Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Really?



    The contemporary sketch above shows a canopy too high, it obscures the kitchen window.
    Whereas we can see in the photo's the stain on the bricks where the curved canopy was attached to the house.
    Hi Jon,

    To be fair, it also shows three substantial steps, so a little artistic licence involved?

    Cheers, George
    Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

    ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      It isn't his testimony, it is the paraphrase from the reporters present.
      We have to sort out what they meant, not what Richardson meant.

      The Daily News report of Chandler's testimony provides the most clear example of Richardson's testimony.

      Chandler said:
      "Witness (Richardson) 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."
      Hi Jon,

      The Daily News from the day before, presumably the same reporter, quoting Richardson himself, was:

      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.


      Same reporter, different reports. Perhaps the reporter was having a bad day on the 14th?

      Cheers, George​
      Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        George, the steps must begin under the board with the hole in it.
        I wasn't trying to be technically correct, but only show general location for the canopy.
        Hi Jon,

        Yes, that's what I meant when I said that the cellar steps must have extended a lot further into the yard, which may be correct, but is considerably further than usually anticipated in such a small yard.

        Cheers, George
        Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

        All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

        ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          Really?



          The contemporary sketch above shows a canopy too high, it obscures the kitchen window.
          Whereas we can see in the photo's the stain on the bricks where the curved canopy was attached to the house.


          Really ? Two contemporary sketchers





          '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 GBinOz View Post

            Hi Jon,

            The Daily News from the day before, presumably the same reporter, quoting Richardson himself, was:

            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.


            Same reporter, different reports. Perhaps the reporter was having a bad day on the 14th?

            Cheers, George​
            Exactly George ,the Daily News article between the Coroner and Richardson confirms the Daily Telegraph inquest testimony Chandler gave .
            '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 GBinOz View Post

              Hi Jeff,

              We might have need of a geographical linguist. What you are saying is an acceptable description of "the yard" in Canada will receive some considerable objection by Australians. While we are both colonials of the mother land, in Australia, once the foot hits the flagging the person is "in" the yard. I would dare to say that most Australians would think that sitting on the steps also constitutes being in the yard, and that Richardson was contradicting himself when he stated that he sat on the steps but didn't go into the yard.
              I think I see the key difference, and I think it's my fault as I've been struggling at trying to get at something and haven't been able to put my finger on it.

              The key point is not the definition of the word "yard" per se, but it is Richardson's entire phrase of how he didn't "go into the yard", as opposed to being "in the yard". It is the word "into" rather than "in" that makes the difference in what Richardson was saying. To go "into" the yard requires going beyond the "edge" of the yard, and Richardson was more or less saying he didn't go beyond the "edge" of what constitutes the "yard" (he didn't go to the inner portion of the yard, which is what going "into" the yard means). I think the Coroner may have asked the question along the lines of "Did you go into the yard" and Richardson's reply, is that he didn't to "into the yard" and he defends himself by saying he didn't have to go into the yard to see the lock as he could see the lock from the back door steps - so even though he's, as you say, "in the yard" he's not denying that, rather he's saying he didn't go "into the yard", meaning beyond the edge of it. And the orange area I marked also means, if he stood there, he could see the lock from the back door steps (that orange region is at the foot of the backdoor steps).

              While I understand what he's saying, trying to work out exactly why that is what he means has been difficult. Language can be extremely tricky to pick apart, and I've done a poor job of it. It's the "into" part that is central to what I've been saying, not the "yard" part so much.

              While I applaud the idea that we need to make sense of the evidence, perhaps the evidence is telling us that what Richardson was saying after he spoke to Chandler is contradictory and makes no sense. IMO, a single journalist, or his editor, from the Daily News fluffed a report in the edition of the 14th after getting it right in their edition of the 13th. Regardless of the conjecture regarding the shape, height, length, configuration etc of the cellar cover, the two witnesses who lived and worked there testified that the lock could be seen from the back door steps, with the single dissenter being the aforementioned journalist in his contradictory second report. Both Chandler and a member of the jury commented that from that position the door could have obscured the view of the body. Neither broached any possibility that the lock couldn't be seen from the back door steps.

              While I fully appreciate your excitement regarding "new information", and regret having to adopt the role of Big Blue Meany, to use the Australian vernacular - No way mate.

