Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    So why would Richardson have ‘changed’ his story when questioned by the Press for a newspaper which came out on the 10th?
    Only Richardson can answer that and he isn't around. I am not going to get involved in wild speculation there is enough of that as it is on here.

    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?!”
      Hi Herlock,

      I have to confess that I'm not grasping your logic either.

      Chandler was replying to the Coroner asking if Richardson mentioned the boot cutting. Can you direct our attention to where he was asked if Richardson said he sat on the step?

      I'm trying to imagine the conversation:
      Richardson: I went to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then I sat on the step, and then went away to work.
      Chandler: What. You sat on the step? Why would you do that if you went there just to check the lock?

      Is there one shred of evidence that Richardson told Chandler that he sat on the step?

      I'm not grasping your recessed door argument either.
      Coroner: Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.
      I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.


      Richardson testified that he didn't need to go into the yard to see the lock. He didn't testify that it was his normal procedure to sit on the steps to see the lock.

      You usually rely on evidence rather than on speculation on what may or may not have been said, or conjecture as to whether a recessed door could have necessitated Richardson sitting on the steps to see the lock instead of taking a couple of steps to the top of the cellar steps.

      Cheers, George
      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 Trevor Marriott View Post

        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.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        For Christ’s sake Trevor!!!!

        Ok, I’ll try explaining this glaring obvious point by using a hypothetical situation.

        I say to you: “I was walking along the High Street on Wednesday Trevor and I saw George standing outside the hardware shop.”

        You respond: “ Are you certain that it was actually George?”

        I reply: “ Yes, I know George well and I was only a very few feet away from him.”

        You say: “Ok Herlock.”

        Then, someone else asks later:

        ”Are you certain that it was on the Wednesday that you saw George?”

        I reply: “Yes because I was on the way to the butchers and I only go there on Wednesdays.”


        So Trevor,

        Because I didn’t mention my reason for walking down the High Street when I spoke to you (because it wasn’t relevant to what you’d asked) but I did when I was asked further by the second person (because it was relevant to what he’d asked) would you claim that my statement to you was unsafe?

        And if you do think it was unsafe could you tell us on what planet it was unreliable please?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          For Christ’s sake Trevor!!!!

          Ok, I’ll try explaining this glaring obvious point by using a hypothetical situation.

          I say to you: “I was walking along the High Street on Wednesday Trevor and I saw George standing outside the hardware shop.”

          You respond: “ Are you certain that it was actually George?”

          I reply: “ Yes, I know George well and I was only a very few feet away from him.”

          You say: “Ok Herlock.”

          Then, someone else asks later:

          ”Are you certain that it was on the Wednesday that you saw George?”

          I reply: “Yes because I was on the way to the butchers and I only go there on Wednesdays.”


          So Trevor,

          Because I didn’t mention my reason for walking down the High Street when I spoke to you (because it wasn’t relevant to what you’d asked) but I did when I was asked further by the second person (because it was relevant to what he’d asked) would you claim that my statement to you was unsafe?

          And if you do think it was unsafe could you tell us on what planet it was unreliable please?
          We are not dealing with hypothetical scenarios we are dealing with evidence and that evidence points to Richardson being less than liberal with the truth.

          www,trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Hi Herlock,

            I have to confess that I'm not grasping your logic either.

            Chandler was replying to the Coroner asking if Richardson mentioned the boot cutting. Can you direct our attention to where he was asked if Richardson said he sat on the step?

            I'm trying to imagine the conversation:
            Richardson: I went to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then I sat on the step, and then went away to work.
            Chandler: What. You sat on the step? Why would you do that if you went there just to check the lock?

            Is there one shred of evidence that Richardson told Chandler that he sat on the step?

            I'm not grasping your recessed door argument either.
            Coroner: Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.
            I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.


            Richardson testified that he didn't need to go into the yard to see the lock. He didn't testify that it was his normal procedure to sit on the steps to see the lock.

            You usually rely on evidence rather than on speculation on what may or may not have been said, or conjecture as to whether a recessed door could have necessitated Richardson sitting on the steps to see the lock instead of taking a couple of steps to the top of the cellar steps.

