John Richardson

[Hair Bear]

(If only James Mason's production crew had done a better job of research, and told him the ACTUAL location of the body, we might have had a much clearer, colour, view of it from the 1967 film... instead of the weird view of a dog's nose from the cellar. I've only seen the one minute clip, if anyone has seen the rest and can say whether it gives any more views I'd love to know.)

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5h8w0m

[A P Tomlinson]

I think it's possible that Richardson felt compelled to put himself sitting on the step after the spring from his legging was found in the yard. Working on his boot provides a nice tidy explanation for this while also strengthening his claim that he couldn't possibly have missed the body had it been there.

Incidentally the Saturday 15th edition of the East London Observer describes John Richardson's appearance.

John Richardson, a tall, stout man, with a very pale face - the result, doubtless, of the early hours he keeps as a market Porter - a brown moustache, and dark brown hair. He was shabbily dressed in a ragged coat, and dark brown trousers.

From what I recall this appearance tallies well with some of the witness statements except maybe the height.

I'm probably being a bit judgy, but when I read the description and read his testimony, I have him pegged as... more of a Lenny than a George, if that makes sense? I could see him accidentally crushing that rabbit he'd been feeding, but not figuring out the best way to talk his way out of a situation.
I'm I being a bit judgy? Maybe...

The gaiter thing... I've got to say I still think that's thin, but it's better than anything else I've seen as to why he would concoct this self incriminating story.

[A P Tomlinson]

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5h8w0m

Oh, cheers very much for that!
Bookmarked!

[Lewis C]

Hi LC,

That's because she wasn't taking much notice of them:
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

Three days after the event she suddenly realises that she saw a woman she had never seen before in a street "bustling" with people, after having not taken much notice of them.

I don't think so.

Richardson - I believe what he told Chandler and two press reporters on the day, not the story of the errant leather that he suddenly started mentioning two days later.

Cadosch - I believe him when he testified that he didn't see or hear anything unusual.

Phillips - I don't know that any doctor would admit that his methods were unreliable. That's a modern day assessment, but strangely, other ToD's were surprisingly accurate, relatively speaking. I know the common answer to this suggestion is that the others cribbed their ToD's by finding out the answer first, but I see no evidence that the doctor's interrogated beat cops or witnesses before they produced their ToD's so as to ensure they got the right answer.

Cheers, George

That she didn't take much notice of them is one reason why I don't think much of Long when it comes to her suspect description. Another reason is that she didn't see his face.

Cadosch definitely didn't see anything unusual. He also didn't hear anything that he thought was unusual at the time, though he may have learned later that he didn't hear a packing case fall against the fence.

Others have addressed the point on Philips.

Cheers, LC

[A P Tomlinson]

I don’t know how I forgot to make this point, but i did. I’ll try to make this as clear as possible.

If the cellar door was recessed (and yes, I can’t prove it but the photos suggest at least the possibility) it would have made it more difficult (if not impossible) for Richardson to have seen it from a normal standing position on the top step. But, this difficulty would also apply if the door to the house was itself recessed.

Now look at the photograph in post #2 of this thread by Wick. The back door is very clearly recessed. Not by much of course, maybe a couple of inches. So anyone standing with their feet entirely on the top step would have their eye-level a couple of inches back fro the level of the wall. Add the recess in the door and we have the persons face 3 or 4 inches back from the level of the back wall.

So without considering the canopy and without considering the cellar door being recessed we’re still faced with Richardson having to stand with his feet over the edge of the step and leaning out to some extent- just to avoid taking two steps down into the yard. How lazy was this guy?

Now add the canopy. Even if it went to the bottom of the window or slightly higher this would have meant Richardson having to stand with his feet over the edge of the steps and bending virtually double (consider how close the edge of the canopy had to have been to the door) probably having to hold onto the doorframe to keep his balance to see under the canopy! All to avoid taking a mere 2 steps into the yard! How can this be a realistic proposition? And why would we want to try and promote this unlikelihood when we don’t have a single piece of evidence to back it up. All that’s being used is ‘well Phillips was probably right therefore Richardson must have been wrong in some way.’

I’d say it’s a case of reading between the lines but ignoring the actual lines themselves. Even Chandler didn’t say that Richardson had said that he’d stood on the step. So where does the suggestion come from? It comes from nowhere. Richardson said that he sat on the step. He said this in a newspaper on the 10th and he repeated it at the inquest on the 12th. The whole ‘stood on the step’ thing is an invention to try and denigrate Richardson.

A final point….

Witnesses can be recalled if important further testimony/evidence is requested or is important. Witnesses were recalled at this inquest of course. So….

If Richardson lied at the inquest why didn’t Chandler ask to take the stand again? I’m sure that Baxter would have been very interested to have a lying witness exposed. Clearly Chandler heard Richardson’s testimony and saw no issues.

