John Richardson

[Hair Bear]

Excuse me for mentioning this, but it seems there has been much debate on whether Richardson went down the steps, or simply sat on the steps.

Maybe I missed this, but I couldn't find anyone raising the fact we are dealing with two sets of steps here.
The first set is from the house to the yard, the second set from the yard to the cellar.

I've just scanned through five sources; Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, and the Times, and due to editing it is not always clear which set of steps is being referred to.
In fact the Daily News is one source that is not ambiguous, we read:

Did he say what for? - He said he went into the back yard and down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market.

Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.

Did he say he was sure the woman was not there? - Yes.

By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down.

From the top of the cellar steps he could see quite clearly whether the lock on the door was intact. It is also obvious that had the body been there, from the top of the cellar steps he couldn't have missed it. And when asked if he went into the yard, it is quite possible Richardson took the question to mean out into the open space away from the house, which he didn't. He kept close to the house, by the steps. So in his mind he did not go (out) into the yard. I can understand that point of view.

All of the press versions had some editing, what I was never clear on was to what degree a press editor had selectively taken out various questions & replies, the end result being the reader cannot decide which set of steps 'he did not go down'. Was it the cellar steps, or was it the house steps?
It would seem in this thread that posts have been occupied with the house steps, but no-one (that I could see) has raised the fact there were cellar steps to consider.
It is necessary to read as many press versions as we can find to evaluate the correct meaning of the exchange.

I think this was already discussed summer of last year.

[FISHY1118]

Excuse me for mentioning this, but it seems there has been much debate on whether Richardson went down the steps, or simply sat on the steps.

Maybe I missed this, but I couldn't find anyone raising the fact we are dealing with two sets of steps here.
The first set is from the house to the yard, the second set from the yard to the cellar.

I've just scanned through five sources; Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, and the Times, and due to editing it is not always clear which set of steps is being referred to.
In fact the Daily News is one source that is not ambiguous, we read:

Did he say what for? - He said he went into the back yard and down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market.

Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.

Did he say he was sure the woman was not there? - Yes.

By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down.

From the top of the cellar steps he could see quite clearly whether the lock on the door was intact. It is also obvious that had the body been there, from the top of the cellar steps he couldn't have missed it. And when asked if he went into the yard, it is quite possible Richardson took the question to mean out into the open space away from the house, which he didn't. He kept close to the house, by the steps. So in his mind he did not go (out) into the yard. I can understand that point of view.

All of the press versions had some editing, what I was never clear on was to what degree a press editor had selectively taken out various questions & replies, the end result being the reader cannot decide which set of steps 'he did not go down'. Was it the cellar steps, or was it the house steps?
It would seem in this thread that posts have been occupied with the house steps, but no-one (that I could see) has raised the fact there were cellar steps to consider.
It is necessary to read as many press versions as we can find to evaluate the correct meaning of the exchange.

Inspector Chandler see it differently .



Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - [Inspector 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


This surely means '' The back door''of the house not the cellar.


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.


Given the fact the conversation is discussing how the back door opens to the left towards the pailing ,the assumption is that richardson is on the top step . Logic and common seanse tells us the steps he didnt go down belong to the house not the cellar . .JMO

[Trevor Marriott]

Inspector Chandler see it differently .



Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - [Inspector 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


This surely means '' The back door''of the house not the cellar.


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.


Given the fact the conversation is discussing how the back door opens to the left towards the pailing ,the assumption is that richardson is on the top step . Logic and common seanse tells us the steps he didnt go down belong to the house not the cellar . .JMO

Excellent post which sums it up nicely yet again, but some are still not getting it and choosing to argue against what Richardon's account was to Chandler on his return to No29. It cant be any clearer, Chander was asked if Richardson mentioned his boot account Chandler replied no.

