Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • When we take into consideration the variations in wording from newspaper reports and we look at the photographs of the yard I think that we are know in a position to say with greater confidence what happened (even when we consider that the photographs were taken well after the murders.) So what do we know?

    We know the location of the steps to the cellar as these wouldn’t have changed over the years. We know that there was a canopy over at least a portion of the cellar steps. The two holes (missing bricks) in the wall gives us a reliable guide as to the height of the canopy which would have been just below the window-sill. We can be certain that the canopy wouldn’t have extended to the end of the cellar steps because it would have been all but impossible to gave accessed the steps. I agree with Jeff and George that a reasonable estimation is that the canopy would have extended around half way along the length of the cellar step; therefore to a position adjacent to the bottom of the house steps.

    So John Richardson went down the back door steps and stood on the flags (as he’d said) This would’ve have put the end of the canopy immediately to his right. Intending to sit on the steps he held open the door with his left hand and looked down the cellar steps (beneath the canopy) to check the lock. Then he sat on the step to repair his boot.

    This meant that Richardson did go ‘to the top of the steps.’ But the top of the cellar steps. He could also say with honesty that he didn’t actually go out into the yard, i.e. he didn’t need to step out directly to the head of the cellar steps. He could look down from the top of the steps from a position just in front of the back door steps. This accounts logically with any suggestion that he looked at the cellar door ‘from the top of the steps.’

    There are no flights of fancy in any of this. It accounts for everything. The main point of ‘doubt’ used against Richardson is the alleged conflict with Chandler but, as we know that Richardson never had the opportunity to respond, we cannot under any circumstances claim that a conflict occurred. Richardson very possibly didn’t mention the boot repair when he spoke to Chandler in the passage but it wasn’t an important detail at the time. However it came out in the newspapers less than 48 hours later when he was questioned further. And if Richardson told Chandler that he’d checked the lock from the top of the step (meaning the top of the cellar steps) this got confused with the back door steps. This is infinitely more plausible than any suggestion that Richardson invented a p**s-poor story when he could either admitted to the possibility of him missing the body or said that he’d actually walked out into the yard. This is simple common sense.

    Furthermore, looking at the huge gap beneath the door, the narrow gap between fence and step (suggested as just 3 feet at the time) and considering how far past the edge of door (down into the yard) Annie’s body would have extended and how wide Richardson would have, entirely naturally, have needed to have opened the door to descend the steps then to have sat back down whilst holding the door open - plus the fact that he would most likely have held it open with his left leg to allow himself freedom to repair his boot - we can see that the suggestion that he could have missed a mutilated corpse with the knees turned outwards and with entrails over the right shoulder just evaporates. As he confidently told Chandler, he simply couldn’t have missed the body had it been there. Therefore Annie was certainly still alive at around 4.45.

    Cadosch gives us reliable testimony. He heard the ‘no’ and initially at least felt that it came from number 29. His wording allows for two interpretations but one makes more sense literally than the other. The suggestion that he wasn’t certain is very awkwardly worded and doesn’t fully make sense. But if he was talking about being uncertain what side of number 29 it came from then it makes absolutely perfect sense. He was totally confident about the noise though and no one can make a reasonable suggestion about what could have come from a yard if a mutilated corpse had been lying there. The obvious, reasoned conclusion is that the ‘no’ and the noise came from Annie and her killer. This is strong evidence even though no evidence is perfect.

    The strong evidence of Richardson and Cadosch should cause us to re-think Elizabeth Long and not just to assume that she was wrong merely because witnesses can be mistaken. We have to consider what the chances would have been of her seeing a woman that looked like Annie talking to a man near to the door of number 29 just at the time that Cadosch heard the sounds from the yard.

    We can only draw one conclusion from the about - that Annie Chapman was overwhelmingly likely to have met her death at around 5.30.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 10-11-2023, 09:41 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

      What botheres me is the this press report from the inquest


      IF you accept Richardson sat on the steps and cut his boot ,then you have to also accept he did not go into the yard ,stand on the top of the cellar steps, and check to to see if the lock was ok ! Why do you feel the need to invent a conflict with what he told the coroner ?





