John Richardson

[A P Tomlinson]

Apologies
Replied to Fishy's reply to Trevor rather than Trevor.

[A P Tomlinson]

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

Had the foreman been to the scene?
Had he seen the body in situ?
Had he stood on the step and seen the field of vision one would need to see the body or the cellar door?
I haven't read those reports so genuinely have no idea how familiar he was with the scene of the crime to be able to make such an observation.
But Chandler and Richardson had.

But it would not surprise me for you to take the word of a man who hadn't even seen the yard over two men who had.

You are once again conflating "conflict" with minor detail that has no bearing on the Material Evidence re: Richardson's capability to have seeen the body without offering good reason for him to commit conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

It's semantic pedantry with no consideration that any of your insights may have entered the heads of the people at the scene of the crime who were in a position to dismiss such things because there was a body in a veryy obvious place by the door step.

[A P Tomlinson]

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 .

You don;t put a door frame on the outside edge of a wall if that door won't open outward you put it either in the centre of the brickwork or towards the direction it will open.
There absolutely would have been some recess.

Now you can speculate as to the size of the padlock and pretend it would have stuck out further than the recess.

So, what hit the wall and why?

[Trevor Marriott]

Had the foreman been to the scene?
Had he seen the body in situ?
Had he stood on the step and seen the field of vision one would need to see the body or the cellar door?
I haven't read those reports so genuinely have no idea how familiar he was with the scene of the crime to be able to make such an observation.
But Chandler and Richardson had.

But it would not surprise me for you to take the word of a man who hadn't even seen the yard over two men who had.

You are once again conflating "conflict" with minor detail that has no bearing on the Material Evidence re: Richardson's capability to have seeen the body without offering good reason for him to commit conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

It's semantic pedantry with no consideration that any of your insights may have entered the heads of the people at the scene of the crime who were in a position to dismiss such things because there was a body in a veryy obvious place by the door step.

No one is disputing there was a body and where it was located, the issue being discussed is the differing accounts given by Richardson as to exactly what he did on arrival at 29 Hanbury Street his first account he gave clearly shows he could have not seen the body.had the body been there. The foreman of the jury was simply commenting on the evidence being presented and he also highlighted the same issues we are now discussing with the different accounts given by Richardson

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

You don;t put a door frame on the outside edge of a wall if that door won't open outward you put it either in the centre of the brickwork or towards the direction it will open.
There absolutely would have been some recess.

Now you can speculate as to the size of the padlock and pretend it would have stuck out further than the recess.

So, what hit the wall and why?

So recessed inward slightly where it might have been hinged to the wall, ? is that what your suggesting ,either way it would still be enough for Richardson to see the lock from his standing position on the step .

As far as what hit the wall [i take it you mean the noise cadosch heard brush up against the fence ?] , given the evidence that he gave where by he couldnt be sure which side the ''No'' came from, there is doubt and we can only speculate that it was in fact the killer and Annie Chapman . So the ''something'' cadosch heard in this case may just as well be irrelevent ,and we can only speculate as to any number of things it might have been .

[A P Tomlinson]

No one is disputing there was a body and where it was located, the issue being discussed is the differing accounts given by Richardson as to exactly what he did on arrival at 29 Hanbury Street his first account he gave clearly shows he could have not seen the body.had the body been there. The foreman of the jury was simply commenting on the evidence being presented and he also highlighted the same issues we are now discussing with the different accounts given by Richardson

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The issue being discussed is whether the officer on the scene was able to see what the witness said he saw from the position the witness said he would have seen it if it had been there.
If Chandler could see body from the doorway, there is zero merit to this argument. If he couldn't why didn't he push Richardson?

You have no idea how wide he opened the door when he went to check the yard. To see the lock he would have needed to step down and lean out. Unless he was playing some game where he was deliberately avoiding looking over toward 31, when standing back up he would have seen the body of a woman laying at the side of the fence.

It's a wonder that Wynne Baxter didn't tear him a new one for "Changing his story" mid testimony... He began by saying that he went to check that "all was right" at number 29.
Then he adds the detail that his sole objective was to check the lock... I mean which was it ALL or LOCK?
It coulnd't possibly be that by stepping out of the door and leaning down to check the lock, he took the mighty two seconds it would have taken and glanced round and made sure that the rest of the yard was right? Because we are being very pedantic and not allowing common sense to interfere with that.

You are more interested in making the detail of a witness adding a layer of information that has zero impact on his Material Point, into a criminal conspiracy to suit a theory. Creating a ridiculous notion that a man who is checking the security of his mums cellar would not have opened the door wide enough to see that "all was right" and ONLY and very Specifically peeped round the corner to check the padlock and not, in the time it would have taken for his neck to turn a few degrees away from the focus of rthe cellar door and his eyes to move in their sockets taken a glance round the yard at the same time. You have him open the door and not look down as he steps out to lean round the corner, he keeps his eyes facing to the right in a deliberate attempt to ONLY see the thing he came to see. Once done he turned back in making sure his back is to the yard in case he oversteps his sole objective by accidentally seeing whether anything was in the yard that shouldn't have been.
He overcame thousands of years of evolutionary instinct to NOT glance around the area beyond the door he had just opened, despite the security of the place being his reason for being there...
He had thrown people out for shagging in the yard, but on this occasion, because he is so focussed on that padlock, he very deliberately avoids looking anywhere near the one place someone might be able to hide from him?

