John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

No he didn't. This is purely your speculation that you have elevated to the status of evidence. You're attempting the equivalent of trying to prove a negative.

It should be noted that Chandler didn't seek out Richardson to interview him that morning. Richardson felt compelled to talk to Chandler while the latter was busy with his duties immediately after the discovery of the body and the arrival of the doctor. Here is what Richardson considered that Chandler should know.
[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.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Richardson was anxious that Chandler should know that
. he was there that morning
. he had a reason for being there
. he was only there long enough to check the lock from the stairs, and that he did not enter into the yard
. the body wasn't there when he was there.

Why do you say that the conversation between Chandler and Richardson was initiated by Richardson George? We have no way of knowing this. He returned to number 29 after being informed of the murder (I can’t recall the name of the man who informed him) therefore he would have been seen by a police officer who would have been preventing people coming in just for a look. He would have told the officer that his mother lived there and so would have become someone that they wanted to speak to. You make this sound like suspicious behaviour but it’s absolutely normal.

You previously insinuated that Amelia had supported the contention that the lock could be seen from the steps only because she had spoken to her son. I am imagining the conversation:
Hey Mum, if the police question you, tell them that we had a break-in in the cellar a while back and that I have been checking the lock on the door on market day ever since. And be sure to tell them that I don't have to go into the yard to check, that I can see the lock from the steps.

Unfortunately Amelia, being old and forgetful tells the coroner:
Have you ever had anything stolen?-No, although I have sometimes left my room doors unfastened at night.

John Richardson testimony:
A Juror-His mother said there had been no robberies.
The Witness-She forgot. If you will ask her, you see that it is right.

Mrs. Richardson, recalled in her son's absence, said she had never had anything stolen from her house.
The Coroner-Have you ever lost anything from the cellar?
The Witness-Oh, yes; I have missed a saw and a hammer, but that is a long time ago. They broke the padlock of the cellar door at the time. My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.
Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

So Amelia forgot about the robbery until prompted by the coroner? - Thinks - Ahh yes, now I remember what Johnny told me to say.

From this we can see that she was asked if he actually went down to the cellar door, i.e. down the steps directly in front of the cellar, to which she naturally says that he could see them from the steps. There’s nothing to even suggest that she meant standing on the top step exclusively. Just from the location of the steps in general.

So we are asked: why would Richardson invent the boot repair story when he could have used a simpler explanation? Because he had corroboration for the necessity of a boot repair story from the man at the markets from whom he borrowed the knife to actually do the boot repair. But why place yourself at the scene of a murder with a knife. Because the knife he produced was so blatantly inadequate for the purpose of cutting throats, stomachs or particularly leather, or any purpose other than perhaps cutting carrots, that it could barely be regarded as a knife.

"He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness."" - Wolf Vanderlinden

I don’t understand the reasoning in that last part George? If Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair story in the first place the man at the market would never have been mentioned. My point was the Richardson could have used any number of ‘stories’ as to why the body couldn’t possibly have been there. They were all very simple and very obvious and they wouldn’t have required him to have a knife in his hand at the scene of a knife murder. They would have also completely eliminated any suggestion that the door might have obscured the body.

[FISHY1118]

OK, the photo doesn't show which way the door opened.
But thousands upon thousands of precendents do.
The Victorian architects weren't stupid. Doors opening INTO corners are almost always (I'd say always but there is bound to be a photo somewhere on the internet by some plonker who hung one the wrong way... but in normal, everyday construction of normal, everyday houses... it's ALWAYS.) hinged against the returning wall, so that the door doesn't open into the middle of the room. Unless there is an architectural reason not to (such as having two doors in the same corner, which is generally a bad design error unless the gaps were never intended to have doors... and in this case that would mean a door through to the cellar of number 25. Hanging doors that way is and has been standard practise for centuries. the supporting wall of the foundations would be between the two houses. Therefore the cellar wall falls in line with the rest of the walls dividing the properties.
Cellars are small and cramped, having a door swing open into the middle of the room is impractical to the point of being needlessly stupid when all you need to do is hang it the proper way and you suddenly have more space. When the house was built the door would have been hung the proper way. And it would require a deliberate rehanging of the door involving the reversing of fittings to accomodate either rehanging the existing door, or a replacement, into a more obtrusive position. You can't do it by accident, is what that means.
Go find a door in a corner of a room in wherever you are, it will be hung the way I describe. Imagine it opening IN to the room and how much of a pain in the arse it would be moving packing cases in and out of that door.
Remember that because of the depth of the brickwork of the cellar entrance and position of the frame - that cellar door, hung inward will NOT open wide enough to get anywhere NEAR flat with the outside wall, maybe a few degrees past 90...

