Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



    How could she have noticed that he had darker skin when she saw him only from behind?

    She testified as follows:

    I did not see the man's face
    She didn’t see his face to identify him or to have been able to recognise him again but she clearly saw him. She would only have had to have seen his cheek or his neck as she walked past the couple to notice his darker skin.

    “I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark.”
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 10-10-2023, 10:41 AM.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

    Comment


    • It’s interesting that with all of the disagreements on timings and the allowance for margins for error and the erroneous suggestions about Victorian clocks being accurate, he we have an Victorian Coroner who has absolutely no issue with this:

      “We now lose sight of her for about four hours, but at half-past five, Mrs. Long is in Hanbury-street on her way from home in Church- street, Whitechapel, to Spitalfields Market. She walked on the northern side of the road going westward, and remembers having seen a man and woman standing a few yards from the place where the deceased is afterwards found. And, although she did not know Annie Chapman, she is positive that that woman was deceased. The two were talking loudly, but not sufficiently so to arouse her suspicions that there was anything wrong. Such words as she overheard were not calculated to do so. The laconic inquiry of the man, "Will you?" and the simple assent of the woman, viewed in the light of subsequent events, can be easily translated and explained. Mrs. Long passed on her way, and neither saw nor heard anything more of her, and this is the last time she is known to have been alive. There is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important. She was found dead about six o'clock. She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m. She was talking outside the house at half-past five when Mrs. Long passed them. Cadosh says it was about 5.20 when he was in the backyard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say "No," and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence; but if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half-hour when he passed Spitalfields clock. It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces.”


      No mystery, except for invented ones.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        She didn’t see his face to identify him or to have been able to recognise him again but she clearly saw him. She would only have had to have seen his cheek or his neck as she walked past the couple to notice his darker skin.

        “I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark.”



        I agree, but I don't think she was referring to his neck.

        I think she must have had a sideways view of him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post




          I agree, but I don't think she was referring to his neck.

          I think she must have had a sideways view of him.
          I think so.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Hi Jon,

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

            Cheers, George
            Exactly George.

            Details are a little off, but your not suggesting there were no steps are you?
            Of course not, just like no-one can argue there was no canopy, just because it is shown in the wrong spot.
            We also know the position of the canopy because of the stained bricks beneath the kitchen window.

            Take a look at the post I was responding to, I was challenged that I drew the wrong canopy.
            That suggestion is clearly trashed.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post


              Same reporter, different reports. Perhaps the reporter was having a bad day on the 14th?
              Yes, yes, yes.
              Exactly George, now you get my point.

              I've said before, this is not an issue of Richardson's errors, we are dealing with confused journalists.
              They were confused over which steps Richardson spoke about.
              It wasn't the house steps, it was the cellar steps.

              Our issue is not what Richardson said, but what the journalists wrote.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                Really ? Two contemporary sketchers




                Right, I'm well aware of all the sketches, but there's no evidence the roof of the canopy was flat.

                If you know of any evidence then show me - I'm a show-me type person, go ahead, show me.

                Otherwise, like a professional archaeologist you must look for what the remains actually indicate, regardless what is written or published about it.

                [There are hundreds of drawings showing the lighthouse at Alexandria, but the remains of the real one lie at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. These remains show what the true lighthouse looked like]

                The remains of the canopy at 29 Hanbury St. are the stained bricks beneath the kitchen window which distinctly show the canopy had a curved roof.
                Put your 'professional' cap on, not your 'argumentative' cap.

                It's a none-issue, there was a canopy regardless of it's shape, and the fact there was one, and it was installed beneath the window (a detail your two sketches did get correct) means the cellar door was not visible from the top of the house steps.
                No, Richardson wasn't lying, it was the journalist taking down his testimony who got it wrong.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  I think so.
                  Just to clarify. By saying ‘ I think so,’ a meant that I agree that she saw the side of his face. His cheek.

                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Just to clarify. By saying ‘ I think so,’ a meant that I agree that she saw the side of his face. His cheek.


                    That's what I meant too.

                    But again, we have a witness who does not explain exactly what he or she means.

                    If she had a view of part of his face, why did she not say so, rather than say that she did not see his face?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Yes, yes, yes.
                      Exactly George, now you get my point.

                      I've said before, this is not an issue of Richardson's errors, we are dealing with confused journalists.
                      They were confused over which steps Richardson spoke about.
                      It wasn't the house steps, it was the cellar steps.

