John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Go ahead. I’m very happy to discus the various barking mad suggestions as to what else the noise could have been. Poltergeist, a prowling big cat (The Beast of Whitechapel) someone that threw an extremely bouncy rubber ball from another yard, and dyspraxic fox, a blind man with an extremely poor sense of direction, a ventriloquist?

Bring them on Fishy.

[jmenges]

I’ve just banned one guy for three months for name calling and I won’t hesitate to ban another.

You’ve been warned.

JM

[FISHY1118]

Go ahead. I’m very happy to discus the various barking mad suggestions as to what else the noise could have been. Poltergeist, a prowling big cat (The Beast of Whitechapel) someone that threw an extremely bouncy rubber ball from another yard, and dyspraxic fox, a blind man with an extremely poor sense of direction, a ventriloquist?

Bring them on Fishy.

For what purpose herlock ,you've already dismissed Georges post and explanation s regarding the noise , do we really want to waste everyone's time going over that topic again. ? Bring something new to the table for a change and stop asking that which you have already be schooled on.

[FISHY1118]

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.

No ,Mrs Richardson is claiming it . ,so your first paragraph is just another herlockism is it ? Misrepresentation and misinterpreted.

No Herlock, again your theory relies on the door to be recessed ,so show evidence this is the case . Not maybe or could haves ,or probablies . This is the 3rd time I've had to ask for for your evidence that proves the door was in fact recessed .

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C,

I think you might enjoy this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEk3Aj72t_I&ab_channel=%F0%9D%94%92%F0%9D% 94%A9%F0%9D%94%A1%E2%84%AD%F0%9D%94%B2%F0%9D%94%AF %F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%AC%F0%9D%94%B0%26%F0%9D%94%8 4%F0%9D%94%AB%F0%9D%94%B1%F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%AE% F0%9D%94%B2%F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%B1%F0%9D%94%A6%F0 %9D%94%A2%F0%9D%94%B0

It is computer generated and very atmospheric, and I can point out a few interesting scenes around the 29 minute mark.
The Long incident is depicted as her seeing a single couple in a deserted street. When Amelia Richardson was asked why she hadn't heard anyone in the passage that morning she made it clear that the street was filled with noise and bustle due to market day. John Richardson said he only checked the lock on market day because of the number of people in the street, and Long herself stated that there were many couples there on those market mornings.

The depiction of Richardson shows how easily he might have seen the lock with only a quick glance from the top of the steps, as was his stated practice. It also shows him sitting down and scraping a knife on the outside of his boot. It can be seen how the door may have blocked his view. Even more so had he been turned more to his right in the direction of the cellar.

The video shows a quick repair to the outside of his boot, but he made it clear that the problem was that the leather on the INSIDE was hurting his toe. I have a pair of Kodiak boots that extend above the ankle similar to this diagram:



Even with the boot mostly unlaced, the inside toe of the boot is not visible due to the tongue. Any leather trimming would need to be done by working one hand, with the knife, around the instep and cutting by feel while manoeuvring the knife. Richardson claimed that he went down the passage, opened the door, checked the lock and sat on the step. He then unlaced the offending boot, cut some leather from the inside of the toe with a blunt broken dessert knife, put the boot back on and re-laced it, and left to go to work, all in "About a minute and a half, or two minutes at the outside". I don't buy it.

Later in the video there is quite a good depiction of the Schwartz incident.

There is a second video in the series here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RncOVS1-8t8&ab_channel=%F0%9D%94%92%F0%9D%94%A9%F0%9D%94%A 1%E2%84%AD%F0%9D%94%B2%F0%9D%94%AF%F0%9D%94%A6%F0% 9D%94%AC%F0%9D%94%B0%26%F0%9D%94%84%F0%9D%94%AB%F0 %9D%94%B1%F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%AE%F0%9D%94%B2%F0%9 D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%B1%F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%A2%F0%9D% 94%B0

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Thanks for the recommendation. I watched those 2 videos today, and I agree, they're very good.

Regarding Richardson sitting on the steps, it does appear that the door could have partially obstructed his view, but I think not of Annie's entire body. The video shows how far her body would have extended outward from the building, and I think Richardson would have at least been able to see her legs.

[Hair Bear]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEk3Aj72t_I&ab_channel=%F0%9D%94%92%F0%9D% 94%A9%F0%9D%94%A1%E2%84%AD%F0%9D%94%B2%F0%9D%94%AF %F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%AC%F0%9D%94%B0%26%F0%9D%94%8 4%F0%9D%94%AB%F0%9D%94%B1%F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%AE% F0%9D%94%B2%F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%B1%F0%9D%94%A6%F0 %9D%94%A2%F0%9D%94%B0

"Video unavailable
This video contains content from Paramount Global (INTL), who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds"

Any chance of someone being able to download and re-post these videos for anyone to see?

