John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

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...)

Is there a question here somewhere,?

Or anything that else?

[A P Tomlinson]

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.

The main reason the traffic cops who caught Sutcliffe held him for more than the number plates was the photofit. (Sergeant Ring's "Tha's 'Ripper thee!" upon arresting him). Andy Laptew would have had him sooner if George hadn't been obsessed with the Geordie Jack Tape... because Laptew recognised him from the photofit.
The photofit, one of the most accurate of all time... came from Eye Witness accounts.

Just saying...

[A P Tomlinson]

Is there a question here somewhere,?

Or anything that else?

No mate. You did it... I defer to Alberts moment of ambiguity! Cracked it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 .

You have not given one example of what else the noise could have been.

It will take you 2 minutes to type one or two. You can……can’t you?

[A P Tomlinson]

You have not given one example of what else the noise could have been.

It will take you 2 minutes to type one or two. You can……can’t you?

With something even vaguelly approaching evidence to back it up... obviously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With something even vaguelly approaching evidence to back it up... obviously.

You’re an optimist AP.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Whatever way you want to dress it up someone wasn't being truthful either Chandler or Richardson

The Times Inquest report quotes Richardson as stating " He did not go into the yard but stood on the steps and cut a piece of leather off one of his boots"

The Telegraph Inquest report quotes him as stating " 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.

Now look at Chandlers inquest testimony

Telegraph report "[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.

The Times Inquest report

Chandler spoke to Richardson who stated "He went to the back door and looked down at the cellar" He did not mention to Chandler anything about cutting his boot.

The foreman of the jury as an observation to the coroner

"Richardson might not have seen the body if he did not go into the yard, if he went down the steps and the body was there he was bound to see it. Richardson told the witness (Chandler) that he didn't go down the steps and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot

So there is clearly a conflict if Chapman had been killed earlier and Richardson only opened the back door and glanced to his right he would not have seen the body which is the first account he gave to Chandler and given all the unsafe other connecting witness testimony I believe is the correct account.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

No one is disregarding the witnesses all we are saying is that the evidence they gave is unsafe and those reasons have been pointed out to you many times but for some reason you have your head buried in the sand and won't acknowledge they are unsafe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Whatever way you want to dress it up someone wasn't being truthful either Chandler or Richardson

The Times Inquest report quotes Richardson as stating " He did not go into the yard but stood on the steps and cut a piece of leather off one of his boots"

The Telegraph Inquest report quotes him as stating " 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.

Now look at Chandlers inquest testimony

Telegraph report "[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.

The Times Inquest report

Chandler spoke to Richardson who stated "He went to the back door and looked down at the cellar" He did not mention to Chandler anything about cutting his boot.

The foreman of the jury as an observation to the coroner

"Richardson might not have seen the body if he did not go into the yard, if he went down the steps and the body was there he was bound to see it. Richardson told the witness (Chandler) that he didn't go down the steps and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot

So there is clearly a conflict if Chapman had been killed earlier and Richardson only opened the back door and glanced to his right he would not have seen the body which is the first account he gave to Chandler and given all the unsafe other connecting witness testimony I believe is the correct account.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No that difficult is it , ? Well for some maybe

[GBinOz]

Whatever way you want to dress it up someone wasn't being truthful either Chandler or Richardson

The Times Inquest report quotes Richardson as stating " He did not go into the yard but stood on the steps and cut a piece of leather off one of his boots"

The Telegraph Inquest report quotes him as stating " 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.

Now look at Chandlers inquest testimony

Telegraph report "[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.

The Times Inquest report

Chandler spoke to Richardson who stated "He went to the back door and looked down at the cellar" He did not mention to Chandler anything about cutting his boot.

The foreman of the jury as an observation to the coroner

"Richardson might not have seen the body if he did not go into the yard, if he went down the steps and the body was there he was bound to see it. Richardson told the witness (Chandler) that he didn't go down the steps and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot

So there is clearly a conflict if Chapman had been killed earlier and Richardson only opened the back door and glanced to his right he would not have seen the body which is the first account he gave to Chandler and given all the unsafe other connecting witness testimony I believe is the correct account.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Great post. You have defined the believable part of Richardson's story. Anyone who has worn a pair of lace-up boots and has experienced the difficulty of getting them on and off, let alone trying to cut off leather from the inside toe with a broken blunt knife, would realise the rest of his story is nonsense.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Trevor,

Great post. You have defined the believable part of Richardson's story. Anyone who has worn a pair of lace-up boots and has experienced the difficulty of getting them on and off, let alone trying to cut off leather from the inside toe with a broken blunt knife, would realise the rest of his story is nonsense.

Cheers, George

I should think is fair to say George and Trevor , after 1000s of post and opinions regarding the suspicious ,and ambiguous nature of Richardsons testimony, that it is indeed a enormous leap of faith that some advocate for a 5.30am t.od

[FISHY1118]

Hi Trevor,

Great post. You have defined the believable part of Richardson's story. Anyone who has worn a pair of lace-up boots and has experienced the difficulty of getting them on and off, let alone trying to cut off leather from the inside toe with a broken blunt knife, would realise the rest of his story is nonsense.

Cheers, George

Popcorn ?

[FISHY1118]

With something even vaguelly approaching evidence to back it up... obviously.

What, like the same evidence regarding the recessed cellar door that been asked for but not forthcoming i see.

You people truly amaze me ,you whinge and complain about things ,then turn around and do EXACTLY the same .

[Indian Harry]

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.

I am not refined enough to have read any Steinbeck. A Lenny and Squiggy reference would have worked better for me.

[GBinOz]

I am not refined enough to have read any Steinbeck. A Lenny and Squiggy reference would have worked better for me.

You seem to be sufficiently refined to know that Lenny and George were characters in a book by Steinbeck.