Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Exactly. We’ll be hearing that the canopy was made of clear plastic next.​​
    A lot of the sketches of it show the thing to be WALLED, but I'm absolutely giving Fishy and Trevor the benefit of the doubt with that one, because the one Fishy posted at #12, back on page one of this sorry debate looks very much like the one that other artists used to base their drawings on. It's not mega accurate (it has a larger gap between the two doors/sets of steps, but it has the general dimensions right and gets the location of bottom edge of the window compared to the door better.)

    Half of them look like they were drawn from a verbal description, and the one where the back door and steps appear to be recessed, architecturally, looks like an early Escher, (I mean early as in about 7 years old.)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      And I’ve shown you why they don’t incriminate or demonise Richardson in any way. Despite your campaign.
      Richardson hasn't done himself any favours by changing his account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        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

        And where exactly does Chandler give evidence that he cross questioned Richardson thoroughly about all that he did at the site, and took a detailed statement there and then? Or did he perhaps just confirm that Richardson was a potentially important witness who should make a detailed statement later?

        In the absence of evidence to confirm the former, and there is none, the latter seems almost certainly the likely one.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Richardson hasn't done himself any favours by changing his account

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          But only insofar as getting up Baxters nose about being at the scene of the crime with a KNIFE goes.

          The only thing the coroner got in a state over was the fact he hadn't mentioned the knife. Not the sitting down, not the line of sight, or field of vision, not measuring the distance to the far end of a fart over recesses and padlocks, angles of aperture based on how wide he would have opened the door, or whether being on the steps, at the foot of the steps, or in the doorway at the top of the steps constitues being "at" or "on" or "by" the steps.
          That was all regarded the way it SHOULD have been. That Coppers were on the scene and could have seen if he was lying by virtue of the fact they were THERE... WITH the body.

          And for the umpteenth time, it doesn't impact the Material Evidence. That he would have seen a body had there been one, but he didn't. Chandler would have been able to tell if it were possible to see the body from where Richardson was.

          Chandler had all the information he needed. All that would have happened if Richardson had told Chandler about the boot was that Chandler would have asked to see the knife, and avoided the angry attention of Baxter at tghe inquest for that matter not being mentioned sooner, (and the further indignation when you go back with the witness to discover the "knife" is a blunt old piece of crap that smells of carrots, and you have to bring that back to the coroner).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

            And where exactly does Chandler give evidence that he cross questioned Richardson thoroughly about all that he did at the site, and took a detailed statement there and then? Or did he perhaps just confirm that Richardson was a potentially important witness who should make a detailed statement later?

            In the absence of evidence to confirm the former, and there is none, the latter seems almost certainly the likely one.
            What was there to question him about at the site Richardson gave his account and that was accepted by the police as being the truth he made no mention of the boot cutting which he later introduced at the inquest.

            The original inquest statements have been lost it would be interesting to know if Richardson gave a statement in which he gave his first account to Chandler and when that statement was taken I would presume a statement was taken from him at some point.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post

              But only insofar as getting up Baxters nose about being at the scene of the crime with a KNIFE goes.

              The only thing the coroner got in a state over was the fact he hadn't mentioned the knife. Not the sitting down, not the line of sight, or field of vision, not measuring the distance to the far end of a fart over recesses and padlocks, angles of aperture based on how wide he would have opened the door, or whether being on the steps, at the foot of the steps, or in the doorway at the top of the steps constitues being "at" or "on" or "by" the steps.
              That was all regarded the way it SHOULD have been. That Coppers were on the scene and could have seen if he was lying by virtue of the fact they were THERE... WITH the body.

              And for the umpteenth time, it doesn't impact the Material Evidence. That he would have seen a body had there been one, but he didn't. Chandler would have been able to tell if it were possible to see the body from where Richardson was.

              Chandler had all the information he needed. All that would have happened if Richardson had told Chandler about the boot was that Chandler would have asked to see the knife, and avoided the angry attention of Baxter at tghe inquest for that matter not being mentioned sooner, (and the further indignation when you go back with the witness to discover the "knife" is a blunt old piece of crap that smells of carrots, and you have to bring that back to the coroner).
              And if he had simply stood on the steps with the door at such an angle and looked to his right without lingering he could have easily not seen the body

              BUt if Chandler is to be believed Richardson failed to mention to Chandler or any other police officer his action in cutting his boot.That is a fact and cannot be ignored.

              As to why the coroner didn't pick up on it is anybody guess perhaps he believed the TOD was not that important given Dr Phillips testimony

              This thread has gone on forever I fail to see what is so important to establish an exact time of death it is clear that Chapman was killed by the same killer as the other victims. If we could positively establish an accurate TOD where would it take us?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                And if he had simply stood on the steps with the door at such an angle and looked to his right without lingering he could have easily not seen the body

                BUt if Chandler is to be believed Richardson failed to mention to Chandler or any other police officer his action in cutting his boot.That is a fact and cannot be ignored.

                As to why the coroner didn't pick up on it is anybody guess perhaps he believed the TOD was not that important given Dr Phillips testimony

                This thread has gone on forever I fail to see what is so important to establish an exact time of death it is clear that Chapman was killed by the same killer as the other victims. If we could positively establish an accurate TOD where would it take us?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                We're getting there... The important part. WHY?