            Cheers, George
            Hello George,

            To be honest I’m really struggling to see why there’s any difficulty with this. My point is that at no point did Chandler say that Richardson hadn’t sat on the step. The only thing that Chandler said was that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the reason for his sitting on the step. Therefore it’s entirely possible and plausible that he’d told Chandler that he’d sat on the step but not the reason for doing it (to repair his boot.) The addition information about the boot repair wasn’t remotely relevant to what Chandler was trying to find out on the morning of the murder. So he could very easily have said something like “I went to the back door to check the cellar. I sat on the step and didn’t see any body in the yard and it’s just not possible that I could have missed it if it was there.”

            This was a short interview done in a corridor remember. Then when a newspaper reporter questioned him for the 10th September issue he was pushed further and he told the reporter why he’d sat on the step. Something that he repeated under oath at the inquest.


            On the second point, it didn’t need to be his usual procedure to sit on the step. This wasn’t a normal situation because there was something different to factor in. That Richardson had decided to attempt to repair his boot. So he was, in effect, killing two birds with one stone. Checking the cellar and repairing his boot.

            The recessed door is a possibility. I don’t think that we should simp,y dismiss something that is entirely possible and plausible looking at the little evidence that we have. AP has made some good points on this (whilst not claiming speculation as fact) But surely you can accept that the presence of the canopy itself would have required Richardson to gave bent over significantly? He might even have had to have stood with his feet over the step and held on for balance. None of this is a certainty George and I’m not claiming it as one. But neither can we claim as a certainty that he could easily have seen the cellar locks from standing on the top step. Mrs Richardson said that he could see the lock from the steps but she said this after she had spoken to her son. So why did she have to mean from a standing position? I don’t think she ever mentioned a standing position did she? So she was probably just saying that he could have seen it from sitting on the step without the need to step into the yard.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              We are not dealing with hypothetical scenarios we are dealing with evidence and that evidence points to Richardson being less than liberal with the truth.

              www,trevormarriott.co.uk
              No it doesn’t. Only if you make things up. You clearly see that I’m right on this point because you can’t refute it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                No it doesn’t. Only if you make things up. You clearly see that I’m right on this point because you can’t refute it.
                What am I making up? I am merely quoting the inquest testimony from Insp Chandler who states Richardson at the crime scene made no mention of sitting on the steps or cutting his boot, and the inference that can be drawn is that as a result of his actions, he could have missed not seeing the body

                Of course it can be refuted the testimony of Chandler and the questions put to him by the coroner show that Richardson gave two different accounts.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  What am I making up? I am merely quoting the inquest testimony from Insp Chandler who states Richardson at the crime scene made no mention of sitting on the steps or cutting his boot, and the inference that can be drawn is that as a result of his actions, he could have missed not seeing the body

                  Of course it can be refuted the testimony of Chandler and the questions put to him by the coroner show that Richardson gave two different accounts.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Point me to the statement where Chandler specifically states that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the step.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Point me to the statement where Chandler specifically states that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the step.
                    There is no statement as such from Chandler its all in the inquest testimony

                    [Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? -

                    [Chandler] 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.


                    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"

                    It cant be more clearer

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk​

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      There is no statement as such from Chandler its all in the inquest testimony

                      [Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? -

                      [Chandler] 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.


                      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"

                      It cant be more clearer

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk​
                      Yes, you’re right. It can’t be clearer that there was never any suggestion by Chandler that Richardson hadn’t said that he’d sat on the step.

                      And of course, we know that the reason that he’d sat on the step was utterly irrelevant to Chandler’s enquiry.

                      So…..no problem whatsoever.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Yes, you’re right. It can’t be clearer that there was never any suggestion by Chandler that Richardson hadn’t said that he’d sat on the step.

                        And of course, we know that the reason that he’d sat on the step was utterly irrelevant to Chandler’s enquiry.

                        So…..no problem whatsoever.
                        So you dispute the inquest testimony? it's there in black and white what is wrong with you Are You just arguing for the sake of arguing because I have better things to do than to keep explaining the obvious to you?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          So you dispute the inquest testimony? it's there in black and white what is wrong with you Are You just arguing for the sake of arguing because I have better things to do than to keep explaining the obvious to you?

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          In the testimony that you quote (The Telegraph) , where they use actual quotes from witnesses, Chandler doesn’t say that he didn’t tell him that he’d sat on the steps…..only that he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair.