That rules out the possibility that he told Chandler and Chandler forgot to record it as some have suggested.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Had he, in response to the coroner's request, produced a razor sharp knife that had some sort of application to the removal of leather from the inside toe of a lace-up boot, he would indeed have propelled himself into a maelstrom. But the potential of the "knife" that he produced, as a weapon, equated more to a severe beating with a limp lettuce leaf. Too suggest that it had the potential for use in "female anatomy and dissection" would have had the coroner and the jury ROTFLTAO.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

But if a knife is capable of cutting leather (even with difficulty) it would have been good enough to have killed a woman and cut through her flesh. This was John Richardson we’re talking about of course and not Sir Bernard Spilsbury. How was he to have known that it wouldn’t have been sufficiently sharp? Doubt was expressed at the inquest of course but the Coroner still retained possession of it; no doubt to get Phillips opinion on whether it could have been the knife used. So if the Coroner couldn’t be certain that it wasn’t good enough for the murder how could we have expected Richardson to have been?

[FISHY1118]

Hi AP,

I did post this before, but the response was a deafening silence (for good reason I'm sure you will suggest). But, on the basis that it is pure speculation:

The couple seen by Long in the street were not Jack and Annie, but they did enter into #29 for immoral purposes. They open the back door at the moment when Cadosch is in the doorway returning from his first trip to the Loo, and the woman exclaims a shocked "No". The couple is unaware that Cadosch has just disappeared into his house. The woman is in dire financial straits and during the 4 minutes that Cadosch is inside, the couple discuss robbing the body, and the chances of getting caught at a murder site (they are, after all, already there). The man wants no part of it and leaves, but the woman proceeds with her plan. When Cadosch appears at the door she hides behind the fence. When he returns from the loo, this time her attempt to hide results in her bumping the fence. Cadosch ignores the noise, returns inside and the woman scarpers.

Cheers, George

Ill give you my version George , seeings how A.P seems to lack any real imagination as to what the noise could have been . Here goes.


We already know the ''NO'' Cadosch heard was undeterminable as to which side it came from , he only ''Thinks'' [ by shear definition this equates to uncertainty] it came from 29, but cant be sure . Therefor its entirely possible there is no person and or couple in the back yard of number 29 at 5.22am when Cadosch returns from the loo.[ two minutes to take a leak] He returns 4 minutes later ,its now 5.26 am and he hears the ''Noise'' as ''something touched the fence suddenly'' .

So at this point as some have suggested that the ''No'' was the start of the attack. For it to have been Chapmans body to have made the noise against the fence, the killer has spent the best part of 4 minutes killing her while in an upright position befor laying her down to start the mutilations . Very unlikely .

Or perhaps they engaged in conversation for the 4 minutes and the kill was at 5.26am and the Killer lays chapmans body down and it brushes up against the fence and Cadosch hears it then.

This senario borders on the extremely unlikely and would be in my opinion a desperate act by anyone trying to cling to a later t.o.d arguement .


Heres the problem as i see it .

Now the killer has to take to his mutilations on Chapman ,which as has been reported to have taken at least 15 minutes .So by the time the killer leaves the scene of the crime its close to 5.45 in the morning , if Richardson claims he could see all around at 4.45 its more than likely its full light between 5.30 and 5.45 .

So, for a full 15 mins his has exposed himself to the dozen or more occupants of 29 Hanbury st who no doubt are ready to get up for work , all the while mutilating a dead body with no escape route if spotted !! ,As Trevor has suggested ,not his M.O and a very unlikely occurance . Enter DR Phillipps at 6.30am ''two hours probably more '' for a body thats been left mutilated 45 minutes earlier , how was it he could not be more accurate ?. After all it surely was an easier task to determind more accurate t.o.d only 45 minutes befor under those circumstances, Baxter and Brown did it ! .

Which brings us to the all elusive Noise against the fence as Cacosch returned from the yard a second time.

Chapmans body has been there around 90 min earlier, as we know there are packing cases/ crates up against the fence where a gap may have existed between the pailing and the crates . Given the deplorable health conditions in the whitchapel are at the time ,it would not be out of the realms of possiblity that rats were a problem, it also quite resonable to assume that one or even a pair of rats were scurrying along the fence pailings between the crates when cadosch heard them brush up against the fence competing for food scrapes . They may well have been approaching the smell of the mutilated coropes to feast on when Cadoschs sudden presents scares them back in the opposite direction whence they came from.