      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 ?​
      Because he didn’t need to go ‘into the yard,’ took look down the cellar steps. His feet would have been pretty much in the same position as they would have been when he sat on the steps. When he sat on the steps he was in reality ‘in the yard’ but he didn’t consider it as such. He considered ‘going into the yard’ as walking out into the yard. Taking steps into the yard. But he didn’t need to do that to look down the cellar steps. He could do it from a position of standing at the bottom of the back door steps.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        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:	10 Size:	23.3 KB ID:	821373

        - Jeff​
        Sorry Jeff , If, and Hair Bears photo is a gem for this exact point , If Richardson is standing at the top of the cellar steps he is in the back yard of 29 handbury st ,no if buts or maybys .


        [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.''!!!!!!!!!!


        To quote Herlock, [ strangely enough ] its just an invention to suggest anything other that what he told the coroner .​
        '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

          Sorry Jeff , If, and Hair Bears photo is a gem for this exact point , If Richardson is standing at the top of the cellar steps he is in the back yard of 29 handbury st ,no if buts or maybys .


          [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.''!!!!!!!!!!


          To quote Herlock, [ strangely enough ] its just an invention to suggest anything other that what he told the coroner .​
          Hi Fishy,

          Thing is I agree. He did what he told the coroner. He could see the padlock from the back door steps. The difference is, you're missing my point, which is that being where I'm saying is to view from the back door steps and doesn't require going into the yard! He never says he was on the back door steps, so the location is ambiguous in that sense, both work for Richardson's statement.

          You're not taking into account, Chander's description of the location, which he got from Richardson on the day, which is that the location is also one described as viewing from the top of the cellar steps. That makes your location incompatible with the evidence - which means your location is wrong, not the evidence.

          I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree though, as we're just repeating ourselves now.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Im not inventing anything Herlock ,im simply useing the evidence that you and others use , how we interpret such evidence is were the problem lies.

            You cant pick and choose what you want by using the evidence and say it means this or that, and claim your interpretation is somehow more correct. Then in the next breath not give others the same right just because you think its wrong ! At best you can can only disagree . So youve disagreed ,nothing more .
            But we’re not talking about interpretations Fishy. We know what Chandler said and we know what Richardson said but it’s simply a fact that Richardson was never asked “did you mention the boot repair to Inspector Chandler on the morning of the murder?” What you are doing in suggesting a conflict is that you are assuming that Richardson would have answered “yes I did.” The problem is that we have no reason for believing that. He might have agreed with Chandler and said “no, I didn’t mention the boot repair. I had no reason to, and the inspector didn’t ask me why I’d sat on the steps.”

            So we can’t assume a conflict Fishy. Its not a point against John Richardson.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Because he didn’t need to go ‘into the yard,’ took look down the cellar steps. His feet would have been pretty much in the same position as they would have been when he sat on the steps. When he sat on the steps he was in reality ‘in the yard’ but he didn’t consider it as such. He considered ‘going into the yard’ as walking out into the yard. Taking steps into the yard. But he didn’t need to do that to look down the cellar steps. He could do it from a position of standing at the bottom of the back door steps.
              [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.


              He came to the back door , thats as far as he went as far as Chandler was concerned, and all he did was check the lock . Which btw when the coroner asked Richardson ''Was that your sole purpose for being there'' Richardson replied ''Yes''.
              '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

                Sorry Jeff , If, and Hair Bears photo is a gem for this exact point , If Richardson is standing at the top of the cellar steps he is in the back yard of 29 handbury st ,no if buts or maybys .


                [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.''!!!!!!!!!!


                To quote Herlock, [ strangely enough ] its just an invention to suggest anything other that what he told the coroner .​
                Why can’t you see this Fishy?

                Whether he looked down the cellar steps from a standing position or from sitting on the steps his feet would have been in the same position. So would you consider sitting on the steps to have been ‘in the yard.’

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  [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.

                  And this would accommodate him either sitting on the steps to see the cellar door or him looking down the cellar steps from a standing position with his feet planted in the same position as when he’d sat down.