              Best regards, George
              Not a problem George. Some of our differences lie in the fact that to you Richardson's statements appear contradictory and senseless, while to me they are entirely consistent and sensible. Also, the people saying you can see the lock from the backdoor steps is true, given that the "orange zone" I marked can accurately be described as viewing the lock from the back door steps. I do think Richardson's intended meaning about not going "into" the yard is just saying he didn't go to the yard's interior area. One could, for example, walk around the edge of the yard and yet never go "into" the yard; and yes, if you are either at the edge of the yard or the interior of the yard, you are "in the yard" in both cases. I think you're reading Richardson's statement about not going "into" the yard as him saying he wasn't "in any part of the yard", while to me it reads as him saying he didn't go beyond what one might call the "edge" of the yard and "into" the interior region. That difference in our readings probably is one of the main differences in how we then go on to interpret his statements.

              As for the door obscuring his view, I don't buy that at all. It was asked, and it was a question raised at the time but in the end I just can't see anyone sitting on the steps, bending over to take off their boot, working on it, putting on and relaceing up their boot, then standing up, turning around and leaving, all the while with a door leaning against them in just such a way that her body somehow remains hidden. That makes no sense to me, and gets a "No way mate" stamp from me, which is again another point of difference between us.

              My apologies for taking so long to recognize that my focus has been on the wrong word. I hope I have finally been able to convey what I've been meaning, and why, even if you still don't buy it.

              - Jeff
              Last edited by JeffHamm; 10-10-2023, 06:59 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post


                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                It isn't his testimony, it is the paraphrase from the reporters present.
                We have to sort out what they meant, not what Richardson meant.

                The Daily News report of Chandler's testimony provides the most clear example of Richardson's testimony.

                Chandler said:
                "Witness (Richardson) 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."​

                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Hi Jon,

                The Daily News from the day before, presumably the same reporter, quoting Richardson himself, was:

                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.


                Same reporter, different reports. Perhaps the reporter was having a bad day on the 14th?

                Cheers, George​
                The reporter is making different reports because the speakers are two different people! Chandler is the one talking with the reporter in the first report, and Chander conveys what Richardson said to him on the day that Richardson didn't go right down to the cellar door, but could see the lock from the top of the cellar steps.

                In the 2nd report, it is Richardson who is speaking at the inquest, and he says he can see the lock from the backdoor steps.

                The orange area I marked is consistent with both of those descriptions because it is both at the top of the cellar steps and at the foot of the backdoor steps. There is a fairly limited area that would fit both, get too close to the middle of the cellar steps and you woudn't refer to the backdoor steps at all. Stay on the backdoor steps, and Chandler wouldn't describe that location as being at the top of the cellar steps. Richardson may have been asked by Chandler to point where he viewed the lock from on the day, and if he indicated somewhere in that orange area I marked off, then Chandler could easily have recorded it as he did, and Richardson could easily describe the same location as he did.

                More or less any other location, however, introduces conflict with one or the other. And when a theory introduces conflict that need not exist, it is the theory, not the data, that is the source of the problem.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  Except that Richardson own testimony says he did nothing of the sort.
                  No Fishy, Richardson says he did not go into the yard, which means he did not go beyond the edge of it and into the interior area. The orange zone is at the edge, and so Richardson is correct when he says he didn't go "into" the yard. Yes, he is "in" the yard, but he hasn't gone "into" it, which is a subtle, but important difference in meaning.

                  Also, the orange zone is a small area of space that can both be described as viewing from the backdoor steps or as viewing from the top of the cellar steps. Being on the backdoor steps cannot be described as being at the top of the cellar steps, and being in the middle of the cellar steps is not properly described as viewing from the back door steps. That orange zone is where the two blur together, and we get both descriptions.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    I think I see the key difference, and I think it's my fault as I've been struggling at trying to get at something and haven't been able to put my finger on it.