And frustratingly, still no serious motive for this risky, dangerous, criminal behaviour of making up the story that he would have been able to see a body... Not just "I didn't see one." but deliberately hampering the Police investigation by saying that he would have seen one if it were there.

I'm pretty sure Baxter would have kicked him in the arse over the knife business had he been allowed to, but at the very least a night in the cells would have been on the cards had the coroner not considered what YOU think "Direct Conflict" or "Lying" or "Changing his story" to be anything more than a rather simple man giving information he hadn't mentioned before. That didn't impact the Material Evidence anyway.

[A P Tomlinson]

So recessed inward slightly where it might have been hinged to the wall, ? is that what your suggesting ,either way it would still be enough for Richardson to see the lock from his standing position on the step .

As far as what hit the wall [i take it you mean the noise cadosch heard brush up against the fence ?] , given the evidence that he gave where by he couldnt be sure which side the ''No'' came from, there is doubt and we can only speculate that it was in fact the killer and Annie Chapman . So the ''something'' cadosch heard in this case may just as well be irrelevent ,and we can only speculate as to any number of things it might have been .

This is a view of number 31. The layout is simply mirrored, The yellow line shows where a builder would put the frame (in line with the window frames) and the purple line shows where the door would sit (roughly in line with the sash window). The hinges would be on the afrthest side from the back door for the door to open against the cellar (foundation) wall, meaning the lock would be on the side nearer to the back door. Increasing the angle someon would need to lean out to see it.
The roof of the lean-to would also obscure a standing view from the doorway and would require someone to step down to the middle or bottom step and crouch. Essentially adopting a squat or seated position on the middle step. To avoid tiping over one foot would need to be on the botom flags of the stair.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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"

So the part about standing is clearly an error. He said in a newspaper report on the 10th that he’d sat on the step. In the other inquest reports he said that he sat on the step. So this is clearly a press error and we can dismiss it with confidence.

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.

Yes. Nothing about ‘standing’ though. So all this meant was that, if we assume that Chandler was correct, then Richardson made no mention of the boot repair. There’s nothing unusual or sinister about this. The reason that he’d sat on the steps was irrelevant.

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.

Just a repeat of the above.

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

The Foreman of the jury clearly made the same mistake that you (and others) have done. He heard Chandler say that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair and assumed that he’d said that Richardson hadn’t mentioned sitting on the step. And we know that this isn’t what Richardson said.

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

There’s no conflict. You presented one example of an obvious error of reporting by one newspaper and repeated the falsehood that Chandler said that Richardson hadn’t mentioned sitting on the step.

And the fact that Chandler said that Richardson didn’t mention the boot repair isn’t a conflict. It could only be called a conflict if we had Richardson specifically saying that he’d told Chandler the reason for him sitting on the step. So we have no difference of opinion to label a conflict.

You’re misreading and misunderstanding Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then we should end all discussion on the subject of the Whitechapel murders because all witnesses are unsafe.

You have zero judgment Trevor. You’re just a collection of sayings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 .

Perhaps you should try actually reading the content of what Trevor said instead of simply cheerleading. If you had then you couldn’t fail to see it for what it is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a view of number 31. The layout is simply mirrored, The yellow line shows where a builder would put the frame (in line with the window frames) and the purple line shows where the door would sit (roughly in line with the sash window). The hinges would be on the afrthest side from the back door for the door to open against the cellar (foundation) wall, meaning the lock would be on the side nearer to the back door. Increasing the angle someon would need to lean out to see it.
The roof of the lean-to would also obscure a standing view from the doorway and would require someone to step down to the middle or bottom step and crouch. Essentially adopting a squat or seated position on the middle step. To avoid tiping over one foot would need to be on the botom flags of the stair.

Exactly. We’ll be hearing that the canopy was made of clear plastic next.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps I could just re-iterate this fact as some seem impervious to it.

At no point in his inquest testimony did Inspector Chandler claim that John Richardson hadn’t mentioned to him about sitting on the step. Ok? At no point.

So perhaps, if it’s not too much to ask, we could stop repeating this fallacy as if it’s a fact.

[Trevor Marriott]

You’re misreading and misunderstanding Trevor.

There is no misunderstanding on my part I have simply produced the inquest reports as cited in the newspapers they speak for themselves.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no misunderstanding on my part I have simply produced the inquest reports as cited in the newspapers they speak for themselves.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And I’ve shown you why they don’t incriminate or demonise Richardson in any way. Despite your campaign.

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps I could just re-iterate this fact as some seem impervious to it.

At no point in his inquest testimony did Inspector Chandler claim that John Richardson hadn’t mentioned to him about sitting on the step. Ok? At no point.

So perhaps, if it’s not too much to ask, we could stop repeating this fallacy as if it’s a fact.

I think you are losing the plot you are so desperate to prop up the later TOD that your assessment of the evidence has become clouded

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.

Where does Chandler state Richardson told him about cutting the boot?

You and others can huff and puff till your heart's content but it is not going to change the initial statement Richardson made to Chandler and the evidence Chandler gave negating Richardson's later account

www.trevormarriott.co.uk