John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello George,

Ive seen no evidence of Richardson mentioning his toe. ‘Unlaced’ implies that he took the laces out although that might not have been what you meant.

I think that your seeing mysteries where non-exist. We can’t know the exact details of the attempted repair but a couple of minutes in total seems more than ample to me. Especially if he couldn’t cut enough off due to the ineffectiveness of the knife. He primarily went to check on the cellar. He tells us that he’d put the knife in his pocket by mistake. I’d suggest that we’ve all put something in our pocket ‘temporarily’ then found it there much later (often money in my case) So he decided, while he could sit, to try and repair his boot. What could be far-fetched about this?

Also, on the point about him being able to check the cellar with a quick glance from the top step. The cellar door was an unknown distance back from the level of the wall of the house. And if standing on the top step (with his feet entirely on the step) the tip of Richardson’s nose would have been behind the level of the wall. Too have seen the lock he would, at best, have had to have stood on that top step with half of his feet hanging over and then bent over double to look under the canopy. Even then I find it unlikely that he’d have been able to have seen it.

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

Ive seen no evidence of Richardson mentioning his toe. ‘Unlaced’ implies that he took the laces out although that might not have been what you meant.

I think that your seeing mysteries where non-exist. We can’t know the exact details of the attempted repair but a couple of minutes in total seems more than ample to me. Especially if he couldn’t cut enough off due to the ineffectiveness of the knife. He primarily went to check on the cellar. He tells us that he’d put the knife in his pocket by mistake. I’d suggest that we’ve all put something in our pocket ‘temporarily’ then found it there much later (often money in my case) So he decided, while he could sit, to try and repair his boot. What could be far-fetched about this?

Also, on the point about him being able to check the cellar with a quick glance from the top step. The cellar door was an unknown distance back from the level of the wall of the house. And if standing on the top step (with his feet entirely on the step) the tip of Richardson’s nose would have been behind the level of the wall. Too have seen the lock he would, at best, have had to have stood on that top step with half of his feet hanging over and then bent over double to look under the canopy. Even then I find it unlikely that he’d have been able to have seen it.

Hi Herlock,

Daily News, 13 Sep:
Coroner: When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.

He would have had to have unlaced his boot to take it off to get access to the leather inside that was hurting his toe. Can you explain where else the offending leather may have been to have hurt his toe if not on the inside of the boot near the toe? He said twice that he cut some leather off, but it was not enough and he had to complete the job when he got to work. He also testified that he laced the boot up after the attempted repair. Are you proposing that he cut off the offending leather while the boot was still on his foot? Try it yourself, bearing in mind that the goal is the relief of a sore toe caused by the rubbing of leather.

With all due respect to your thoughts on the visibility of the lock, both John and Amelia testified that it could be seen from the top of the stairs, without going into the yard. It was in their premises, and you have never been on site. How can you argue against their sworn testimony? Are you saying they were both lying?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Daily News, 13 Sep:
Coroner: When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.

He would have had to have unlaced his boot to take it off to get access to the leather inside that was hurting his toe. Can you explain where else the offending leather may have been to have hurt his toe if not on the inside of the boot near the toe? He said twice that he cut some leather off, but it was not enough and he had to complete the job when he got to work. He also testified that he laced the boot up after the attempted repair. Are you proposing that he cut off the offending leather while the boot was still on his foot? Try it yourself, bearing in mind that the goal is the relief of a sore toe caused by the rubbing of leather.

With all due respect to your thoughts on the visibility of the lock, both John and Amelia testified that it could be seen from the top of the stairs, without going into the yard. It was in their premises, and you have never been on site. How can you argue against their sworn testimony? Are you saying they were both lying?

Cheers, George

Hello George,

We may be slightly at cross purposes on this point. By ‘unlaced’ I took it to mean that you were saying that he completely removed his laces whereas he could simply have loosened them. I have a pair of trainers/walking shoes and I don’t unlace them to take them off and I can easily loosen the laces to access inside. But that aside, we don’t know the state of his boots. All we can assume is that this guy wasn’t overflowing with cash so his laces might not have been up to much. Whatever the situation George the lacing part couldn’t have taken more than a very few seconds.