If this is merely to get the padlock into a better viewing position to keep Richardson in the back-door frame and not coming down any of the steps, you need a better argument than that the door might have opened in the way I need it to.

But just remember... if you decide that you are sticking with the padlock being on the FAR side of the door, despite everything I just said... you now have to explain how he was able to see it from his standing position at the top of the stairs THROUGH the roof of the lean-to that would have absolutely blocked that sight line.
I won't enter into any debate questioning THAT because it's ridiculous


The steps are further out than the doorway. They go all the way down to the floor...
We know the door hinges were loose and it swung freely. A push would open it further than a stiff door that would need an elbow or shoulder into it, and would remain where it was pushed open to, because of rusty hinges.
Common sense tells us he can't see the lock from a position standing at the top by the door frame. The recess, and the lean-to roof show that.
If he is on the steps (plural) and leaning or sitting down he can see pretty much all of the cellar door just by leaning. The door would have swung back on to him and he would have nudged it away, exposing the area where the body was even further.
He can very easily see a body in the yard if its there.

Boots, knives and carrots not withstanding. Whether he sat down and played with his boot, or had a phantom memory of boot repair like Fleetwood Mac is suggesting Cadosche had with the bump on the fence. (at the location a body was later shown to have slid down a fence) He would have been able to see the body had it been there.


The position of the lock is being debated to try and suggest that he stayed at the very top and could merely glance down with the back door only slightly open and therefore blocking his view of the western side of the yard.
But that isn't what he said. That's a contrivance to fabricate doubt when what he said is really straight forward.

"...I was there altogether about two minutes. 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."

I know people are going to great pains to exclude this on the basis of it being a "different" or "Changed" story to the one he told Chandler. But Unless Chandler's entire interaction was "I went to the house that morning about a quarter to five. I came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to work." with ONLY those details, and no elaboration of any details at all.
Chandler doesn't expand on whether this was a one off behaviour, or whether it was a daily ritual, or whether his times in doing this varied day to day... does that mean he didn't ask those things? I don't think so.
I think that sounds like a Police oficer giving a summary of relevant details of the time he was there, and nothing he says after that contradicts what he said, but just elaborates on them. He doesn't give a different time, he doesn't change WHY he was there. Nothing is materially different. He simply adds more detail to the two minutes he spent there while NOT seeing a body at his feet.
Remember Chandler doesn't give the NAMES of the men who fetched him to the scene. And Baxter doesn't press him on it.

All Chandler had to do was look at the yard from the top of the steps to easily establish any level of doubt in Richardson's story.
The only person who expressed doubt was a jury member who hadn't seen the location of the body in relation to viewing it from the steps. Chandler HAD and he expressed no doubt at all. Given Philips' estimate of the time of death, any discrepancy would have been of great importance. Any doubt would have mattered. Chandler expressed none at all.
Because HE had stood on the steps and seen the body.

(John Davis: "Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the lefthand recess.")

Yet were still left with the evidence of Richardsons[ '' I went to the house that morning about a quarter to five.'' I came to the back door''[ notice no mention of thesteps] and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to work." .This cant be ignored or dismissed lightly , together with the contempory drawings that show the door not recessed enough that which the lock could not be seen from this postion . Together with his mothers claim he could see the lock from the back step , and his own admission he didnt go into the yard .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Id say your You’re misreading and misunderstanding Herlock

And you’d be wrong of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

m

Excellent post George.

Probably one of the most important point in the entire debate George ,it speakes volummes that which no one has been able to give an adequate answer, as to why at the time of the murders that the medical doctor and the investigating authorities at the time thought that the body was already there when Richardson stood on the step to check the lock.

Police officers at the time would obviously place great store in what Phillips said. How could they possibly have known what we know now? All the Courtiers of King George III would no doubt have accepted the his Doctor’s decision to regularly bleed the King. We now know that this was ineffective and harmful.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again id say to that

''You’re Misreading and Misunderstanding herlock''.

And again, you’d be wrong. Something that you achieve with remarkable consistency.

[FISHY1118]

And you’d be wrong of course.

Not in this case .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Fishy. It seems to me that their conclusion was reached by physically determining what could be seen from the seated position that Richardson claimed to have assumed. I also see the fact that Phillips taking exception to Richardson's evidence points to the likelihood that he meant his so called caveat to apply to the "probably more" part of his estimate, not to the "at least two hours" part. Personally, I think that the entire boot repair story was an embellishment, and I still believe that Richardson deserves closer scrutiny, but that is JMO. That said, one has to look at all the factors in determining a preponderance of evidence, and I have yet to join the 98% brigade, with my probability opinion meter still hovering just past centre.