[Herlock Sholmes]

For what purpose herlock ,you've already dismissed Georges post and explanation s regarding the noise , do we really want to waste everyone's time going over that topic again. ? Bring something new to the table for a change and stop asking that which you have already be schooled on.

Do you ever answer a question?

A noise comes from a yard where you claim that there was a mutilated corpse. Give the police of any era that situation and what do you think that their conclusion would be? So where does this leave us?

Even if we accept the one in a thousand to one chance that something else made that noise leaving no evidence it’s existence then we still have a 999 in a 1000 chance that it was Chapman and her killer. We’re used to people going to extraordinary lengths to defend a theory on here but this one is little short of remarkable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEk3Aj72t_I&ab_channel=%F0%9D%94%92%F0%9D% 94%A9%F0%9D%94%A1%E2%84%AD%F0%9D%94%B2%F0%9D%94%AF %F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%AC%F0%9D%94%B0%26%F0%9D%94%8 4%F0%9D%94%AB%F0%9D%94%B1%F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%AE% F0%9D%94%B2%F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%B1%F0%9D%94%A6%F0 %9D%94%A2%F0%9D%94%B0

"Video unavailable
This video contains content from Paramount Global (INTL), who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds"

Any chance of someone being able to download and re-post these videos for anyone to see?

You may have to emigrate HB

[Herlock Sholmes]

No ,Mrs Richardson is claiming it . ,so your first paragraph is just another herlockism is it ? Misrepresentation and misinterpreted.

The Daily News…..Mrs. Richardson:

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

She doesn’t mention ‘standing’ on the steps Fishy. Just ‘from the steps.’ She was just confirming what her son had said….that he didn’t need to walk into the yard to check the cellar…that he could do it from where he’d sat on the steps.

No Herlock, again your theory relies on the door to be recessed ,so show evidence this is the case . Not maybe or could haves ,or probablies . This is the 3rd time I've had to ask for for your evidence that proves the door was in fact recessed .

Now you’re just playing silly games Fishy. You could at least make some effort towards an adult discussion. I haven’t said that the door was definitely recessed. We don’t have a clear photograph showing the actual door so we can’t know anything for certain. But we have to photos that show some object that’s recessed.

I realise that I’m wasting my breath here but….



Look at the first image. If you look at the opening and move your eyes back from the opening (the level of the wall) Move your eyes back around the distance of the width of the middle step (I’d estimate around 8 inches) We see an immediate change from light grey to black. It’s not a gradual fade indicating shade. There’s a clearly defined line at the lower part where it goes from grey straight to back. This at least points to the possibility of the door being recessed which is what I’ve suggested…..and not claimed as a fact.

Then if you look left side of the aperture there is an object which also appears in the second photograph. This could be the remains of a door.

What we also have to consider about visibility from standing on the step is the fact that there was a canopy there at the time. We have no way of knowing how high this one and we can’t rely on drawings but we know that it had to have been, at the least, the width of the steps leading down to the cellar door. If the canopy was up the the level of the bottom of the window above this would have obscured the view from the steps by all but a child or a dwarf. So the person on the top step would have had to have bent double, and off balance, to see beneath the canopy. Why would anyone have done this? Could any human have done this because they were too last to take two steps down? Would we really make this claim?

And if the cellar door was recessed (and note that I’ve said if Fishy) it would have been close to impossible to have seen it from standing on the step.

Try this…….just for 5 minutes ditch your dislike of me…….then ditch your belief in an earlier ToD. Just view that yard for what it is. Nothing that I’ve said is imagined, nothing is manipulated, nothing is far-fetched and no ‘possibles’ have been claimed as facts.

[FISHY1118]

Do you ever answer a question?

A noise comes from a yard where you claim that there was a mutilated corpse. Give the police of any era that situation and what do you think that their conclusion would be? So where does this leave us?

Even if we accept the one in a thousand to one chance that something else made that noise leaving no evidence it’s existence then we still have a 999 in a 1000 chance that it was Chapman and her killer. We’re used to people going to extraordinary lengths to defend a theory on here but this one is little short of remarkable.

Do you ever accept an answer ?


''A noise comes from a yard where you claim that there was a mutilated corpse''

So what ??? If Annnie Chapman was indeed already dead some time earlier, and a ''noise'' is heard by cadosch an hour or even two later ,whats your point ? How does the ''noise'' prove it was made by chapman or her killer . Based on the inquest testimony by the witness/s in question, it doesnt.

It remains speculation and a remote possibility opinionated by posters who support an later t.o.d

[FISHY1118]

I realise that I’m wasting my breath here but….



Look at the first image. If you look at the opening and move your eyes back from the opening (the level of the wall) Move your eyes back around the distance of the width of the middle step (I’d estimate around 8 inches) We see an immediate change from light grey to black. It’s not a gradual fade indicating shade. There’s a clearly defined line at the lower part where it goes from grey straight to back. This at least points to the possibility of the door being recessed which is what I’ve suggested…..and not claimed as a fact.