                  He came to the back door , thats as far as he went as far as Chandler was concerned, and all he did was check the lock . Which btw when the coroner asked Richardson ''Was that your sole purpose for being there'' Richardson replied ''Yes''.
                  You are clinging on to a sinking ship Fishy. There’s no point in simply picking the quote that you like.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Because he didn’t need to go ‘into the yard,’ took look down the cellar steps. His feet would have been pretty much in the same position as they would have been when he sat on the steps. When he sat on the steps he was in reality ‘in the yard’ but he didn’t consider it as such. He considered ‘going into the yard’ as walking out into the yard. Taking steps into the yard. But he didn’t need to do that to look down the cellar steps. He could do it from a position of standing at the bottom of the back door steps.
                    Hi Herlock,

                    Having spent some time discussing the finer points of linguistics with George, I don't think Richardson was denying he was "in the yard" per se, rather he's denying a slightly different concept of "going into the yard". "Going into the yard" refers to the idea of moving to the interior region, so away from the "edge" of the yard. Where the edge becomes the interior is vague, because it's a bit of a general concept rather than a specific definition. However, given the photo supplied by Hair Bear, the layout seems pretty clear that one could probably just walk down the steps to the flagstone area, and from there look down to the lock. And one can describe themselves as viewing the lock from the back door stairs, or they can describe themselves as viewing from the top of the cellar stairs. Both descriptions apply to that location. If, however, you're on the top of the backdoor stairs, you can't really say you're viewing from the top of the cellar stairs, and if you walked further around to stand in the middle of the cellar stairs, you can't really say you're at the back door stairs (and at that point, one might start wondering if they've "gone into the yard", although even then we're might be in that grey area).

                    The important thing, in my view of course, is that walking down the backdoor stairs, standing on the flags at the top corner of the cellar stairs, does not require going "into the yard", yes, one is "in" the yard, but the concept of "going into the yard" is different from "being in the yard"; the first is used to mean going to the interior area, the latter includes the edges as well; Richardson is still clearly at the edge of the yard, so he did not "go into" the yard.

                    Chandler's description is that Richardson stood at the top of the cellar stairs, and that doesn't work if we theorize that Richardson is on the top step. Moreover, the height of the awning, as indicated by the staining on the bricks, would make it nigh on impossible for him to see the lock from the top of the steps, even if the awning is as short as it looks like it had to be. But going down the backdoor steps, ending up at the top corner of the cellar steps, probably means he's past the awning, and so that is the first location from which he could look down and see the lock.

                    And, of course, that location means when he sits to fix his boot, he just sits down. And it also means there is no chance that he would have missed seeing Annie's body - there's no door against him (which never sounded plausible to me in the first place, to be honest).

                    Anyway, I've side tracked. What I'm getting at is that I think Richardson would agree he was "in the yard", what he's saying he didn't do was "go into the yard", and "going into the yard" is a slightly different concept from being "in the yard". Language is weird that way.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Why can’t you see this Fishy?

                      Whether he looked down the cellar steps from a standing position or from sitting on the steps his feet would have been in the same position. So would you consider sitting on the steps to have been ‘in the yard.’
                      [Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.


                      He came to the back door , thats as far as he went as far as Chandler was concerned, and all he did was check the lock . Which btw when the coroner asked Richardson ''Was that your sole purpose for being there'' Richardson replied ''Yes''.

                      '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 Hair Bear,

                        Great photo presentation, but where is the flagging. My guess is that when it was in place it was level with that very short bottom step, thereby eliminating it as a step.

                        Cheers, George


                        Hi George

                        If you look at the arrow in picture 'B' you can see that grass is growing around and not over this area, which I suggest is the original flagging, which in turn is clearly BELOW the step near 'Richardson's' foot on this presentation and not level with it. Picture 'C', although a generated image (I think from CSI Whitechapel), is I believe a reasonable stab at what the yard would have looked like in 1888. Here you see the flagging is not in line with the step. Picture 'A' is next door, which appears also to have two steps. More to the point is John Davis's description of the steps. In his (Daily Telegraph) testimony he said, "There are three stone steps, unprotected, leading from the door to the yard, which is at a lower level than that of the passage". As I've said, I believe his 'third' step relates to the flooring of the passage, but whether that is right or wrong, certainly we are not talking about one step. It is either two or three.