On the second part…..according to The Daily News…..Mrs. Richardson said:

Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

She didn’t say ‘standing on the steps.’ By the time that she testified she would have known that her son had sat on the steps.

I don’t think it can be argued that the cellar door wasn’t recessed George. It wasn’t at the same level as the back wall of the house so it was behind the line of the opening of the door. When you stand on a top step without your feet hanging over your nose is, at best, in line with the opening of the door probable slightly back. So from that position alone and standing normally it would have been close to physically impossible for him to have seen the lock. We have of course to add that there was the canopy to consider too which, from a position looking down, would have blocked his view. So for Richardson to have seen the door of the cellar from a standing position he would have had to, at the very least, move forward so that his feet hung over the end of the steps and bent down almost double to see the lock beneath the canopy.

Is the above at all likely? Especially considering that he could have seen it without the balancing act from his position sitting on the step?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll ask a general question.

If Dr. Phillips had given an estimated ToD of 4-30 - 5.30 would we now be trying to find fault with the witnesses? I reckon that we would have looked at them without any feeling of “because of Phillips they must have been wrong” and found absolutely nothing suspicious. At best we might have said that Mrs. Long might have been mistaken.

[FISHY1118]

3-3?

Fishy hasn’t made one single valid point.

6-0 to me. And if you count previous discussions it’s about 1000-0 to me.

Garbage. My points are indeed valid, as are the points that other posters. Who in case you havent noticed have also supported an earlier t.o.d based on the evidence, just as ive done . So what youve just posted shows your total disregard and lack of respect for fellow posters whos opinion you condemm[express complete disapproval of; censure] because it disagrees with your own .

Slammed dunked to me

[FISHY1118]

I prefer honesty. I never duck a question. Unlike you.

The point that I made was absolutely valid and important in countering your appalling logic. So I’ll ask again, if you say that you’ve answered then your simply lying…….

Is it your belief that if a person makes two separate points, for one of which he admits to a level of uncertainty but for the other he’s absolutely certain, we should assume uncertainty for the second point?

Come on Fishy, surely you aren’t afraid to make a point that you haven’t simply taken from someone else?

Ok let me explain something to Herlock ,and maybe just maybe youll have the intelligents to understand what im about to tell you .

Now pay attention you as im only going to say this once , no one as far as i can see have ever disputed that Cadaosh was sure he heard a noise brush up against the fence, thats in his inquest testimony. The uncertainty in ref to your second point isnt the fact he heard the noise more so its ''uncertainty'' it was the body of Annie Chapman or the killer for that matter that made it . Fact , We dont know and cant say for sure or be certain it was Chapman.

If the ''No'' was from another area/ source other than 29 handbury [ and George has commented on this at length, so go read his possible /probable explanation befor you starting asking that question over again] then it wasnt the start of the murder taking place, then the noise Cadosch heard is irrelevant, what ever it was.

This is a perfect example of what ive said right from the start of this topic with you . You twist, contort minipulate testimony and evidence and to some extent what i post, because it suits you to do so . You change a word , a sentence and invent a new narritive just so as to continue the debate when you very well know that what you do and say could just as easy work the other way. When thats explained to you by myself and posters you crack the shits . You are in fact a first class twat , get over yourself .

Conclusion the 'No' = uncertainty as to where it came from

Conclusion the ''Noise '' uncertain as to whether it was the noise of a female body that made it .

[FISHY1118]

''I don’t think it can be argued that the cellar door wasn’t recessed George. It wasn’t at the same level as the back wall of the house so it was behind the line of the opening of the door. When you stand on a top step without your feet hanging over your nose is, at best, in line with the opening of the door probable slightly back. So from that position alone and standing normally it would have been close to physically impossible for him to have seen the lock. We have of course to add that there was the canopy to consider too which, from a position looking down, would have blocked his view. So for Richardson to have seen the door of the cellar from a standing position he would have had to, at the very least, move forward so that his feet hung over the end of the steps and bent down almost double to see the lock beneath the canopy.''


