Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Don't water it down, tell it to us straight.
    James Kent: She looked as if she had been sprinkled with water or something.
    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      Hi LC,

      That is a very interesting notion. Suppose Richardson cut the initial leather from his boot at home with a very sharp knife, and slipped that knife into his pocket to effect more repairs if necessary. The boot still hurts his toe and he sits on the step to try to remove some more leather. I don't believe that, having already tried to remedy the boot problem at home with a sharp knife, and failed, that he would even have contemplated trying again with a blunt, broken, rusty knife. He sits on the step, sees the body and thinks Oh #&@*, if I'm caught here, or if someone has seen me come in, or I have been seen in the yard so near the body, I could swing for murder. So he goes to the market and borrows a knife to support his boot repair story. He doesn't tell Chandler about the boot repair because he thinks that Chandler might search him and find the sharp knife, but he tells Chandler that he is sure the body wasn't there. When he falls under suspicion, and the coroner asks him to fetch the knife, he brings back a different knife that obviously could not have been used to kill Annie. Nothing can be proved against him because he didn't actually kill her....or did he?

      Cheers, George
      One thing that strikes me with this alleged boot repair is that when he put his boots on at his home address how come he did not notice the problem at that time and fix it before he left home? I am sure his boot didn't suddenly start hurting him between his home address and No 29. He had presumably being wearing them the day before.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post
        Click image for larger version  Name:	Mason sitting.jpg Views:	5 Size:	237.3 KB ID:	820830
        EVERYONE: Since we actually have footage of 29 Hanbury St, let's use it. I maintain that it would be unnatural to slide from the top step into a sitting position. You would walk your feet to the flagstones and then sit back. Here I have freeze-framed Mason walking to the flagstone. Picture three is the most telling. I have in fact edited and moved 'Richardson' backwards from where the freeze-frame has him, because I think if you were proposing to sit back rather than walk forward, you wouldn't take as large a step. So this is where he would be before sitting back. Yes, the door would be more this way if it shuts on itself, but I believe it would be natural to hold it open whilst you got into position. Even if Richardson weirdly did not do that perfectly natural thing, I do not believe the door would impede his view.

        GEORGE: I know part of your scepticism comes from your belief that he couldn't remove a boot and faff with it for under two minutes. I tried removing and putting on a mate's awkward boot last night. Took me 15 seconds for the entire thing. That leaves 105 seconds for everything else, which by chance is the same time as the famous 1980 Coe V Ovett Olympic 800m men's final. Watch it, and then ask yourself if during that time you could walk down a couple of steps, sit back, faff about a bit, get up and then go.
        Hi Hair Bear,

        FAFF - spend time in ineffectual activity. I've not seen that word before. Thanks. Good word.

        Click image for larger version

Name:	Boot.jpg
Views:	179
Size:	15.1 KB
ID:	820837

        To be clear, you are talking about a fully laced up boot, as shown above, that fitted snugly in your size. You unlaced it down to the instep and loosened the laces on the instep, took it off, put it back on, relaced and tightened all the laces in 15 seconds? You asked me to video my step sitting procedure - did you video this exercise? I was never able to complete that procedure in any where near 15 seconds, so I'd like to see where I went wrong. Did you try manoeuvring a 5" knife into the toe area?

        You did a great job with the Mason still frames, and I would like to take the liberty of making a few comments.

        Mason was intending to walk into the yard so he pushed the door wide open. I suspect that Davis would have have done the same thing, but if Richardson was being deliberately quiet to the point where he was not heard in the passageway, I would not expect him to throw the door open onto the fence. Mason put his right foot on the middle step. I think that Richardson's normal method of lock inspection would have been to put his left foot on that middle step and while holding on to the door jamb with his right hand and the door with his left, crouched down to observe the lock. That's what I think he did that morning, as he told Chandler. How ever if we proceed from there to a sitting position, I would see him putting his right foot next to the second step on the flags between the house steps and the cellar steps, and then his left foot on the bottom step. Usually a step is about 8" high but the bottom step appears to be only about 2" above the flagging level. The seat of a chair is about 18" high, so sitting on that middle step would have put him in a very awkward knees up position to be removing and replacing a boot. With the door self closing, he would have been in a better position had it been resting on his left arm than up against his knees. On completion he would have stood up, still facing his right, turned clockwise, put his right foot on the middle step, and away he went.