The recess issue may not matter so much. He is in no way seeing the padlock from the top of the stairs, in the doorway. He has to step out, which also means down. Even if he holds on to the door frame and leans over that won't help. But I'll come to that.

If the cellar door is recessed, the padlock may still have protruded... possibly.

Having just watched the James Mason film again it looks like deep brickwork, which would certainly SUGGEST a recessed door, but... I know... I can't prove it.
My house was built early Victorian & has similar brickwork, and external doors are framed between (having literally just gone out their with my sons school ruler...) 4 and 5 inches deep... 4 at the back, 4 1/2 at the front, and a mighty 5 at the side door. We don't have an external cellar door just an old coal chute.
I'd suggest that a door that's flat to the wall or even flush, would be bad for rain but its an external cellar door in a crappy East End lodging House in 1888... it's GOING to let the rain in regardless... so that's no help. But it is unlikely (almost to the point of impossible) to be framed on the outside as the door simply can't open outward. If its framed inside the brickwork it's not going to be on the outisde edge because thats just bad design. It would be near the centre of the brick work for strength, so looking at that video from the inside of the cellar. I would estimate that the frame would have sat about 4 inches within the arch. At LEAST 2-3 inches deep. But again... can't prove it.

BUT the problem still remains (coming back to it now...) that standing at the top of the stairs, he isn't going to see it even if its poking out because of the roof over the stairwell. He would have needed to crouch to a position that was.... well... akin to sitting on the middle step to be able to see below the roof to the point of the door latch anyway. And if it IS recessed, (more than likely to some degree) he's going to have to lean forward a bit. If he starts leaning forward he's either going to tip forward, or put his feet at the bottom of the stairs and sit down.
He can't miss the body if it is laying there with her intestines over the right shoulder. they are by his feet.

And while he's down there... that boot needs sorting.

It's really not much of a leap...

[Fleetwood Mac]

Very good points regarding the localisation of sound. Interaural intensity difference (IID) is important for high frequency sounds, because the head blocks these wavelengths and so the ear closest to the sound hears a louder sound. Interaural time difference (ITD) is more important for low frequency sounds. A thud against a fence would generate mostly low frequency sounds.

Had the sound come from almost directly in front of Cadosch, it's hard to see why he would necessarily have believed it to have come from over either fence, as the localisation of the sound might have suggested that it came from inside his own place. On the other hand, had he been about halfway back inside, the left or right direction of the sound would have been obvious. I'd say Albert couldn't clearly remember where the sound had come from.

The other point worth considering, is the unreliability of witness recollection. This has been proven through studies and the experience of witnesses, no matter what people theorise on this thread.

There are many, many reasons why witnesses recall events erroneously, and one of them is what is known as the 'misinformation effect', which I'm sure you're aware of. It has long been established that the information the witness hears after the event, interferes with the recollection of that which actually happened.

Albert had no reason to take notice of that sound. It's simply an inconsequential event in his day. Just as you and I do not take notice of all sounds and noises going on around us, unless there is something which gives us cause to take notice, i.e. extraordinary sounds and noises.

Albert heard, after the event, that there was a murder in the next yard, it was by the fence at the top of the yard, John apparently was there at 10 to 5 and there was no body lying there at that time, and so on. This will have influenced Albert's recollection according to many people who have studied witness recollection extensively.

At a cursory google glance, you will find link after link stating something like: "why science tells us not to rely on eye-witness accounts".

[FISHY1118]

True, but we can show that it was very probably Annie Chapman or her killer based on witness testimony and the location of the body in relation to the area the sound came from.

If you went to the coroner and said "It might not have been..." he would have politely, (or maybe not in Baxters case...) said something like "Would you care to elaborate?"
Feel free.

Based on the same witness testimony, it also probably wasn't.

[A P Tomlinson]

The other point worth considering, is the unreliability of witness recollection. This has been proven through studies and the experience of witnesses, no matter what people theorise on this thread.

There are many, many reasons why witnesses recall events erroneously, and one of them is what is known as the 'misinformation effect', which I'm sure you're aware of. It has long been established that the information the witness hears after the event, interferes with the recollection of that which actually happened.

Albert had no reason to take notice of that sound. It's simply an inconsequential event in his day. Just as you and I do not take notice of all sounds and noises going on around us, unless there is something which gives us cause to take notice, i.e. extraordinary sounds and noises.

Albert heard, after the event, that there was a murder in the next yard, it was by the fence at the top of the yard, John apparently was there at 10 to 5 and there was no body lying there at that time, and so on. This will have influenced Albert's recollection according to many people who have studied witness recollection extensively.

At a cursory google glance, you will find link after link stating something like: "why science tells us not to rely on eye-witness accounts".

This is a good point, and I often wonder as to how people remember conversations like "Will you... " "Yes"... and so on. ("You would say anything but your prayers..." always strikes me as questionable... what are the odds of ONLY hearing what must have been the COOLEST line that was spoken during that conversation? Unless Samuel L Jackson was Jack...)