                    The key point is not the definition of the word "yard" per se, but it is Richardson's entire phrase of how he didn't "go into the yard", as opposed to being "in the yard". It is the word "into" rather than "in" that makes the difference in what Richardson was saying. To go "into" the yard requires going beyond the "edge" of the yard, and Richardson was more or less saying he didn't go beyond the "edge" of what constitutes the "yard" (he didn't go to the inner portion of the yard, which is what going "into" the yard means). I think the Coroner may have asked the question along the lines of "Did you go into the yard" and Richardson's reply, is that he didn't to "into the yard" and he defends himself by saying he didn't have to go into the yard to see the lock as he could see the lock from the back door steps - so even though he's, as you say, "in the yard" he's not denying that, rather he's saying he didn't go "into the yard", meaning beyond the edge of it. And the orange area I marked also means, if he stood there, he could see the lock from the back door steps (that orange region is at the foot of the backdoor steps).

                    While I understand what he's saying, trying to work out exactly why that is what he means has been difficult. Language can be extremely tricky to pick apart, and I've done a poor job of it. It's the "into" part that is central to what I've been saying, not the "yard" part so much.



                    Not a problem George. Some of our differences lie in the fact that to you Richardson's statements appear contradictory and senseless, while to me they are entirely consistent and sensible. Also, the people saying you can see the lock from the backdoor steps is true, given that the "orange zone" I marked can accurately be described as viewing the lock from the back door steps. I do think Richardson's intended meaning about not going "into" the yard is just saying he didn't go to the yard's interior area. One could, for example, walk around the edge of the yard and yet never go "into" the yard; and yes, if you are either at the edge of the yard or the interior of the yard, you are "in the yard" in both cases. I think you're reading Richardson's statement about not going "into" the yard as him saying he wasn't "in any part of the yard", while to me it reads as him saying he didn't go beyond what one might call the "edge" of the yard and "into" the interior region. That difference in our readings probably is one of the main differences in how we then go on to interpret his statements.

                    As for the door obscuring his view, I don't buy that at all. It was asked, and it was a question raised at the time but in the end I just can't see anyone sitting on the steps, bending over to take off their boot, working on it, putting on and relaceing up their boot, then standing up, turning around and leaving, all the while with a door leaning against them in just such a way that her body somehow remains hidden. That makes no sense to me, and gets a "No way mate" stamp from me, which is again another point of difference between us.

                    My apologies for taking so long to recognize that my focus has been on the wrong word. I hope I have finally been able to convey what I've been meaning, and why, even if you still don't buy it.

                    - Jeff
                    But if Richardson didn't sit on the step, but simply did what he said he did, opened the door and looked to his right at the lock and then turned and walked away, I would suggest that if the door was only opened at a certain angle then the body would be obscured and not forgetting all of this took place just as dawn was breaking so the light factor has also to be considered.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      No Fishy, Richardson says he did not go into the yard, which means he did not go beyond the edge of it and into the interior area. The orange zone is at the edge, and so Richardson is correct when he says he didn't go "into" the yard. Yes, he is "in" the yard, but he hasn't gone "into" it, which is a subtle, but important difference in meaning.

                      Also, the orange zone is a small area of space that can both be described as viewing from the backdoor steps or as viewing from the top of the cellar steps. Being on the backdoor steps cannot be described as being at the top of the cellar steps, and being in the middle of the cellar steps is not properly described as viewing from the back door steps. That orange zone is where the two blur together, and we get both descriptions.

                      - Jeff
                      You are juggling with the facts to suit your theory

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        But if Richardson didn't sit on the step, but simply did what he said he did, opened the door and looked to his right at the lock and then turned and walked away, I would suggest that if the door was only opened at a certain angle then the body would be obscured and not forgetting all of this took place just as dawn was breaking so the light factor has also to be considered.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Hi Trevor,

                        My problem with that account is that it is not what Richardson said he did. He also said he sat on the steps and repaired his boot. And when he spoke to Chandler on the day of the crime, he told Chandler that he viewed the lock from the top of the cellar stairs (or he pointed to the location which Chandler recorded as such). The area I roughly indicated on the map can both be accurately and honestly described as viewing the lock from the backdoor steps or from the top of the cellar steps.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          You are juggling with the facts to suit your theory

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Hi Trevor,

                          I leave you to do the juggling as you are the one with the theory. I see in your last coverage of what Richardson said he did you dropped some key balls though.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                            Pure misrepresentation , misunderstanding, and misreading of the evidence to support a scenario that is flawed with inconsistencies, uncertainty and speculation,
                            Thanks for that detailed analysis Fishy.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              I think I see the key difference, and I think it's my fault as I've been struggling at trying to get at something and haven't been able to put my finger on it.