        There is another quite good video 3D reconstruction here:

        Version 2 of a 3D walk/fly-thru of 29 Hanbury Street - Murder location of Annie Chapman - Jack the Ripper's 2nd victim.


        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 GBinOz View Post

          Hi Herlock,

          Don't water it down, tell it to us straight.

          I think we are all aware of your strongly held opinions. My probabilities meter is still hovering just above half way, so if, as you asked me before, incontrovertible evidence were found, and it established without doubt that the murder was later, I would be justified in saying that I was slightly out in my assessment of the preponderance of evidence. I don't know that I would change my opinion about the testimony of Long. I would have to say that the likelihood of Richardson's story being true would increase, although I may still have some reservations about the boot repair. I would say that even though Cadosch presented his testimony with a caveat that he did not venture to glance over the fence because what he heard was not unusual, I would have to assess that what he heard was murder related.

          If incontrovertible evidence were found, and it established without doubt that the murder was earlier, having nailed your trousers to the mast, how would you then explain the Richardson testimony, the "No", and the bump? Having answered your question, I would hope that, on the proviso that any answer you provide would be strictly reluctant speculation, you will return the favour. It is only reasonable that alternatives be at least considered.

          Cheers, George
          Hi George,

          I know that your opinion isn’t down to bias and that you don’t adhere to it dogmatically simply to ‘win’ the debate. We just interpret certain aspects differently leading to different conclusions. If it was somehow proven that Annie was killed earlier then I’d have to hold my hands up and say that I was wrong and deal with the comments that would undoubtedly come my way. It wouldn’t be the first time in my life that I’ve been wrong (it also happened on June 3rd 1992……a terrible day) and it certainly won’t be the last. But I stand by my high level of confidence based on the evidence.

          The main thing that I hope for now George is that someone comes up with a new topic. I think that we would both agree that we’re going over old ground. It’s possible that I’m losing a bit of interest in the subject as a whole though George. Maybe something will re-ignite it? I’d hate to see the subject as a whole go down the current ‘Charles Cross Fan Club’ route though with people taking leave of their senses by treating such a weak suspect as if they have dim footage of him killing Polly Nichols.

          Maybe if someone found a diary

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            One thing that strikes me with this alleged boot repair is that when he put his boots on at his home address how come he did not notice the problem at that time and fix it before he left home? I am sure his boot didn't suddenly start hurting him between his home address and No 29. He had presumably being wearing them the day before.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Have you never had a boot/shoe that started to rub and become uncomfortable as you started to walk? I went on holiday last year and bought some new trainers which I tried on in the house and they felt fine. The first day walking around in them they began to rub my toes causing a blister.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              Well thats your interpretation of the evidence ,and you,ve repeated it often enough , but you haven t presented anything ''New'' since the topic begain that hasnt already been shown to be uncertain , unreilable and contradictory as far as witness testimony goes .

              The fact that Goerge and Trevor who are also of the same opinion as myself with regards to a ''possible'' earlier .t.o.d , and have both presented agruments that have shown the points in your above post to be found wanting and unsafe and opinion based. But Not Factual .
              And as I predicted…..no mention of the ‘packing cases.’ I never thought of myself as having psychic powers of prediction before but when it comes to you I start to wonder.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Have you never had a boot/shoe that started to rub and become uncomfortable as you started to walk? I went on holiday last year and bought some new trainers which I tried on in the house and they felt fine. The first day walking around in them they began to rub my toes causing a blister.
                But these were not new boots he had been wearing them the day before presumably and if there was a problem why did he not address that problem the day before or when he put them on that morning?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  But these were not new boots he had been wearing them the day before presumably and if there was a problem why did he not address that problem the day before or when he put them on that morning?

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  He tried to but was unsuccessful (perhaps he should have taken them to John Pizer?) Money was tight and Richardson wasn’t a Cobbler or leather worker so he wouldn’t have wanted to risk ruining a pair of boots by taking too much off so it might have been a case of erring on the side of caution. He may have tried the previous repair after he’d returned home and then only found that they still hurt after he’d begun his walk to work.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    And as I predicted…..no mention of the ‘packing cases.’ I never thought of myself as having psychic powers of prediction before but when it comes to you I start to wonder.
                    Ok herlock thats fine ill admit there may not have been a type of packing case Cadosch described as in his testimony . Doesn't mean altogether we can dismiss the noise he heard could indeed have come from the source i mentioned in some way or another.