Illl save George the trouble '' Horseshite'' You make this senario up without any proof what so ever regarding the position of the cellar door , how do you know the door wasnt level with the wall giving richardson a clear view from the top step ? Can you show evidence or proof that the door was recessed behind the wall ?, like a photo perhaps ? His own mother testified that her son could see the lock from the step.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its taken you a while to come up with this?!

Ok let me explain something to Herlock ,and maybe just maybe youll have the intelligents to understand what im about to tell you .

Now pay attention you as im only going to say this once , no one as far as i can see have ever disputed that Cadaosh was sure he heard a noise brush up against the fence, thats in his inquest testimony. The uncertainty in ref to your second point isnt the fact he heard the noise more so its ''uncertainty'' it was the body of Annie Chapman or the killer for that matter that made it . Fact , We dont know and cant say for sure or be certain it was Chapman.

Nope. You’ve been claiming that his entire testimony was unreliable. You’ve now had time to think of a way of wriggling out of this and you’ve come up with this. For Christ’s sake Fishy, stop digging holes for yourself. Try admitting error for once.

If the ''No'' was from another area/ source other than 29 handbury [ and George has commented on this at length, so go read his possible /probable explanation befor you starting asking that question over again] then it wasnt the start of the murder taking place, then the noise Cadosch heard is irrelevant, what ever it was.

We can’t even be certain that Cadosch was expressing doubt about which side of number 27 the ‘no’ came from. That he was talking about what side of number 29 actually makes more sense language-wise (Abby [who isn’t crippled by bias] had always assumed that my interpretation was the one that was accepted. Either way, Cadosch’s first thought that it was from number 29. So we can, at the very least call it a 50-50.

He was certain about the noise. No remotely sensible alternative has been suggest. It was clearly connected to the murder.

This is a perfect example of what ive said right from the start of this topic with you . You twist, contort minipulate testimony and evidence and to some extent what i post, because it suits you to do so . You change a word , a sentence and invent a new narritive just so as to continue the debate when you very well know that what you do and say could just as easy work the other way. When thats explained to you by myself and posters you crack the shits . You are in fact a first class twat , get over yourself .

Conclusion the 'No' = uncertainty as to where it came from

Conclusion the ''Noise '' uncertain as to whether it was the noise of a female body that made it .

Thank you for presenting a text book example of what I’ve said before. I put points or questions, you duck and dive, I try to get a straight answer. You moan and whine about my tone as if I’ve said something offensive when I haven’t. And this apparently gives you the right to use a personal insult. Something that I haven’t done. It’s happened before and it’s happened again. Discussion/debate should involve a two-way exchange not just random “it’s already been answered,” comments. If you make statements you should provide the evidence and thought processes behind it. This is what I do, I don’t say “oh, Jeff explained this 12 months ago,” expecting you to go searching through pages of text to find it. Refusing to post evidence for your point is, if nothing else, bad manners.

I’ll leave the personal insults to you and continue to discus the details of the case with anyone who wishes to take the same approach.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I tried this before and couldn't see my hand in front of my face at 3:30-4:00, although I was in the middle of a forest and that's different. I know it was 1888 but we are talking about London, so I would assume there is a measure of ambient light (how much is another matter). I also don't think it unreasonable that the Ripper carried some form of light, not that I'm 100% sold on that idea.

When the like of Morris Eagle said it was too dark to see, what did they mean by that. Obviously he wasn't in a cave with complete darkness, and human beings have night vision which is adjusted to the darkness by virtue of spending time in darkness.

It follows that when they said it was too dark to see, they didn't mean they couldn't see anything in front of them: they meant they couldn't see more than a few yards.

In the event Morris Eagle, or anyone else for that matter, e.g. Cross/Paul, couldn't see anything (like being in the cave), then Eagle wouldn't have found his way back to the club and Cross/Paul would still be wandering 'round now trying to find where they worked.

Jack with poor Annie right in front of him would have been able to see in the dark by virtue of night vision and proximity to Annie but he wouldn't have been able to see much farther than that.