Then if you look left side of the aperture there is an object which also appears in the second photograph. This could be the remains of a door.

What we also have to consider about visibility from standing on the step is the fact that there was a canopy there at the time. We have no way of knowing how high this one and we can’t rely on drawings but we know that it had to have been, at the least, the width of the steps leading down to the cellar door. If the canopy was up the the level of the bottom of the window above this would have obscured the view from the steps by all but a child or a dwarf. So the person on the top step would have had to have bent double, and off balance, to see beneath the canopy. Why would anyone have done this? Could any human have done this because they were too last to take two steps down? Would we really make this claim?

And if the cellar door was recessed (and note that I’ve said if Fishy) it would have been close to impossible to have seen it from standing on the step.

Try this…….just for 5 minutes ditch your dislike of me…….then ditch your belief in an earlier ToD. Just view that yard for what it is. Nothing that I’ve said is imagined, nothing is manipulated, nothing is far-fetched and no ‘possibles’ have been claimed as facts.

your right about one thing, as that is ''yes'' you are wasting your breath , your arguement relies on the richardson story about the cutting of the boot being accurate, where as we have another testimony regarding what richardson did that morning that contradicts his version of the boot cutting incident.



[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - [Joseph Chandler], Inspector H Division Metropolitan I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

[FISHY1118]

As these drawings show if indeed Richardson stood on the step and he only opened the door 35degrees, on that angle he only needed to look hard to his right to check the cellar door. And look into the yard without glancing to his left to spot Chapmans body

From the height of the steps he would have had to look straight down and slighly to his left to see her body , remembering he only went to check the cellar down, which he might have done many times befor. He knew just a slight opening of the door then put his head around would allow him to see the cellar door lock easily.

So i believe its just possible he did miss chapmans body .

That is of course we believe Insp Chandler when he said Richardson made no mention of sitting on the step to cut the leather from his boot .

Just a foot note , notice the gap in the paleings of the fence and the height ? Albert Cadosch

A further consultation of the detectives engaged in the case was held this morning, and an officer again visited the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, and made a careful inspection of the palings leading from that house to No. 27, where resides the young man Cadosh, who stated at the inquest that he heard sounds proceed from the spot where the body lay at a quarter-past five on the morning of the murder. An examination of the fence shows that immediately over the place in the yard there is an aperture in the palings by which the dead body could have been plainly visible, while anyone moving in the yard might easily have been seen.14 Echo Sept 20th 1888.

From an earlier post on the subject of the celler door and the canopy.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Jon,

Generally I'd agree, but some witness testimony is very hard to believe:

Joseph Chandler
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

John Richardson
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long.

[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.

(recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

Richardson initially indicates to Chandler that he gave the cellar door a perfunctory glance and departed.
At the inquest he introduces the boot cutting story. He stated twice that he actually cut leather from his boot, but no leather shaving were found at the scene and Chandler confirms he made no mention of it to him. He consistently said he did not go into the yard, but the middle step was certainly in the yard. How does one sit on the middle step with one's feet on the flags without going down the steps? When asked to produce the knife he presents a knife that was totally unsuitable for the task and changes the successful shaving of the leather to having been at work afterwards.

IMO Richardson introduced the boot story to enlarge his role in the matter or to avoid looking foolish for not having noticed the body, but didn't anticipate the Coroner asking to see the knife. I think Chapman's body was already there, as per Phillip's estimate of TOD, and Richardson missed it.

Cheers, George

Interesting my post was post 12, this was post 13

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you ever accept an answer ?


''A noise comes from a yard where you claim that there was a mutilated corpse''

So what ??? If Annnie Chapman was indeed already dead some time earlier, and a ''noise'' is heard by cadosch an hour or even two later ,whats your point ? How does the ''noise'' prove it was made by chapman or her killer . Based on the inquest testimony by the witness/s in question, it doesnt.

It remains speculation and a remote possibility opinionated by posters who support an later t.o.d

I’ll accept a sensible response of course. And when I get one I’ll accept it.

What’s my point? You really can’t understand it?

Ill ask you directly….again….

If the noise wasn’t Chapman and her killer what could it have been? And whatever your suggestion, how likely would it have been given that there was allegedly a mutilated corpse lying there?

Ok, duck and dive away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From an earlier post on the subject of the celler door and the canopy.

As you might have observed Fishy (or possibly not?) that’s a drawing not a photograph. That quote is meaningless in regard to the discussion. Do you ever respond to anything without just pointing out what some other poster has said? Think for yourself Fishy and engage with the detail of the discussion. We get nowhere when you just keep evading and obfuscation. I don’t do it. Ask me a question and I’ll give you a full and detailed answer. I won’t just say “oh, Jeff answered that 6 months ago but I won’t post a link or repeat it.”