There you go George, see what you think JMO

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AP,

I did post this before, but the response was a deafening silence (for good reason I'm sure you will suggest). But, on the basis that it is pure speculation:

The couple seen by Long in the street were not Jack and Annie, but they did enter into #29 for immoral purposes. They open the back door at the moment when Cadosch is in the doorway returning from his first trip to the Loo, and the woman exclaims a shocked "No". The couple is unaware that Cadosch has just disappeared into his house. The woman is in dire financial straits and during the 4 minutes that Cadosch is inside, the couple discuss robbing the body, and the chances of getting caught at a murder site (they are, after all, already there). The man wants no part of it and leaves, but the woman proceeds with her plan. When Cadosch appears at the door she hides behind the fence. When he returns from the loo, this time her attempt to hide results in her bumping the fence. Cadosch ignores the noise, returns inside and the woman scarpers.

Cheers, George

George, if you posted that suggestion earlier then I assume that it was, at least partially aimed at me? My apologies for not responding. I genuinely missed it. It was only when I saw your response to AP that I became aware of it.

Its about likelihood isn’t it George and not just things that aren’t physically impossible. How many people would have considered for a second approaching and interfering with a corpse that her abdomen ripped open and her entrails strewn around? Let alone staying there for 4 minutes? Then we have to add the possibility of being caught at the scene and suspected. I’d have put this into the ‘extreme unlikeliness category’ knocking on the door of the impossible category but being refused entry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent post which sums it up nicely yet again, but some are still not getting it and choosing to argue against what Richardon's account was to Chandler on his return to No29. It cant be any clearer, Chander was asked if Richardson mentioned his boot account Chandler replied no.

That rules out the possibility that he told Chandler and Chandler forgot to record it as some have suggested.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Couple of questions Trevor.

1. As someone who has previously, and often, suggested incompetence and dishonesty on the part of various members of the police force I wonder why, on a point where you have an opinion one way over another, you assume complete competence and honesty on the part of Chandler?

2. As we can see from the The Telegraph (where quotes are used) Chandler only claimed that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the reason for his sitting on the steps. Why do you feel that’s relevant, let alone important. As an ex-police officer you have surely had untold occasions where you have interviewed someone twice with the witness adding some trivial detail in the second interview. Especially if that tidbit of information was simply background that hadn’t been important at the first interview? How many times have you said “you didn’t mention that detail in our first interview,” to which the response was “because you never asked me about it.” It was a trivial point Trevor and lying on Richardson’s part is clearly unlikely as I’ve pointed out many times. Then of course we have the newspaper story on the 10th where the boot repair is mentioned in full. Why would he have concealed this from the police and then blabbed it to the papers?

You’re clearly trying far, far too hard to paint Richardson as unreliable when there’s nothing at all that points to this and indeed many reasons that lying on his part would have been unlikely in the extreme and pointlessly stupid.

[Trevor Marriott]

Couple of questions Trevor.

1. As someone who has previously, and often, suggested incompetence and dishonesty on the part of various members of the police force I wonder why, on a point where you have an opinion one way over another, you assume complete competence and honesty on the part of Chandler?

What reason would Chandler have to lie? Richardson's first account to him he would surely have remembered and I am sure he would have recorded it in his police notebook as a note made at the time, and not at a later stage.If that had happened then his testimony would have been corroborated by his pocketbook, and if he had recorded it in his pocket-book the written statement he made for the benefit of the inquest would be even more credible.

We do not know when Richardson made his statement to the police which was used by the coroner

2. As we can see from the The Telegraph (where quotes are used) Chandler only claimed that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the reason for his sitting on the steps. Why do you feel that’s relevant, let alone important. As an ex-police officer you have surely had untold occasions where you have interviewed someone twice with the witness adding some trivial detail in the second interview. Especially if that tidbit of information was simply background that hadn’t been important at the first interview? How many times have you said “you didn’t mention that detail in our first interview,” to which the response was “because you never asked me about it.” It was a trivial point Trevor and lying on Richardson’s part is clearly unlikely as I’ve pointed out many times. Then of course we have the newspaper story on the 10th where the boot repair is mentioned in full. Why would he have concealed this from the police and then blabbed it to the papers?

There is a major difference between what he said to Chandler and what he said in court. You keep referring to the newspaper article dated the 10th which newspaper carried this article?