                              The key point is not the definition of the word "yard" per se, but it is Richardson's entire phrase of how he didn't "go into the yard", as opposed to being "in the yard". It is the word "into" rather than "in" that makes the difference in what Richardson was saying. To go "into" the yard requires going beyond the "edge" of the yard, and Richardson was more or less saying he didn't go beyond the "edge" of what constitutes the "yard" (he didn't go to the inner portion of the yard, which is what going "into" the yard means). I think the Coroner may have asked the question along the lines of "Did you go into the yard" and Richardson's reply, is that he didn't to "into the yard" and he defends himself by saying he didn't have to go into the yard to see the lock as he could see the lock from the back door steps - so even though he's, as you say, "in the yard" he's not denying that, rather he's saying he didn't go "into the yard", meaning beyond the edge of it. And the orange area I marked also means, if he stood there, he could see the lock from the back door steps (that orange region is at the foot of the backdoor steps).

                              While I understand what he's saying, trying to work out exactly why that is what he means has been difficult. Language can be extremely tricky to pick apart, and I've done a poor job of it. It's the "into" part that is central to what I've been saying, not the "yard" part so much.



                              Not a problem George. Some of our differences lie in the fact that to you Richardson's statements appear contradictory and senseless, while to me they are entirely consistent and sensible. Also, the people saying you can see the lock from the backdoor steps is true, given that the "orange zone" I marked can accurately be described as viewing the lock from the back door steps. I do think Richardson's intended meaning about not going "into" the yard is just saying he didn't go to the yard's interior area. One could, for example, walk around the edge of the yard and yet never go "into" the yard; and yes, if you are either at the edge of the yard or the interior of the yard, you are "in the yard" in both cases. I think you're reading Richardson's statement about not going "into" the yard as him saying he wasn't "in any part of the yard", while to me it reads as him saying he didn't go beyond what one might call the "edge" of the yard and "into" the interior region. That difference in our readings probably is one of the main differences in how we then go on to interpret his statements.

                              As for the door obscuring his view, I don't buy that at all. It was asked, and it was a question raised at the time but in the end I just can't see anyone sitting on the steps, bending over to take off their boot, working on it, putting on and relaceing up their boot, then standing up, turning around and leaving, all the while with a door leaning against them in just such a way that her body somehow remains hidden. That makes no sense to me, and gets a "No way mate" stamp from me, which is again another point of difference between us.

                              My apologies for taking so long to recognize that my focus has been on the wrong word. I hope I have finally been able to convey what I've been meaning, and why, even if you still don't buy it.

                              - Jeff
                              Hi Jeff,

                              I cannot attribute fault to anyone in this discussion. I think that while we assume a common language, Nova Scotian and Australian seem to have evolved in slightly different directions.

                              While I feel that some of Richardson's statements are not supportive of others, the primary area of disagreement is:
                              Chandler said:
                              "Witness (Richardson) 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."​


                              My comprehension of this statement is that, while the backdoor steps lead to the cellar, he did not go down those steps to the cellar, he only needed to go to the top of the backdoor steps and look down to see the lock. I also observe that this is a single report that conflicts with all other reports.

                              As I commented to Fishy, as an Australian I would have said there was only one step, with the nominated "top" step being part of the house floor and the bottom step being part of the flagging. But the coroner was not an Australian, the fact of which I am sure he was eternally grateful.

                              So I can say that while you have been admirably able to convey what you've been meaning, and why, and that I am gratified with our continued amicable discussions, I regret to have to add that I still don't buy it.

                              Best regards, George​
                              Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                              All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                But if Richardson didn't sit on the step, but simply did what he said he did, opened the door and looked to his right at the lock and then turned and walked away, I would suggest that if the door was only opened at a certain angle then the body would be obscured and not forgetting all of this took place just as dawn was breaking so the light factor has also to be considered.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                But he did sit on the step. Why do you keep having to imagine that he lied? It’s not based on anything but imagination. Why, if he’d only stood on the steps, would he have come up with a story about rabbits and carrots and previous, unsuccessful attempts at repair and mistakenly putting a knife in his pocket when he could just have said “I stood on the step and pushed the door all the way back to the fence so I could see every inch of the yard.”

                                This assumption of a lie is utterly baseless and a quite deliberate effort to try and discredit Richardson.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X