I live next door to a pub, and every night around 11.00pm I let my dogs out there are invariably a few smokers nursing their two last pints in the beer garden yapping about some old rubbish. I can hear every word as plain as day.
BUT. If a police officer asked me to recall ANYTHING from one of those conversations... that I had heard FIVE MINUTES earlier I would genuinely struggle, unlesss it was a tasty bit of gossip about one of the bar staff...
But if someone banged into the fence... That would be a different matter, because I would want to have a look the next day to make sure it wasn't damaged.

[A P Tomlinson]

Based on the same witness testimony, it also probably wasn't.

Would you care to elaborate?

[FISHY1118]

Would you care to elaborate?

As I've done so many times already the "uncertainty" of where the "No" actually came from.i suggest you read very carefully what Cadosch says .

[Herlock Sholmes]

The recess issue may not matter so much. He is in no way seeing the padlock from the top of the stairs, in the doorway. He has to step out, which also means down. Even if he holds on to the door frame and leans over that won't help. But I'll come to that.

If the cellar door is recessed, the padlock may still have protruded... possibly.

Having just watched the James Mason film again it looks like deep brickwork, which would certainly SUGGEST a recessed door, but... I know... I can't prove it.
My house was built early Victorian & has similar brickwork, and external doors are framed between (having literally just gone out their with my sons school ruler...) 4 and 5 inches deep... 4 at the back, 4 1/2 at the front, and a mighty 5 at the side door. We don't have an external cellar door just an old coal chute.
I'd suggest that a door that's flat to the wall or even flush, would be bad for rain but its an external cellar door in a crappy East End lodging House in 1888... it's GOING to let the rain in regardless... so that's no help. But it is unlikely (almost to the point of impossible) to be framed on the outside as the door simply can't open outward. If its framed inside the brickwork it's not going to be on the outisde edge because thats just bad design. It would be near the centre of the brick work for strength, so looking at that video from the inside of the cellar. I would estimate that the frame would have sat about 4 inches within the arch. At LEAST 2-3 inches deep. But again... can't prove it.

BUT the problem still remains (coming back to it now...) that standing at the top of the stairs, he isn't going to see it even if its poking out because of the roof over the stairwell. He would have needed to crouch to a position that was.... well... akin to sitting on the middle step to be able to see below the roof to the point of the door latch anyway. And if it IS recessed, (more than likely to some degree) he's going to have to lean forward a bit. If he starts leaning forward he's either going to tip forward, or put his feet at the bottom of the stairs and sit down.
He can't miss the body if it is laying there with her intestines over the right shoulder. they are by his feet.

And while he's down there... that boot needs sorting.

It's really not much of a leap...

Excellent post AP.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I've done so many times already the "uncertainty" of where the "No" actually came from.i suggest you read very carefully what Cadosch says .

That’s unusual. The ‘I’ve already done so’ argument.

You still haven’t made a single suggestion as to what COULD have made the noise if it wasn’t Chapman and her killer. Then again, I never really expected you to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At a cursory google glance, you will find link after link stating something like: "why science tells us not to rely on eye-witness accounts".

But it doesn’t tell us to disregard every witness does it. The constant repetition of ‘witnesses can be unreliable’ is pointless. We all know this. So we don’t simply accept them without examination and equally we shouldn’t (as a few do one here) dismiss them out of hand.

[A P Tomlinson]

As I've done so many times already the "uncertainty" of where the "No" actually came from.i suggest you read very carefully what Cadosch says .

OK. so not "The same" witness testimony (or the position of the body in relation to the sound of something touching the fence) ... using one piece of cherry picked testimony that MIGHT be a bit vague, that makes perfect sense if you are NOT looking desperately for a way out the hole you dug... That means the (UNRELATED) sound of something touching the fence PROBALY WASN'T the sound of Annie Chapman meeting her death...

If I were a less trusting person I'd say, "Is that IT? You said THE SAME witness testimony!!! What about the rest?"

But no... wow... you got me good. Tore apart all the other witness statements, blew Richardson out of the water with... Albert's moment of ambiguity.
We have a winner.
(That's sarcasm...)

[FISHY1118]

That’s unusual. The ‘I’ve already done so’ argument.

You still haven’t made a single suggestion as to what COULD have made the noise if it wasn’t Chapman and her killer. Then again, I never really expected you to.

Your typical response again i see Herlock,

I have done , how many times do want to hear the same answer , you surely don't listen well do you ?

Again , another sad attempt by you to argue a point that you know very well has been already discussed and pointed out not only by me but others posters as well . For goodness sake herlock give everyone a well earned break from you sill games . I suggest you stick to your ifs ,buts ,and maybe, as you seem to be having a hell of a time evaluating the evidence properly in regards to Chapmans t.od .