you think that Richardson lied, but I don't think that you think that Richardson killed Chapman. If that's the case, then why might he have lied?
              His mum was a nut who wanted something stupid and pointless doing every morning. So he mostly didn't bother; and was suddenly forced to pretend he'd been there on a day when it mattered. He then made up a story that accidentally made him look like a possible killer; then changed it to a story that revealed him to be a total spud. And out of that utter and complete stew we get a ToD vastly too late. Richardson was a total bloody dork -- and a classic example of how Ripperology saddles itself with discussion of data that isn't really data. My sympathies.

              M.
              (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Hello Hair Bear,

                The issue for me is the location of the cellar door. It looks to me as if the cellar door was a few inches into the building and so behind the line of the aperture of the door. If this was the case then it would have been impossible for Richardson to have seen that door (and to have checked the lock) from a position standing in the doorway.

                In my opinion I’d suggest that Richardson probably usually stepped slightly into the yard to check the cellar door (possibly with one hand still holding the door ajar?) But on the morning of the murder he needed to try and repair his boot so he sat on the step knowing that he could check the lock from where he sat.
                I hear you. I'm not opposed to various ideas regarding Richardson and the backyard, although his boot story rings true to me, and I'm fairly convinced that if he did sit on the step he would have initially been from a standing position on the flagstones as described. From that standing position I can't see how he would have missed the body. The fact that weakling Davis immediately saw the body, I doubt whether he was going to throw that door open harder than tall, stout, young Richardson.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

                  I hear you. I'm not opposed to various ideas regarding Richardson and the backyard, although his boot story rings true to me, and I'm fairly convinced that if he did sit on the step he would have initially been from a standing position on the flagstones as described. From that standing position I can't see how he would have missed the body. The fact that weakling Davis immediately saw the body, I doubt whether he was going to throw that door open harder than tall, stout, young Richardson.
                  I don’t think for a second that he missed the body HB. It wasn’t there.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                    I shyly suggest that the entire 'repairing the boot' story is *a load of crap*.

                    M.
                    He had no reason to lie. He’d already placed himself at the scene. His ‘lie’ achieved nothing apart from stupidly putting a knife into his own hand at the scene of a knife murder. If he wanted to give weight to his statement that the body wasn’t there then all that he needed to have said was “yes, I went into the yard to check the cellar doors. When I did this the door to the house closed on itself so I couldn’t have missed a body.” Or he could have said that he’d gone to the outside loo. Or he could have stressed that he’d pushed the door all the way back to the fence.

                    And how could he have known that the killer wouldn’t be caught followed by an admission that he’d killed Annie at 3.00?
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                      His mum was a nut who wanted something stupid and pointless doing every morning. So he mostly didn't bother; and was suddenly forced to pretend he'd been there on a day when it mattered. He then made up a story that accidentally made him look like a possible killer; then changed it to a story that revealed him to be a total spud. And out of that utter and complete stew we get a ToD vastly too late. Richardson was a total bloody dork -- and a classic example of how Ripperology saddles itself with discussion of data that isn't really data. My sympathies.

                      M.
                      HaHa, don't water it down Mark, give us your straight opinion.

                      Cheers, George
                      It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                        His mum was a nut who wanted something stupid and pointless doing every morning. So he mostly didn't bother; and was suddenly forced to pretend he'd been there on a day when it mattered. He then made up a story that accidentally made him look like a possible killer; then changed it to a story that revealed him to be a total spud. And out of that utter and complete stew we get a ToD vastly too late. Richardson was a total bloody dork -- and a classic example of how Ripperology saddles itself with discussion of data that isn't really data. My sympathies.

                        M.
                        I’ll translate……

                        For Cross to have been the killer an earlier time of death is required because the idea that he stopped off to kill and mutilate a woman as he was on his deliveries is laughable. Therefore an entirely unwarranted effort to discredit Richardson is required. Combined with an effort to discredit Cadosch. And an effort to discredit Long. And an effort to credit Phillips with knowledge that a Victorian doctor couldn’t have had.

                        Just to be clear.

                        And by the way….he didn’t go there every morning. Only on market mornings.
                        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-01-2023, 09:33 PM.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

                          I'm merely showing what I believe would be the case if we accept his testimony at the inquest. If not, that's a different story of course.
                          Fair enough, but as you suggest only if one believes Richardson testimony .

                          But as has been shown on this thread multiple amounts of evidence that contradicts his version on events.

                          Of course one is free to believe what ever they want. When it comes to JtR.

                          Comment


                          • Nothing contradicts Richardson. Not a single thing. Three witnesses all tie up up. The chances of them all lying or all being wrong are minute. All that we have is a doctors TOD and we know for an absolutely provable fact that the methods that he was using were unreliable. Why 19th century medical knowledge is promoted and yet three perfectly reasonable witnesses with no reason to lie are constantly denigrated speaks of a conscious desire for an earlier TOD. We should be led by the evidence alone and the evidence tells us overwhelmingly that Chapman was killed close to 5.30. However inconvenient that is to some.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                            Comment


                            • Agreed, we should be lead by evidence alone, and the evidence tells us conclusively that Chapman could just as easily been killed at an earlier time .

                              Some might interpret the evidence to suit a particular theory but it can never be proven of course. However as has been shown over thousands of post ,that the theory of a 5.30 am t.o.d is flawed with multiple contradictions especially where John Richardson is concerned. When one examines his inquest testimony closely many flaws indeed come to light.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post
                                I know Richardson said he did not go into the yard, but I think there is an argument to be made that he was generalising. Bearing in mind he is a "tall, stout" man, I would be surprised if he didn't end up in the position of picture B before sitting down. I think he came to the top step, looked to his right to check the cellar, and then he sat down to mess with his boot. It would be highly unnatural to squat down on the top step and then slither yourself into the position of picture C, so I submit that he walked into a position where his feet were on the flagstones, and then sat back on the second step. Try it yourself. Walk down your stairs with the intention of sitting on step two from the bottom. I found myself walking to the floor, and then lowering myself back into the sitting position. If you are not tall and stout, find someone who is to try it.
                                Hi Hair Bear,

                                And one should not that is also how he describes himself as sitting, with his feet on the flagstones, etc.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X