A point on London, the air was in an awful condition, not much in the way of stars getting through, blocking light further. Add in that the attack on Annie was in a situation with a building covering one side, and there may not have been a great deal of light at quarter to five in the morning on the 8th September.

The point is though, Jack may have been able to see in darkness more than people assume, due to human night vision and his victims being very close to him, i.e. he could see enough to dissect poor Annie at say half three in the morning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

''I don’t think it can be argued that the cellar door wasn’t recessed George. It wasn’t at the same level as the back wall of the house so it was behind the line of the opening of the door. When you stand on a top step without your feet hanging over your nose is, at best, in line with the opening of the door probable slightly back. So from that position alone and standing normally it would have been close to physically impossible for him to have seen the lock. We have of course to add that there was the canopy to consider too which, from a position looking down, would have blocked his view. So for Richardson to have seen the door of the cellar from a standing position he would have had to, at the very least, move forward so that his feet hung over the end of the steps and bent down almost double to see the lock beneath the canopy.''


Illl save George the trouble '' Horseshite'' You make this senario up without any proof what so ever regarding the position of the cellar door , how do you know the door wasnt level with the wall giving richardson a clear view from the top step ? Can you show evidence or proof that the door was recessed behind the wall ?, like a photo perhaps ? His own mother testified that her son could see the lock from the step.

‘Horseshite?’

And you have the nerve to constantly whine about my posts when I say nothing like this. Blatant hypocrisy.

Both photos below strongly suggest a door that was recessed. As long as you look at them with your eyes open of course.

https://images.app.goo.gl/aWnGuJFqoX2pAoT49

https://images.app.goo.gl/3JNaPR6Q2y6SQVae6

His mother said that he could see the door from the step? He could. From a position sitting on the step. No mystery.

[GBinOz]

His mother said that he could see the door from the step? He could. From a position sitting on the step. No mystery.

Hi Herlock,

Are you suggesting that his regular practise was to sit on the steps to check the lock. I would imagine that he put his left foot on the middle step and leaned out and down while holding on to the door jamb, so he would actually have been facing away from the body. Neither he nor his mother testified that he needed to sit on the steps to see the lock.

The laces in a running shoe don't compare with a lace up boot. Half the laces have to be unlaced or radically loosened to get the boot off. Can you define from where in/on the boot you believe he cut the leather?

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

‘Horseshite?’

And you have the nerve to constantly whine about my posts when I say nothing like this. Blatant hypocrisy.

Both photos below strongly suggest a door that was recessed. As long as you look at them with your eyes open of course.

https://images.app.goo.gl/aWnGuJFqoX2pAoT49

https://images.app.goo.gl/3JNaPR6Q2y6SQVae6

His mother said that he could see the door from the step? He could. From a position sitting on the step. No mystery.

What the photos show is an opening where the door goes straight up against the wall , you need to show proof that backs up your argument that the door was in fact recessed in so that John Richardson couldn't see it standing from the step. Either show some evidence or you theory is wrong.

"Maybe the clocks were wrong , maybe Mrs long didn't here the 5.30 chime but the 5.15 instead , maybe the door was recessed back tha Richardson could see the lock , on and on and on we go.

Speculation theories , all well and good to have them ,but they don't determine a conclusion based of fact .

[FISHY1118]

Thank you for presenting a text book example of what I’ve said before. I put points or questions, you duck and dive, I try to get a straight answer. You moan and whine about my tone as if I’ve said something offensive when I haven’t. And this apparently gives you the right to use a personal insult. Something that I haven’t done. It’s happened before and it’s happened again. Discussion/debate should involve a two-way exchange not just random “it’s already been answered,” comments. If you make statements you should provide the evidence and thought processes behind it. This is what I do, I don’t say “oh, Jeff explained this 12 months ago,” expecting you to go searching through pages of text to find it. Refusing to post evidence for your point is, if nothing else, bad manners.

I’ll leave the personal insults to you and continue to discus the details of the case with anyone who wishes to take the same approach.