Cheers, George

It couldn’t possibly have meant the ‘probably more’ part George because he was stating that the condition of the body could have resulted in more rapid cooling, i.e. that it had achieved the level of coldness that he found by touching the body. Meaning that the gap between the murder and his examination could have been shorter than his original estimate.

[FISHY1118]

And again, you’d be wrong. Something that you achieve with remarkable consistency.

Like the way you consistantly argue testimony you cant prove ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What certainly is an important question though is…..

If Richardson hadn’t felt the need to tell Chandler, at the scene of the murder, that he’d sat on the steps, why did he feel compelled to tell a newspaper reporter exactly that? The full story of him sitting on the step to repair his boot appeared on the 10th. After speaking to Chandler on the 8th and before testifying at the inquest on the 12th.

He had absolutely no reason to change his story for the benefit of a newspaper reporter. Wouldn’t he have been even slightly concerned that a police officer might have read a newspaper and decided to question him again about his omission?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like the way you consistantly argue testimony you cant prove ?

It’s not always about proving something 100% Fishy. If we dismiss things simply on the grounds that they can’t be 100% proven then there would be no point in discussing the case. We are mostly discussing likelihoods.

[The Rookie Detective]

Just a quick query regarding TOD for Chapman.

IF Philips had initially stated he thought Chapman was murdered sometime AFTER 5am....then would the debate on an earlier TOD still be pushed?

I ask because IF the answer is that an earlier TOD should still be considered regardless of Philips, then I can understand the argument for an earlier TOD.

However, IF the only reason to consider an earlier TOD is because of Philips initial findings, then I would be wary of basing an earlier TOD argument on the views of just one man...who later implied he may have been mistaken about the earlier TOD.


If we conclude that Richardson missed seeing a dead body laying next to his left foot

If we can accept that Cadosh was mistaken about hearing the word "No" and was mistaken about the scuffle and then the sound of something hitting the fence of 29 Hanbury St...combined with the huge coincidence and with the fact that a dead mutilates body was found on the other side of the same fence.

And if we can reject Long as stating she saw the victim alive and well around 5.30am talking with man outside the house that Chapman was murdered...

Then I believe there's a good reason to investigate the potential earlier TOD


Suspend the probable and most likely scenario, in favour of scrapping the views of 3 independant witnesses, and we have another good angle from which to approach the case.


RD

[Trevor Marriott]

It couldn’t possibly have meant the ‘probably more’ part George because he was stating that the condition of the body could have resulted in more rapid cooling, i.e. that it had achieved the level of coldness that he found by touching the body. Meaning that the gap between the murder and his examination could have been shorter than his original estimate.

"Could have been" but that comment should not be taken as fact!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

What certainly is an important question though is…..

If Richardson hadn’t felt the need to tell Chandler, at the scene of the murder, that he’d sat on the steps, why did he feel compelled to tell a newspaper reporter exactly that? The full story of him sitting on the step to repair his boot appeared on the 10th. After speaking to Chandler on the 8th and before testifying at the inquest on the 12th.

He had absolutely no reason to change his story for the benefit of a newspaper reporter. Wouldn’t he have been even slightly concerned that a police officer might have read a newspaper and decided to question him again about his omission?

Calls for ''Speculation'' , We cant ''assume'' to know 135 years later the reasons why John Richardson chose to add or leave out information when talking to the authorities or the press . Ifs ,Buts , and maybys fall under the catagory of , yup ...... Uncertainty !

[FISHY1118]

It’s not always about proving something 100% Fishy. If we dismiss things simply on the grounds that they can’t be 100% proven then there would be no point in discussing the case. We are mostly discussing likelihoods.

One of your better post [ god knows there havent been many ] My likelyhood is no less likely yours , thats my whole point .

[Trevor Marriott]

What certainly is an important question though is…..

If Richardson hadn’t felt the need to tell Chandler, at the scene of the murder, that he’d sat on the steps, why did he feel compelled to tell a newspaper reporter exactly that? The full story of him sitting on the step to repair his boot appeared on the 10th. After speaking to Chandler on the 8th and before testifying at the inquest on the 12th.

He had absolutely no reason to change his story for the benefit of a newspaper reporter. Wouldn’t he have been even slightly concerned that a police officer might have read a newspaper and decided to question him again about his omission?

But he did change his story but we simply don't know why,

Chandler under oath stated Richardson did not mention a boot repair or sitting on the steps

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk