Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Because, in the real world Trevor, some discomfort only grows after several hours of rubbing in one spot.
    It's like buying a new pair of shoes, walking up & down the store is not always sufficient to know whether they will rub after continuous use.
    Why do I have to explain life issues to a grown man?
    Another pathetic excuse

    Comment


    • Just for reference, gathered together…..


      The Telegraph, Sept 13th.

      [Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
      [Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
      [Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.

      ——————

      The Times, Sept 13th.

      He lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. He did not go into the yard, but went and stood on the steps. The back door was closed when he got to it. He stood on the steps and cut a piece of leather from off one of his boots. He cut it with a table knife about 5 in. long. It was now at his house in John-street. It being market morning he put the knife into his pocket. He could not say why he put the knife into his pocket, and supposed he did so by mistake. After cutting the piece of leather off his boot he tied up the boot and went out of the house.

      ——————

      The Daily News, Sept 13th.

      John Richardson, the young man already alluded to, was closely examined as to his business in the yard on the morning of the murder. Richardson's appearance and his hoarse voice were not altogether prepossessing, and the Coroner appeared to think the circumstances of his visit required explanation. It was not quite daylight, and he went in to see that the cellar was locked. He admitted that he had a largish knife in his coat pocket, and that all he did in the yard was to glance at the padlock of the cellar, and cut a piece of leather off his boot. He was sent to fetch the knife, which was impounded, but he came on the whole very well out of his cross-examination.

      ——————

      East London Advertiser, Sept 15th.

      John Richardson, the son of Mrs. Amelia Richardson, having been sworn, deposed to the facts which are already well known. He spoke in a rather husky voice, and once or twice he was closely cross-questioned by the coroner in order to get a perfectly accurate statement of what took place upon the discovery of the crime. The statements of this witness as to his having found people in the passage and on the landing, evidently for an immoral purpose, occasioned the recall at the instance of the jury, of Mrs. Richardson, when she was further examined on the way her house was conducted.

      ——————

      East London Observer, Sept 15th.

      …and she was soon replaced by John Richardson, a tall, stout man, with a very pale face - the result, doubtless, of the early hours he keeps as a market porter - a brown moustache, and dark brown hair. He was shabbily dressed in a ragged coat, and dark brown trousers. He was another motionless witness, giving his evidence quietly - as quietly, at all events, as was consistent with a severe cold and a very hoarse voice. The Coroner was very severe on him over the story of the knife with which he had cut a piece of leather off his boot before five o'clock on Friday morning, on the stone steps near which the body was found. He wanted to know why he had the knife, why he should put a table knife in his pocket, and altogether made the witness look very uneasy and very uncomfortable. His discomfort was increased when, at the suggestion of the Coroner, he was sent off in charge of Inspector Chandler to find the knife with which he had cut the leather off his boot.

      ——————

      The Eastern Post And City Chronicle, Sept 15th.

      John Richardson, son of a previous witness, said he lived in John Street, Spitalfields, was a porter in Spitalfields Market, and helped his mother with her packing-case business. About a quarter to five o'clock on Saturday morning he went to 29, Hanbury Street, to see if the cellar where they made the packing-cases was all secure, because a few months back somebody broke into it and took two saws and two hammers.
      The Coroner: Do you go every morning to see if the cellar is secure? - No; only on market mornings, when I am out early and there's a good lot of people about. I have done so for some months.
      Is that all you went for? - Yes, sir.
      A Juror: His mother said there had been no robberies.
      The Witness: She forgot. If you will ask her, you will see that it is right.
      The Coroner: On other than market mornings do you leave the cellar to take care of itself? - Yes, sir.
      Was the front door open on Saturday morning?
      The Witness: No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot.
      What sort of a knife did you use? - One 4 or 5 ins. long.
      What do you usually use that knife for? - I had been using it to cut up a piece of carrot for the rabbit, and I afterwards put it in my pocket.
      Do you generally keep it in your pocket? - No.
      Why did you put it there on this occasion? - I suppose it was a mistake on my part.
      When you had cut the piece of leather off your boot did you leave the house? - Yes. I tied my boot up and went out. I did not close the back door. It closes itself. I shut the front door. I was not in the house more than two minutes at the most. It was not quite light, but enough for me to see.
      Did you notice any object in the yard? - No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.
      You have heard where she was found? - Yes; I saw the body.
      How came you to see it? - A man in the market told me there had been a murder in Hanbury Street. He did not know at which house. I saw the body from the adjoining yard.
      When did you first think your boot wanted cutting? - It hurt my toe, and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.
      Then all you did at Hanbury Street was to cut your boot? - That's all, sir.
      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.
      And that was the sole object you had in going there? - Yes, sir.
      Did you sit on the top step? - No, the second step.
      Where were your feet? - On the flags of the yard.
      You must have been quite close to where the body was found? - Quite right, sir. If she had been there at the time I must have seen her.
      Have you seen any strangers in the passage of the house? - Yes, lots; plenty of them, at all hours.
      Men and women? - Yes; and I have turned them out. I have seen them lying down on the landing.
      Do they go there for an immoral purpose? - They do. I have caught them.
      A Juror: His mother said she never knew anybody to go for an immoral purpose.
      The Coroner: Has your knife been seen by the police?
      The Witness: No, sir.
      Have you got it with you? - No.
      The Coroner: Go and get it.
      The witness went away to obey this order, accompanied by a policeman.

      ——————

      The Echo, Sept 13th.

      If this identification can be relied upon, it is obviously an important piece of evidence, as it fixes with precision the time at which the crime was committed, and corroborates the statement of John Richardson, who went into the yard at a quarter to five, and has consistently and persistently declared that the body was not then on the premises.

      ——————

      The Evening Standard, Sept 13th.

      John Richardson, of No. 2 John street, a porter in Spitalfields Market, said - I assist my mother in the packing case business. I was in the house, 29 Hanbury street, on Saturday morning, getting there between a quarter and ten minutes to five. I went to see if the cellar was all correct, because two months since some one broke in and stole two saws and two hammers. I generally go on market mornings.

      Why on market mornings? - They are the mornings when I am out early.

      But who is to look after the cellar when it isn't a market morning? - It looks after itself. I found the front door shut, and I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. I stood on the steps, but did not go into the yard. The back door was closed. I opened it, and sat on the doorstep and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table knife about five inches long, which I brought from home. I had been cutting a bit of carrot with it, and brought it along in my left hand coat pocket. I do not usually put it there, and suppose it must have been a mistake on my part on this occasion. When I had cut the piece of leather off my boot I tied my boot up and went out of the house to the market. I did not close the back door; it closes itself. I closed the front door.

      How long were you there? - About a minute and a half, or two minutes at the outside.

      Was it light? - Beginning to get light, but not thoroughly. I could see all over the place.

      Would you have noticed anything in the yard? - I could not have failed to have noticed the deceased if she had been lying there. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. A man in the market told me of the murder, and I went to the adjoining yard, and saw it from there. The man's name is Thomas Pearman, and he told me there had been a murder in Hanbury street, but he did not say that it was at my house.

      When did you determine to cut something off your boot? - I had cut some off the previous day, and it hurt my foot, and I found after I left the house that it wanted a bit more to be cut off. I looked to see if the cellar door was all right, and although I did not go down into the yard, I could see that it was all right. I saw the padlock in its proper place. The sole object I had in going there was to see whether the cellar was all right. When I come home at night I go down and try if the cellar is all right.

      Did you sit on the top step? - No, sir, the second step.

      Where were your feet? - On the flags of the yard.

      You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? - She was found lying just where my feet were. I have been in the passage at all hours of the night.

      Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Lots; plenty of them.

      At all hours? - Yes; both men and women.

      Have you asked what they were doing there? - Yes; and I have turned them out.

      The Coroner - Do I understand you to mean that they go there for an improper purpose?

      Witness - Yes, sir.

      The Foreman suggested that the knife to which the witness had alluded should be produced.

      Witness said it was only a small white handled knife. He would fetch it.

      ——————

      Morning Advertiser, Sept 13th.

      John Richardson, of No. 2, John-street, a porter in Spitalfields-market, said -I assist my mother in the packing-case business. I was in the house, 29, Hanbury-street, on Saturday morning, getting there between a quarter and ten minutes to five. I went to see if the cellar was all correct, because two months since someone broke in and stole two saws and two hammers. I generally go on marker mornings.

      Why on market mornings? -They are the mornings when I am out early.

      But who is to look after the cellar when it isn't a market morning? -Who is to look after it! It looks after itself. I found the front door shut, and I lifted up the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. I stood on the steps, but did not go into the yard. The back door was closed. I opened it and sat on the doorstep and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table- knife, about five inches long, which I brought from home. I had been cutting a bit of carrot with it, and brought it along in my left hand coat-pocket. I do not usually put it there, and suppose it must have been a mistake on my part on this occasion. When I had cut the piece of leather off my boot I tied my boot up and went out of the house to the market. I did not close the back door ; it closes itself. I closed the front door.

      How long were you there? -About a minute and a half, or two minutes at the outside.

      Was it light? -Beginning to get light, but not thoroughly. I could see all over the place.

      Would you have noticed anything in the yard? -I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been lying there. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. A man in the market told me of the murder, and I went to the adjourning yard, and saw it from there. The man's name is Thomas Pearman, and he told me there had been a murder in Hanbury-street, but he did not say that it was at my house.

      When did you determine to cut something off your boot?-I had cut some off the previous day, and it hurt my foot, and I found after I left the house that it wanted a bit more to be cut off. I looked to see if the cellar door was all right, and, although I did not go down into the yard, I could see that it was all right. I saw the padlock in its proper place. The sole object I had in going there was to see whether the cellar was all right. When I come home at night I go down and try if the cellar is all right.

      Did you sit on the top step? -No, sir, the second step.

      Where were your feet? -On the flags of the yard, sir.

      You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? -She was found lying just where my feet were. I have been in the passage at all hours of the night.

      Have you ever seen strangers there? -Lots plenty of them.

      At all hours? -Yes ; both men and women.

      Have you asked what they were doing there? -Yes ; and I have turned them out.

      The Coroner. -Do I understand you mean that they go there for an immoral purpose?

      Witness. -Yes, sir ; I have caught them in the act.

      The Foreman suggested that the knife to which the witness had alluded in his evidence should be produced.

      The witness said it was only a small white-handled knife. He had not got it with him ; but it would only take a few minutes to go and fetch it.

      The coroner ordered that the knife should be produced.

      ——————

      Pall Mall Gazette, Sept 13th.

      If this identification can be relied upon it is obviously an important piece of evidence, as it fixes with precision the time at which the murder was committed and corroborates the statement of John Richardson, who went into the yard at a quarter to five and has persistently declared that the body was not then on the premises.

      ——————

      The Star, Sept 10th.

      At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, son of the landlady, of 29, Hanbury-street, as usual, went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot. The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. This man is quite clear that he saw nothing to attract his attention before he left

      ——————

      The Woodford Times, Sept 14th.

      There was a slight conflict between the testimony of John Richardson, who was called to prove that about a quarter to five he had looked into the back yard of 29, Hanbury-street, and found everything all right, and the evidence given by his mother, previously examined, the divergence arising upon the son's statement that he had known the rear premises to be used at times by persons unconnected with the house for reprehensible purposes……

      The coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable. The jury questioned the police-officer with the view of ascertaining whether it may have been possible that when Richardson went to the yard the body might have been lying there without his perceiving it. The inspector thought that it was very possible if he had only gone to the top of the steps. In that case, as the door opened outwards, it might have concealed the body behind it. Richardson, however, had sworn that he sat on the middle step with his feet on the ground, to cut a piece from his shoe, and it was allowed that in this position he must inevitably have seen the murdered woman. The importance of this point is that upon it depends the limitation of the time within which the murder must have been committed.

      ——————

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        Hi RD, I think you missed the point.
        There are two sets of steps. He went down the house steps, and stood at the top of the cellar steps, that are beside the house steps. He did not need to go out into the yard.
        From the top of the cellar steps he could easily visually check if the lock was intact. And, he couldn't possibly have not seen the body over against the fence.

        Ah you missed my point, I wasn't referring to the cellar steps at all.


        When I say he couldn't have seen the lock from the steps, I meant the house steps.

        Therefore IF he did visually check the lock....he HAD to go down the HOUSE steps to do so, and therefore couldn't have missed the body if she was already there.

        The only way for him to have missed the body IF she was already there, is IF he lied about checking the lock.

        He couldn't check the lock without moving to a position where he couldn't have missed the body.

        In other words, the ONLY way he could have missed the body is IF he stayed on the house steps and NOT checked the lock visually...because he literally couldn't see the lock from the top step without moving down them and into the yard.

        The cellar steps are not a factor in whether he saw the body or not, so on that basis, it was you who misunderstood my post.



        regards


        RD
        "Great minds, don't think alike"

        Comment


        • It's not what people like Richardson SAY they did that's relevant.

          It's what they DID in relation to what they SAID they did that's important.


          And so by saying he checked the lock, he was either lying and then COULD have missed the body OR he was telling the truth in checking the lock, but as a result couldn't have missed the body IF she was already there.

          Regardless of whether he said he sat, stood, walked into the yard, checked the lock, didn't walk into the yard etc... etc...it's the combination of his alleged actions AND words that matter.


          There's no literal way he could have VISUALLY checked the lock of the cellar door IF he remained standing on the top step of the house steps.

          And so IF you believe that Chapman was murdered early, then you must surely concede that he lied about checking the lock.


          RD
          "Great minds, don't think alike"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
            It's not what people like Richardson SAY they did that's relevant.

            It's what they DID in relation to what they SAID they did that's important.


            And so by saying he checked the lock, he was either lying and then COULD have missed the body OR he was telling the truth in checking the lock, but as a result couldn't have missed the body IF she was already there.

            Regardless of whether he said he sat, stood, walked into the yard, checked the lock, didn't walk into the yard etc... etc...it's the combination of his alleged actions AND words that matter.


            There's no literal way he could have VISUALLY checked the lock of the cellar door IF he remained standing on the top step of the house steps.

            And so IF you believe that Chapman was murdered early, then you must surely concede that he lied about checking the lock.


            RD
            But could he not have simply stood on the steps and looked down and saw the lock was still intact and in place?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              But could he not have simply stood on the steps and looked down and saw the lock was still intact and in place?

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              We can’t know for certain but there has to be some doubt at least. We can’t wish away the canopy that was there which would have required him to have bent close to double just to have seen the cellar doors. We can’t wish away the possibility that the cellar door was recessed (even slightly)

              But the top and bottom of it is the fact that he told the inquest quite clearly that he’d sat on the steps, as he told The Star two days prior to the inquest and he had no remotely plausible reason for lying. So we have to ‘imagine a lie’ which is hardly the best way of looking at things.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                But could he not have simply stood on the steps and looked down and saw the lock was still intact and in place?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                No...

                The only way he could have visually seen the lock is if he went down the steps and encroached into the yard space.


                And because of that, he couldn't have missed the body IF she was there.

                The cellar had a canopy and the cellar door wasn't visible from him remaining on the house steps.


                that's the whole point right there.


                He either told the truth, went forward from his position on the top of the house steps and moved down in order to PHYSICALLY get into a position to VISUALLY see the lock.

                The only way he could have missed the body IF Chapman was already there, is IF he lied and DIDN'T visually check the lock.


                There is a possibility that he saw the body, didn't want to get involved and then said he had checked the lock and not noticed a body.

                But the highest probability is that he did indeed check the lock by getting himself into a physical position to be able to see the lock visually...and for that to have happened he couldn't have missed a body lying on the floor next to the steps.


                RD
                "Great minds, don't think alike"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

                  Ah you missed my point, I wasn't referring to the cellar steps at all.


                  When I say he couldn't have seen the lock from the steps, I meant the house steps.

                  Therefore IF he did visually check the lock....he HAD to go down the HOUSE steps to do so, and therefore couldn't have missed the body if she was already there.

                  The only way for him to have missed the body IF she was already there, is IF he lied about checking the lock.

                  He couldn't check the lock without moving to a position where he couldn't have missed the body.

                  In other words, the ONLY way he could have missed the body is IF he stayed on the house steps and NOT checked the lock visually...because he literally couldn't see the lock from the top step without moving down them and into the yard.

                  The cellar steps are not a factor in whether he saw the body or not, so on that basis, it was you who misunderstood my post.
                  regards
                  RD
                  Ok, my mistake, I'll give you that


                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

                    And so IF you believe that Chapman was murdered early, then you must surely concede that he lied about checking the lock.

                    RD
                    Rd, this is what we've been chewing over, it wasn't that he lied. The words fit if we accept there was confusion by the reporters in the court over which steps Richardson was talking about.
                    It's Chandler's testimony that clears it up, he refers to the cellar steps that he stood at the top of, whereas when Richardson gave his evidence either the reporters, or the editors, couldn't be clear over which steps he meant.
                    Richardson is in the clear, regardless whether you support the early or late time of death.


                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post



                      Hi Jeff , i going to disagree with you post , being that Wick chooses to use the Daily News inquest reporting instead of other sourses, so be it however you can see the problem.


                      Daily News
                      United Kingdom
                      13 September 1888


                      [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?- [Richardson] 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.''!!!!!!!!!!

                      [Coroner]And that was the sole object you had in going there?-Yes, sir.



                      Now lets use the inquest testimony from the Daily Telegraph 13th Sept [You know the ''source'' that nobodys want acknowledge has any real bearing on the case ]


                      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.



                      ​ John Richardson did not go down the house steps into the yard to check the lock on the cellar door .

                      Nor was he standing at the top of the cellar steps ''in the yard'' when he was checking the lock .


                      Richardsons testimony is indeed full of uncertainty and is definately unreliable in determining an accurate time of death .​
                      Hi Fishy,

                      The backdoor steps and cellar steps are next to each other. So if he's looking down the cellar steps he is also at the backdoor steps, just at the bottom of them. And that location is not "going into the yard", "going into the yard" is like Cadosche, who has to cross the "yard" to get to the loo. Richardson just goes down the steps, he doesn't go "into the yard". One can debate the technicality of what constitutes "the yard", but people don't speak that way. Richardson going to the bottom of the backdoor stairs, so he can see from the top of the cellar stairs, is something that makes perfect sense to me when he says he didn't go "into the yard". It's a language use thing, which George and I have discussed before and for him simply going out of the door is what he thinks of as "going into the yard"; a subtle but important difference between Australian and Nova Scotian English in how he and I understand that phrase.

                      Basically, what I'm getting at, is that Richardson standing in a location at the bottom of the backdoor steps, and the top of the cellar steps, is the only location that makes sense of all the reports. They all fit with him standing in that location, and if we place him elsewhere, some reports continue to make sense and others do not. That means our placing him elsewhere becomes the source of the conflict between the reports - it is not the reports per se, it is our assumption that is the source of conflict. When we consider him where I'm suggesting, then there is no longer conflict, indicating that this placement is the most consistent with all of the reports - and it is one that doesn't not require unusual behaviour by Richardson to check the lock by bending way over. And because it is Chandler that describes the location as the top of the cellar steps, and Richardson references the backdoor steps, the difference in reference for this location comes down to different people describing the location itself. Which means if we place him on the backdoor steps we need to explain why Chandler "gets it wrong", but if we place him at the bottom of the backdoor steps, which is at the top of the cellar steps, all the reports are accurate.

                      He might only do that "bending over to check" if he was in a rush to get to work, but we know he wasn't because he takes the time to work on his boot. Checking from the bottom of the doorsteps at the top of the cellar steps is the simplest way to check the lock, it means by saying he can see them from the back door steps is accurate, and it also means if there were a problem he would be on his way to check if anything were stolen again.

                      Wickerman's post contains new information that needs to be used to re-evaluate things. The goal, after all, is to understand what happened, not find a way to continue to believe one way or the other. I've generally been open to the various ideas, and while the checking from the top of backdoor steps has always struck me as weird given the roofing over the cellar entrance, it seemed there were some arguments to continue to include it. However, Wickerman's find make that odd behaviour inconsistent with this new information, and at the same time, it resolves a lot of the other debates (as to how he could see the lock given the roofing, and so forth). When new information single-handedly resolves a number of issues, that is a good sign that that information is pointing to the actual events.

                      - Jeff
                      Last edited by JeffHamm; 10-07-2023, 08:14 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Every once in a while Jack the Ripper and the events of 1888 are adapted to the big screen. There was the early Hitchcock feature titled the Lodger back in 1927 and more recently From Hell starring Johnny Depp kicked things off for our current century.

                        While this may be fine and good for the masses I know that the members of this board are dying for another kind of film altogether. One whose trailer goes something like this....

                        This is a story of a simple man. A market porter by day and packing maker by night. This is also the story of a dutiful son...

                        Queue sound bite...

                        JOHN RICHARDSON: Some time back the lock on the cellar door was broken into. Ever since I check in on market mornings.

                        This is also the story of a loving mother...

                        Queue sound bite...

                        AMELIA RICHARDSON: My son uses the leather apron to work in the cellar. It had become mildewed. I ran it under the tap. It's been hanging since Thursday.

                        This is also the story of an embroider. A feisty, resilient woman with a weakness for baked potatoes.

                        One fateful night their paths cross in the autumn of 1888.

                        Above all else, though, this is the story of a man and his love for his Rabbit.

                        29 Hanbury.

                        Coming to a theater this fall.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Trevor’s asking why Richardson didn’t attempt the repair while he was still at home?
                          Yes, exactly. Trevor's post 4951:
                          "Then why did he not cut the boot as soon as he put it on that same morning? or the day before if it was still hurting him"

                          Your Post 4925:
                          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.

                          Your Post 4941:
                          He could have tried repairing it at home, thought that it was ok by just taking a few steps but when he did some serious walking the next morning they started to hurt because he hadn’t cut enough off.

                          Jon's Post 4944
                          Cut some leather off - wear them for a few hours, then cut more off if required?

                          These descriptions seem a tad exaggerated for a one minute walk from John St. Trevor is suggesting that after he originally cut the leather he would have tested the job by walking around in his house. If a problem existed he would have detected it then, rather than after a one minute to #29.

                          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

                            Yes, exactly. Trevor's post 4951:
                            "Then why did he not cut the boot as soon as he put it on that same morning? or the day before if it was still hurting him"

                            Your Post 4925:
                            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.

                            Your Post 4941:
                            He could have tried repairing it at home, thought that it was ok by just taking a few steps but when he did some serious walking the next morning they started to hurt because he hadn’t cut enough off.

                            Jon's Post 4944
                            Cut some leather off - wear them for a few hours, then cut more off if required?

                            These descriptions seem a tad exaggerated for a one minute walk from John St. Trevor is suggesting that after he originally cut the leather he would have tested the job by walking around in his house. If a problem existed he would have detected it then, rather than after a one minute to #29.

                            Cheers, George
                            We don’t know how long after he’d put his boots on he left the house though. He might have known that they were still causing him discomfort and so intended to try a repair at work then, after he realised he’d got the knife in his pocket he decided to have a go while he was sitting on the step.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              We don’t know how long after he’d put his boots on he left the house though. He might have known that they were still causing him discomfort and so intended to try a repair at work then, after he realised he’d got the knife in his pocket he decided to have a go while he was sitting on the step.
                              In at least one report, he tells us why he didn't cut it before leaving home:

                              Morning Advertiser, Sept 13th.
                              ...

                              When did you determine to cut something off your boot?-I had cut some off the previous day, and it hurt my foot, and I found after I left the house that it wanted a bit more to be cut off. I looked to see if the cellar door was all right, and, although I did not go down into the yard, I could see that it was all right. I saw the padlock in its proper place. The sole object I had in going there was to see whether the cellar was all right. When I come home at night I go down and try if the cellar is all right.
                              ...

                              Basically, when he put them on that morning, they must have seemed fine. After he left and walked a bit, he realised it wasn't quite complete.

                              - Jeff​

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                In at least one report, he tells us why he didn't cut it before leaving home:

                                Morning Advertiser, Sept 13th.
                                ...

                                When did you determine to cut something off your boot?-I had cut some off the previous day, and it hurt my foot, and I found after I left the house that it wanted a bit more to be cut off. I looked to see if the cellar door was all right, and, although I did not go down into the yard, I could see that it was all right. I saw the padlock in its proper place. The sole object I had in going there was to see whether the cellar was all right. When I come home at night I go down and try if the cellar is all right.
                                ...

                                Basically, when he put them on that morning, they must have seemed fine. After he left and walked a bit, he realised it wasn't quite complete.

                                - Jeff​
                                Hi Jeff,

                                I would imagine that after having cut off some leather from the toe of his boot because it hurt his foot, any reasonable man would have tried the boot on and spent some time, even a minute, checking that he had achieved a result. Do we agree that he would have made this adjustment with a knife sharper than his carrot knife? He puts his boots on the next morning and they are fine in the house, but as he leaves to walk to #29, in less than a minute he has detected a boot rubbing problem of sufficient urgency that he feels compelled to attempt another adjustment with a blunt rusty broken handled knife sitting on a step in the dark rather than wait another two minutes until he reaches the market and can borrow a knife adequate to the task. Which he ended up doing anyway.

                                That proposal makes no sense to me.

                                Best regards, 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

                                Working...
                                X