Like I said herlock I, ll only say it once , as usual you don't get it . You've responded in the exact way you always do . You misread and misinterpreted my whole Cadosch opinion and twisted it to suit your personal charade with me .

Astonishingly while others hold the same opinion with the Cadosch noise and, the no, you respond differently .

Again, you seriously need to go way back on this thread and see just what was being discussed about the "noise" not being Chapman or the killer .

Or ill have to do it for you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Are you suggesting that his regular practise was to sit on the steps to check the lock. I would imagine that he put his left foot on the middle step and leaned out and down while holding on to the door jamb, so he would actually have been facing away from the body. Neither he nor his mother testified that he needed to sit on the steps to see the lock.

The laces in a running shoe don't compare with a lace up boot. Half the laces have to be unlaced or radically loosened to get the boot off. Can you define from where in/on the boot you believe he cut the leather?

Cheers, George

Hello George,

I think it likeliest that he usually took a step or two into the yard to check the cellar but on that morning, by the time that he’d reached number 29 he’d decided to have another crack at repairing his boot and he’d planned to do it whilst sitting on the back step (being almost impossible to do in a standing position). He knew that he’d be able to see the cellar from a position seating so he didn’t need, on this occasion, to step into the yard.

The problem with taking the position that he lied to bolster his claim that the body wasn’t there is that we have to compare it to his other options. So we have, apart from the very obvious fact that he could just have agreed with the police and said “yes, it’s possible that the body was behind the door,” the following options…

1. Place yourself at the scene with a knife, in such a position where some might claim that the body was hidden by the door.

or,

2. Say that you opened the door back to the fence.
3. Say that you stepped into the yard to check the cellar and let the door close behind you.
4. Say that you went to check on the outbuilding.
5. Say that you went to the outside loo.
6. Say that you stood in the yard having a smoke.

Literally every possible explanation would have been a more effective and less potentially incriminating one than the one that he actually came up with. It just makes no sense for him to have done that George. We have to assume stupidity on Richardson’s part.

———

On your second point, I don’t dispute that the boot repair was inside the boot around the toe area. But you are assuming that he had good quality boots with fully in tact laces. Yes he would have had to have loosened the laces, probably considerably, to access the required area but people like Richardson often had to make do. I’ve seen a lots of photos of poor Victorians with no laces or with boots tied up with what looks like string. I’m not saying that we should assume this of course but how long can we know how long it would have taken? We’re talking seconds. He walks to the back door and sits down - 5 seconds. Looks to his right, checks the cellar door, takes off his boot and loosens the lace - 10 seconds. Takes out his knife and attempts the repair but either due to the length of the knife or the lack of sharpness he can’t cut enough off - 90 seconds, so he puts his boot back on and laces it up - 10 seconds, then leaves - 5 seconds. That’s 2 minutes and Richardson was only estimating (and I’m speculating of course)

[Herlock Sholmes]

What the photos show is an opening where the door goes straight up against the wall , you need to show proof that backs up your argument that the door was in fact recessed in so that John Richardson couldn't see it standing from the step. Either show some evidence or you theory is wrong.

"Maybe the clocks were wrong , maybe Mrs long didn't here the 5.30 chime but the 5.15 instead , maybe the door was recessed back tha Richardson could see the lock , on and on and on we go.

Speculation theories , all well and good to have them ,but they don't determine a conclusion based of fact .

I don’t need to do that Fishy. You’re the one claiming that Richardson could have seen the cellar door from a standing position on the top step and you’re doing this because you are claiming that he lied about sitting on the step. Therefore the onus is on you. You’re the one contradicting the witness testimony so you have to prove your point.

—————

If you say that those photos show and opening where the door goes up against that opening then you’re either looking at the wrong picture, your doing it with your eyes closed, you have very poor eyesight or you’re making things up. Others can decide.

Im not claiming anything for a certainty but the photos very, very clearly what looks like a recessed door or what could very possibly be a recessed door. Just for once Fishy, try and engage with an issue without thinking ‘this is coming from Herlock so I have to disagree no matter what.’

I’d be more than happy to hear other opinions on this. In fact, I’d prefer them.