                          In The Times, where they don’t use direct quotes, Richardson not sitting on the steps is mentioned but it’s attributed to the jury Foreman (but not a direct quote). So it’s a Press version of the Foreman’s interpretation of what Chandler had said.

                          So when Chandler said only that he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair it looks like the jury Foreman did exactly what you are doing now. And that’s assuming that because he said that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the repair then he must also have meant that he hadn’t sat on the steps. This isn’t the case.

                          This isn’t the case because quite obviously he could have mentioned sitting on the step but he hadn’t mention why he’d sat on the step. And why wouldn’t he have mentioned it? Because clearly it wasn’t relevant.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 10-02-2023, 05:09 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post

                            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...
                            There's a monumental difference.

                            The eye-witness accounts came from people who had been attacked, and it follows they had very good reason to remember the attacker.

                            Albert was not in a suspicious situation and so he had no reason to take notice of what was going on around him. It is in this circumstance that studies have found witnesses to be unreliable. The 'misinformation effect', whereby a witness with no reason to take notice of an event, recollects the event according to the details he or she hears long after the event; and the recollection is not a fair reflection of the event.

                            A better comparison would be Sutcliffe picking a woman up outside a pub at half seven. Nobody remembered seeing this event, but of course at least one person would have seen it. It wasn't recollected because it was just another car, another man, another woman: no reason to put it in the memory bank.

                            Another comparison would be that there was a cold case solved in my neck of the woods recently. The witness did actually take notice of the killer because it was late at night and a man was walking with a small child, pretty unusual, but even though she took notice of this situation she believed the man was 5'7 and clean shaven but it turned out the man was 6'0 and had a moustache. The witness certainly saw the killer with the child, and the killer was bang to rights with DNA evidence.

                            Albert had absolutely no reason to take notice of what was going on, and he said as much: don't be so sure he recollected events as they were.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post

                              The point of the time of death surely rules certain suspects IN and others OUT?
                              No, because there's a 00000.1% chance of any of the suspects mentioned being the Whitechapel Murderer.

                              I reckon it's far more likely that the murderer is in the inquest statements or the press reports somewhere but he's not somebody generally considered to be a suspect.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                                There's a monumental difference.

                                The eye-witness accounts came from people who had been attacked, and it follows they had very good reason to remember the attacker.

                                Albert was not in a suspicious situation and so he had no reason to take notice of what was going on around him. It is in this circumstance that studies have found witnesses to be unreliable. The 'misinformation effect', whereby a witness with no reason to take notice of an event, recollects the event according to the details he or she hears long after the event; and the recollection is not a fair reflection of the event.

                                A better comparison would be Sutcliffe picking a woman up outside a pub at half seven. Nobody remembered seeing this event, but of course at least one person would have seen it. It wasn't recollected because it was just another car, another man, another woman: no reason to put it in the memory bank.

                                Another comparison would be that there was a cold case solved in my neck of the woods recently. The witness did actually take notice of the killer because it was late at night and a man was walking with a small child, pretty unusual, but even though she took notice of this situation she believed the man was 5'7 and clean shaven but it turned out the man was 6'0 and had a moustache. The witness certainly saw the killer with the child, and the killer was bang to rights with DNA evidence.

                                Albert had absolutely no reason to take notice of what was going on, and he said as much: don't be so sure he recollected events as they were.
                                And if it were the other way round it would be the "trauma affects memory" argument...

                                If it were something complicated or required a precise recollection of dialogue or heigiht or colour of lapel pin, and there was no particular reason to take notice I would probably agree that there may be some degree of unreliability, (I pretty much did in #4688 when I replied to you) but it's a bump against a fence.
                                It's one of those "If we cant trust THAT because memory can be crap... then we are wasting our time even looking into the case" levels of witnness disparagement.
                                It's no more difficult to accept than a witness giving a time, or seeing someone in the street.
                                As I said to Trevor earlier, if we apply that level of incredulity to one witness then unless there is a specific reason to do so with that witness and not to others, then you have to apply it to ALL the witnesses, leaving us with no reliable witnesses at all and we can all just make something up and run with it, because no one is trustworthy or reliable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X