                So Trevor... what reasons do you have for thinking that he MIGHT have stood on the staris and NOT seen the body, yet told the Police that there WASN'T one and not just that he couldn't see one?
                Where does that element of doubt come from for John Richardson?
                What is WRONG with his story that levels such doubt on HIM?
                Because if we treat HIM to that degree of suspicion, we must treat ALL witnesses to that degree. Unless there is a specific case for HIM to answer.

                Please make it more than "He changed his story" because that is bceoming like the "Lechmere lied about his name..." thing.

                Comment


                • ...buggered this and the previous post up in the editing...
                  Sorry.


                  The point of the time of death surely rules certain suspects IN and others OUT?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


                    BUt if Chandler is to be believed Richardson failed to mention to Chandler or any other police officer his action in cutting his boot.That is a fact and cannot be ignored.



                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    With respect, I do not believe that it is "a fact" that Richardson failed to mention cutting his boot to "any other police officer". We do not have his initial witness statement so we cannot claim to know what was in it. But we do know from Swanson that his story was checked thoroughly and could not be faulted. It doesn't seem that Swanson thought that Richardson was unreliable and kept changing his story.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post

                      That Coppers were on the scene and could have seen if he was lying by virtue of the fact they were THERE... WITH the body.

                      Chandler would have been able to tell if it were possible to see the body from where Richardson was.
                      Echo Sep 19:
                      Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.
                      They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                      Out of a misty dream
                      Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                      Within a dream.
                      Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                        With respect, I do not believe that it is "a fact" that Richardson failed to mention cutting his boot to "any other police officer". We do not have his initial witness statement so we cannot claim to know what was in it. But we do know from Swanson that his story was checked thoroughly and could not be faulted. It doesn't seem that Swanson thought that Richardson was unreliable and kept changing his story.
                        I think there's a fair chance that he never mentioned cutting stuff at the time of his first statement, or the knife question would have come up sooner than Baxter's growling about it at the inquest. Unless we had a Mizen-esque situation where a constable knew about something and clearly neglected to mention it to his superiors prior to the start of the inquest, allowing them to walk into a complete &^$ storm of looking foolish in front of Baxter.

                        While we'll never know for certain, I'd go with the "It's not very likely that he mentioned it" and certainly not to Chandler who would have saved his embarassment at the inquest by having at the very least ruled the object out as the potential murder weapon.

                        But he may have mentioned sitting on the stair, no one involved at the investigation level had any issue with his "about two" minutes or his;
                        "It was not quite light, but I could see all over the place. I could not have failed to have noticed the deceased, had she been there then." certainly not enough to question it.

                        And going by the newspapers physical description of him, and his condition when returning to the inquest with his knife... it sounds like John Richardson saying something along the lines of "I needed a sit down for two minutes" was something that few people would have queried or doubted. From those reports I imagine him to have been what my 14 yr old son would describe as "A bit of a unit!"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          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

                          Trevor, please try.

                          Chandler did say that Richardson hadn’t mentioned repairing his boot - no one disputes this.

                          Chandler did NOT say that Richardson hadn’t mentioned sitting on the step - are you disputing this fact?

                          So, now think about this Trevor, Richardson could have (and probably did) tell Chandler that he’d sat on the step but he didn’t bother telling him the entirely irrelevant detail as to why he’d sat on the step.

                          This is such simple stuff Trevor. People wonder why I get exasperated but here I am trying to explain something glaringly obvious to a former police officer. It’s no wonder that I often think that some people misunderstand things entirely deliberately as I find myself asking “how the hell could he possibly not grasp this?!”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Richardson hasn't done himself any favours by changing his account

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            He didn’t change it. You and others have.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              What was there to question him about at the site Richardson gave his account and that was accepted by the police as being the truth he made no mention of the boot cutting which he later introduced at the inquest.

                              The original inquest statements have been lost it would be interesting to know if Richardson gave a statement in which he gave his first account to Chandler and when that statement was taken I would presume a statement was taken from him at some point.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              So why would Richardson have ‘changed’ his story when questioned by the Press for a newspaper which came out on the 10th?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Trevor, please try.

                                Chandler did say that Richardson hadn’t mentioned repairing his boot - no one disputes this.

                                Chandler did NOT say that Richardson hadn’t mentioned sitting on the step - are you disputing this fact?

                                So, now think about this Trevor, Richardson could have (and probably did) tell Chandler that he’d sat on the step but he didn’t bother telling him the entirely irrelevant detail as to why he’d sat on the step.

                                This is such simple stuff Trevor. People wonder why I get exasperated but here I am trying to explain something glaringly obvious to a former police officer. It’s no wonder that I often think that some people misunderstand things entirely deliberately as I find myself asking “how the hell could he possibly not grasp this?!”
                                Where is the evidence to prove Richardson told Chandler he sat on the step to fix his boot, there is none the inquest testimony is proof of that

                                You and others need to focus on the facts and the inquest testimony and not this wild speculation as to what might have been said or done by Richardson or Chandler

                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X