                      Our issue is not what Richardson said, but what the journalists wrote.
                      I still think that a lot of the confusion we are experiencing over the use of "into the yard" can be explained by what that phrase meant to the men and women who lived in places like Hanbury Street in 1888.
                      As far as I can find none of the newspapers that carry any sort of transcriptions of the depositions, mention any other activity from Cadosche and Davies beyond going "into they yard" neither elaborate on what they were doing. That's because no one asks them. Which suggests, to me at any rate, that that term was understood by everyone there, including Wynne Baxter, who probably had the luxury of indoor plumbing.
                      I don't see anyone picking holes in Albert's or John's statements for lack of specificity, because a straight forward understanding of the reason someone would go "into the yard" at that time in the morning exists.
                      It's like if you are out camping or hiking in the woods and say something like, "Can we stop a minute, I need to nip behind that tree" no one in their right mind is going to ask, "Why? What's behind the tree?"

                      When Baxter asks "Did you go into the yard?" Richardson is likely to have thought he was simply asking if he'd been to the privvy, thereby crossing the yard to the farthest corner.
                      So "No... I opened [the door] and sat on the doorstep..." [dicked about with his boot for]...about two minutes at most..." [visibility?] "...it was getting light but I could see all over the place."
                      He's NOT balancing in the doorway, pefroming gymnastic feats to see round a corner and under a canopy wihle determinedly avoiding glancing to his left by keeping the door firmly at an acute angle.
                      NOTHING suggests that. Beyond convolution.
                      So unless you want to dig into the deeper darker motives of John Davies and Albert Cadosches "avoidance of the truth" by not giving specifics of their purpose "in the yard" at such times of the morning with the same levels of forensic analysis... do Richardson the same courtesy.
                      Try and understand what HE meant, not what the grammar and syntax can be twisted into.

                      Edit to add: That looks like I'm taking a swing at Wick... That is certainly not my intention. That last bit is a general comment to people trying to morph something out of his obvious behaviour.
                      Last edited by A P Tomlinson; 10-10-2023, 01:58 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Click image for larger version  Name:	3 steps.jpg Views:	0 Size:	97.2 KB ID:	821362
                        I can understand Davis saying there are three steps, as to get from the landing to the flagstones you would have to take 1 - 2 - 3 steps (three strides). You would also need to take three going back. I understand George's point of view also, that there is one step - that big thing in the middle. But for me there are clearly two steps, as in two blocks that are on two different levels. Going from the yard, the first one is not very high, two or three inches, but it is nonetheless a step.

                        Regarding where exactly Richardson stood - at the top of the yard steps, at the bottom of the yard steps (my guess, since that would be the natural thing to do) or at the top of the cellar steps, as all what really matters is his "I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post

                          I still think that a lot of the confusion we are experiencing over the use of "into the yard" can be explained by what that phrase meant to the men and women who lived in places like Hanbury Street in 1888.
                          Absolutely, I did emphasize the "into" in a post way back, but it didn't seem to register. Jeff also made a strong point about the same interpretation just yesterday. "into" suggests to me out away from the house, there's no definitive line of course, it's just a case of common sense. If anything, as the top step of the cellar steps was the furthest point away from the house, that was connected to the house, then that could be the demarcation where the yard begins. I notice you suggest it may have been a euphemism for using the toilet (a shed at the back of the yard). I never thought of that, it's a good idea.

                          As far as I can find none of the newspapers that carry any sort of transcriptions of the depositions, mention any other activity from Cadosche and Davies beyond going "into they yard" neither elaborate on what they were doing. That's because no one asks them. Which suggests, to me at any rate, that that term was understood by everyone there, including Wynne Baxter, who probably had the luxury of indoor plumbing.
                          I don't see anyone picking holes in Albert's or John's statements for lack of specificity, because a straight forward understanding of the reason someone would go "into the yard" at that time in the morning exists.
                          It's like if you are out camping or hiking in the woods and say something like, "Can we stop a minute, I need to nip behind that tree" no one in their right mind is going to ask, "Why? What's behind the tree?"
                          Lol, I can imagine some on here might

                          When Baxter asks "Did you go into the yard?" Richardson is likely to have thought he was simply asking if he'd been to the privvy, thereby crossing the yard to the farthest corner.
                          So "No... I opened [the door] and sat on the doorstep..." [dicked about with his boot for]...about two minutes at most..." [visibility?] "...it was getting light but I could see all over the place."
                          He's NOT balancing in the doorway, pefroming gymnastic feats to see round a corner and under a canopy wihle determinedly avoiding glancing to his left by keeping the door firmly at an acute angle.
                          NOTHING suggests that. Beyond convolution.
                          So unless you want to dig into the deeper darker motives of John Davies and Albert Cadosches "avoidance of the truth" by not giving specifics of their purpose "in the yard" at such times of the morning with the same levels of forensic analysis... do Richardson the same courtesy.
                          Try and understand what HE meant, not what the grammar and syntax can be twisted into.