                    It doesn't really change my argument much tho ,does it

                    Probably in the same way also we can't be for sure the noise was Chapman or the killer based on uncertainty.
                    Last edited by FISHY1118; 10-06-2023, 09:33 AM.
                    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      Ok herlock thats fine ill admit there may not have been a type of packing case Cadosch described as in his testimony . Doesn't mean altogether we can dismiss the noise he heard could indeed have come from the source i mentioned in some way or another.

                      It doesn't really change my argument much tho ,does it

                      Probably in the same way also we can't be for sure the noise was Chapman or the killer based on uncertainty.
                      Its not uncertainty Fishy unless you assume that everything that we don’t have 100% proof of is ‘uncertain.’ It was overwhelmingly likely to have been. None of the other ‘explanations’ are believable. Chapman and her killer is believable though.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        He tried to but was unsuccessful (perhaps he should have taken them to John Pizer?) Money was tight and Richardson wasn’t a Cobbler or leather worker so he wouldn’t have wanted to risk ruining a pair of boots by taking too much off so it might have been a case of erring on the side of caution. He may have tried the previous repair after he’d returned home and then only found that they still hurt after he’d begun his walk to work.
                        What a pathetic explanation !!!!!!!!

                        www,trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Its not uncertainty Fishy unless you assume that everything that we don’t have 100% proof of is ‘uncertain.’ It was overwhelmingly likely to have been. None of the other ‘explanations’ are believable. Chapman and her killer is believable though.
                          But such is the nature of the evidence [ just look at the amount of different newspaper reports that give different versions of the same event !] provided to us, in perticular the witness testimony that cant be proven 100%, thats just it ! . I would have thought that was plainly obvious given the amount of post on the subject explaining this, using the inquest testimony .

                          Based on the inquest testimony and the evidence it provides, its also believable that Chapmans body was there earlier than 5.30am
                          Last edited by FISHY1118; 10-06-2023, 10:29 AM.
                          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            What a pathetic explanation !!!!!!!!

                            www,trevormarriott.co.uk
                            You think it somehow unbelievable that someone made an unsuccessful attempt to repair a boot then tried again when he found that his attempt hadn’t worked?!!! I really do sometimes wonder how you got a job as a police officer. What was the criteria on those days? “Must have watched at least 5 episodes of Dixon of Dock Green and must have arms and legs?” You are determined to see something sinister in everything because you want to try and skew everything in favour of whatever silly theory you support.

                            Even considering that it’s you, I’m a bit stunned by your last post.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              Sorry Wick,But im still not sure how we get to Richardson standing at the top of the cellar door looking at the lock , just because one press report says it and the other doesnt . I just dont see how based on your above post that makes the Daily Telegraphs version wrong . Jmo. I think we,ll just disagree on this one .
                              Hi Fishy.
                              OK, here is a specific example.

                              The witness is Insp. Chandler, the first example is from the Daily News, he is replying to a question by the Foreman of the Jury:
                              "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.

                              Here, we have the same reply as reported by the Daily Telegraph:
                              "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."

                              The replies are to the exact same question, yet the Daily Telegraph have omitted any reference to cellar steps. Yet, it is perfectly clear in the Daily News that "going to the top and looking down" is with reference to the cellar steps, though the reader of the Telegraph will think it is the house steps.

                              I don't think there is a clearer example than that.
                              The difference will be due to editing, more than likely a space-saving measure by the newspaper editor - not an error in reporting.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                You think it somehow unbelievable that someone made an unsuccessful attempt to repair a boot then tried again when he found that his attempt hadn’t worked?!!! I really do sometimes wonder how you got a job as a police officer. What was the criteria on those days? “Must have watched at least 5 episodes of Dixon of Dock Green and must have arms and legs?” You are determined to see something sinister in everything because you want to try and skew everything in favour of whatever silly theory you support.

                                Even considering that it’s you, I’m a bit stunned by your last post.
                                No more stunned than I am with your repetitive posts and your dismissal of the facts and the evidence.

                                There is nothing sinister in putting forward a plausible explanation for Richardson's actions at No 29 because as it stands his and Chandlers testimony are in conflict with each other one of the two has been less than liberal with the truth and Richardsons doe not come up to close scrutiny

                                And you are clearly rattled by your sarcastic comments and by those you are showing to people how low you will go to achieve your object in propping up a later TOD



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X