You’re clearly trying far, far too hard to paint Richardson as unreliable when there’s nothing at all that points to this and indeed many reasons that lying on his part would have been unlikely in the extreme and pointlessly stupid.

Richardson has done himself no favours with the two accounts its only right that his differing accounts should be closely scrutinized to try to ascertain where the truth lies.

As I have said before the coroner should have picked up on the two differing accounts but didn't bother which has left us trying to seek out the real truth today

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

In that James Mason short snippet, there is a gate just to the left of the privvy in the back wall facing the celler steps of #29. I've not seen or read anything about that ever being mentioned. Does anyone have anything on where it led? Was it added later? It looks original. Was it just leading to the back end of the yard or a running passageway? Or maybe a wider space?
The plans show a big building? Am I reading that right??

Can any of the cartographically inclined researchers give me a pointer on that?

Or is that a question for a more general Chapman discussion?

Yes, I noticed that too A.P.

That is most likely the route through which the ripper escaped. He is unlikely to have risked going back out into Hanbury Street.

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Ah, so apparently a pair of rats made the sound against the fence?!...


Perhaps the ripper was an actor (Reeves) and had just come out of one of Lusk's theaters?

The costume rehearsals for Dick Whittington?

And the pair of them both went to Hanbury Street afterwards still wearing their costumes?

Did they look like this when they knelt against the fence after hearing Cadosh leave the toilet?...
















Or...

Chapman's body hit the fence as the ripper throttled her sometime between 5.25 - 5.35am and Cadosh heard her being murdered.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ill give you my version George , seeings how A.P seems to lack any real imagination as to what the noise could have been . Here goes.


We already know the ''NO'' Cadosch heard was undeterminable as to which side it came from , he only ''Thinks'' [ by shear definition this equates to uncertainty] it came from 29, but cant be sure . Therefor its entirely possible there is no person and or couple in the back yard of number 29 at 5.22am when Cadosch returns from the loo.[ two minutes to take a leak] He returns 4 minutes later ,its now 5.26 am and he hears the ''Noise'' as ''something touched the fence suddenly'' .

We don’t know this Fishy. You assume it. In fact I think most of us have assumed it but it could equally have meant that he wasn’t sure which side of number 29 it came from. Indeed Abby had always assumed that this was what he’d meant. And if you look at it in terms of the English language the idea that he was talking about which side of number 29 makes more sense. So, no, we can’t assume that Cadosch thought that it could have come from number 25 side for example. Accuracy is important. More important than assumptions.

So at this point as some have suggested that the ''No'' was the start of the attack. For it to have been Chapmans body to have made the noise against the fence, the killer has spent the best part of 4 minutes killing her while in an upright position befor laying her down to start the mutilations . Very unlikely .

‘Some have suggested,’ but not all. I certainly haven’t. So we can’t say that it was the start simply to make a point about the 4 minutes being unlikely. Something that you’ve done numerous times here. I’ve told you about the alternative numerous times but you just ignore it.

Or perhaps they engaged in conversation for the 4 minutes and the kill was at 5.26am and the Killer lays chapmans body down and it brushes up against the fence and Cadosch hears it then.

This senario borders on the extremely unlikely and would be in my opinion a desperate act by anyone trying to cling to a later t.o.d arguement .

Or perhaps that Cadosch heard the ‘no’ which was simply a part of a very short exchange between Chapman and her killer. And the noise that he heard 4 minutes later was simply the killer moving around. Changing position perhaps?


Heres the problem as i see it .

Now the killer has to take to his mutilations on Chapman ,which as has been reported to have taken at least 15 minutes .So by the time the killer leaves the scene of the crime its close to 5.45 in the morning , if Richardson claims he could see all around at 4.45 its more than likely its full light between 5.30 and 5.45 .

The ‘15 minutes’ was an estimate. Many people have suggested considerably less. I recall some medical person some time back suggesting nearer to 5 minutes but I can’t post the quote…unless someone can lay hands on it.

So, for a full 15 mins his has exposed himself to the dozen or more occupants of 29 Hanbury st who no doubt are ready to get up for work , all the while mutilating a dead body with no escape route if spotted !!

That serial killers take risks is simply a fact. If you try to evaluate a serial killers actions in regard to how we would have thought and acted you’re on a hiding to nothing there Fishy.