                          Edit to add: That looks like I'm taking a swing at Wick... That is certainly not my intention. That last bit is a general comment to people trying to morph something out of his obvious behaviour.
                          Not at all, but if you were I didn't see it.
                          What you suggest is perfectly reasonable.
                          Last edited by Wickerman; 10-10-2023, 05:44 PM.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                            No Jeff , I think your over complicating the whole Richarsdon senario ,


                            Remembering its 1888 do you really think that John Richardson with his lowly standing meant anything else than what he plainly and simply and unmistakenable told the Coroner ???


                            Ive posted again what has yet has been shown to be incorrect or wrong .






                            Why would Richardson need to walk down the house steps and over to the cellar steps in the yard ?, if by his own testimony he said this to the coroner .

                            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.''!!!!!!!!!!



                            Now look again what the coroner says after he ask Richardson ''did you go into the yard'' ? ''No sir '' , i thought you went there to see the cellar was ok ?

                            His telling Richardson that in his opinion the cellar door is in the yard ! . Richardson then confirms this to the the coroner with his next statement, he very well knows the cellar is in fact in the yard, thats why he told the coroner ''but you don't need to go into the yard'' to see that.​
                            ​.

                            So Wick, Has not Richardson told the Coroner one thing and done another ?[what you have suggested] Is this not the very essence of what myself and others have been saying about witness testimony being uncertain , unreliable ,ambiguious and unsafe to rely on to confirm an accurate t.o.d one way or the other ?
                            Last edited by FISHY1118; 10-08-2023, 09:27 AM.​
                            Hi Fishy,

                            As I've said before, everything in Richardson's statement above is entirely consistent with him standing at the bottom of the doorsteps and at the top of the cellar steps. He hasn't "gone into the yard", and he can see the lock from backdoor steps.

                            Hair Bear has posted this image, which is better than the mock up one I used before because it shows the actual area we're talking about. All Richardson has to do is stand where Hair Bear's red line ends. He's at the top of the cellar stairs, as described by Chandler, and he would be looking down to the cellar lock from the backdoor steps, and he hasn't "gone into the yard". While I agree that Richardson standing on the top of the doorsteps would be consistent with the bit you posted, being on the top of the doorstep doesn't place him at the top of the cellar steps, so that interpretation of Richardson's statement is in conflict with Chandler's information. At the bottom of the doorstep is in conflict with none of the statements, and it is also the most natural place for someone to go to view the lock, particularly given there was the roofing over the cellar stairs. It is also where he would be standing if, when he sits down on the steps to repair his boot, his feet end up on the flags and he sits on the middle step.

                            It's not complicated at all, it's the most simple explanation that ties in all of the evidence. I'm afraid that I find your interpretation is the complicated one, as it creates conflict with the information (Chandler), it puts him in a less probable location to the view the lock from, and there is the possibility that location didn't even have a view to the lock given the canopy. All of those problems arise, not from the testimonies, but from your interpretation of the testimonies. As such, I find your interpretation to be the source of the conflict. I'm just suggesting an interpretation that is free from such complications, which is why I find it to be the simpler one.

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	164
Size:	23.3 KB
ID:	821373

                            - Jeff​

                            Comment


                            • "All Richardson has to do is stand where Hair Bear's red line ends."

                              Wherever he was before or after, as I've said before I'm convinced he was - just prior to sitting - in a standing position where the red line ends, because that would be the logical place to be in order to lower yourself into a sitting position on the second step (stair).

                              Comment


                              • The suggestion that’s being made here about going into the yard makes total sense, despite criticism. In reality there is no difference between Richardson looking down at the cellar door and him sitting on the steps because, as we can see from the photograph, his feet would have been in the same position for both. So he went down the step putting both feet on the flags as he said. At this point he is standing pretty much adjacent to the top of the cellar steps. He looks down at the cellar door and sees that the lock is in tact. He then sits down on the step. He did not go into the yard.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X