,As Trevor has suggested ,not his M.O and a very unlikely occurance .

A woman absolutely desperate for cash and a man with an urge to kill. Why is it unlikely that she would have had no qualms about telling him that she’d used the spot several times before at around that time and had never been disturbed?

Enter DR Phillipps at 6.30am ''two hours probably more '' for a body thats been left mutilated 45 minutes earlier , how was it he could not be more accurate ?. After all it surely was an easier task to determind more accurate t.o.d only 45 minutes befor under those circumstances, Baxter and Brown did it ! .

This is called an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it a valid point Fishy. As laymen we can only rely on the knowledge and experience experts in Forensics and they all tell us the same thing. There are examples even in the modern day where doctors have been massively wrong in their estimations. They’ve also got it right of course. So we can’t say that because doctors got it right sometimes that they would get it right all every time.


Which brings us to the all elusive Noise against the fence as Cacosch returned from the yard a second time.

Chapmans body has been there around 90 min earlier, as we know there are packing cases/ crates up against the fence where a gap may have existed between the pailing and the crates .

You’ve just made this up Fishy! Unbelievable. There were no packing cases in the yard.

Given the deplorable health conditions in the whitchapel are at the time ,it would not be out of the realms of possiblity that rats were a problem, it also quite resonable to assume that one or even a pair of rats were scurrying along the fence pailings between the crates when cadosch heard them brush up against the fence competing for food scrapes . They may well have been approaching the smell of the mutilated coropes to feast on when Cadoschs sudden presents scares them back in the opposite direction whence they came from.

Rats? Are you being serious? You do know how bigs rats are? One of the most desperate suggestions I’ve ever heard. Are there no barrels that you are unwilling to scrape the bottom of in order to achieve your agenda of dismissing witnesses.


There you go George, see what you think JMO

Inventions, a fallacy, a claim to know how a serial killer would think plus the most ridiculous suggestion that I’ve ever heard in my life.

Back to the drawing board Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, so apparently a pair of rats made the sound against the fence?!...


Perhaps the ripper was an actor (Reeves) and had just come out of one of Lusk's theaters?

The costume rehearsals for Dick Whittington?

And the pair of them both went to Hanbury Street afterwards still wearing their costumes?

Did they look like this when they knelt against the fence after hearing Cadosh leave the toilet?...
















Or...

Chapman's body hit the fence as the ripper throttled her sometime between 5.25 - 5.35am and Cadosh heard her being murdered.



RD

Unbelievable isn’t it.

I think that it could have been either an Aardvark or a Duck-Billed Platypus. Or a baby Elk or a Leopard or a very large bee or a Pantomime Horse or a stray piece of Double Gloucester thrown by a member of the British Cheese Throwing team who were in intensive training a few doors down.

All reasonable suggestions RD.

[FISHY1118]

Ah, so apparently a pair of rats made the sound against the fence?!...


Perhaps the ripper was an actor (Reeves) and had just come out of one of Lusk's theaters?

The costume rehearsals for Dick Whittington?

And the pair of them both went to Hanbury Street afterwards still wearing their costumes?

Did they look like this when they knelt against the fence after hearing Cadosh leave the toilet?...
















Or...

Chapman's body hit the fence as the ripper throttled her sometime between 5.25 - 5.35am and Cadosh heard her being murdered.



RD

Thats great, now prove it , oh that right you can't.

[Wickerman]

I think this was already discussed summer of last year.

Thankyou Hair Bear.

Odd that current posters ignored that detail, or had everyone forgot?

[FISHY1118]

Inventions, a fallacy, a claim to know how a serial killer would think plus the most ridiculous suggestion that I’ve ever heard in my life.

Back to the drawing board Fishy.

Again your speculating on my post that it wasn't possible , the evidence suggests otherwise , So you wasted your time didnt you .

It just goes to show what we've known all along Herlock ,that is you completely ignor the evidence when you can't disprove it lead to an earlier t.od .

You can't disprove my post, , you've offer your opinion which counts for nothing when the evidence trumps you at every turn .

So disprove my theory with some facts, not your usual ifs ,buts and maybe, and opinions .

I wait right here .