                        Whilst I'm here, a few posts back you described the possibility of Richardson sitting to the right, as pictured in 'B'. I know this isn't your belief and was just a suggestion. It was a fair one, but I think from the image we can see that it's highly unlikely to be correct, especially when we factor in what would have been a cover in his face, as in 'C'.

                        PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1"Could Hairy Bear please tell us whether he knows when the picture he uploaded was taken?"

                        Hi P.I.1

                        I'm afraid not, but I would assume many years after 1888. I (now) realise I've been chucking up doctored images without giving credit (whoops, really sorry) but for the most part I've no idea where these things come from (but thank you to all you photographers and artists out there).

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          I can’t say for certain George but this might be a perfect example of the problems we face having to rely on Press reports. Wick is very good on anything to do with Press reports so it would be good to get his opinion but this sounds like Long’s man to me although with obvious differences.
                          Hi Herlock,

                          Close, but no cigar. Long's man actually sounds like the press reports.

                          The press reports were published 10 Sep and attributed to Scotland Yard. Long first went to the police with her story of having seen Annie in the street on the 11 Sep. She allegedly identified the body on 12 Sep and appeared at the inquest on 19 Sep.

                          The press can't have adapted their story from Long's description, but Long seems likely to have developed her story from the published press reports the day before, and adapted it to the time that she was in the street. You listed the similarities, and of the differences, since she said she didn't see his face, the "beard and moustache" difference is marginal.

                          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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                            I have said the same thing time and again, he simply as stated he opened the back door looked to his right saw the lock was intact and then went on his way.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            The evidence that also supports an earlier t.o. d couldnt be more simple to understand than this .
                            '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
                              Star 10 Sep:
                              The series of murders which now even the police believe to be the work of one man, is engaging the attention of a large force of plain clothes detectives. At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities circulated a description of a man who, they say, "entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th." They give his age as 37, height 5ft. 7in., and add that he is rather dark, had a beard and moustache; was dressed in a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; and spoke with a foreign accent.

                              Has anyone seen this before? Comments?
                              Hi George,

                              Apparently this report, and other fairly similar ones with slight variations, also appeared in The Times and The Telegraph. Sugden dealt with this in some depth, although the outcome is not as clear as we would like. According to The News, the prostitute was not Chapman but Emily Walter, or possibly Walton. Other reports of the Walters incident do not even confirm that it was no. 29. There is no record of Walters or Walton in police files, and she wasn't called as a witness, so some think that the story is another journalistic invention, or at best genuine confusion.

                              Sugden believed that Mrs Richardson and Thompson had given a description to the police of a trespasser they had found on a previous occasion. He believed that the police were enquiring about suspicious activities after 2 am - i.e. shortly after Chapman left the doss house - and that the police info was a description of a man who was seen at no. 29, where the murder itself was committed some time after 2 am (2. 30 am in some reports) on the 8th. It was the murder that was committed after 2 am, and not the sighting of the man, was his suggestion.

                              It is all rather vague and confusing, as are so many press reports, and I don't think we can be certain of what exactly happened. We can, I think, be sure that it was a mistake of some sort, because, important as it seems, it doesn't get mentioned in Swanson's report of the 19th October.
                              Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 10-11-2023, 10:17 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Hi Herlock,

                                Having spent some time discussing the finer points of linguistics with George, I don't think Richardson was denying he was "in the yard" per se, rather he's denying a slightly different concept of "going into the yard". "Going into the yard" refers to the idea of moving to the interior region, so away from the "edge" of the yard. Where the edge becomes the interior is vague, because it's a bit of a general concept rather than a specific definition. However, given the photo supplied by Hair Bear, the layout seems pretty clear that one could probably just walk down the steps to the flagstone area, and from there look down to the lock. And one can describe themselves as viewing the lock from the back door stairs, or they can describe themselves as viewing from the top of the cellar stairs. Both descriptions apply to that location. If, however, you're on the top of the backdoor stairs, you can't really say you're viewing from the top of the cellar stairs, and if you walked further around to stand in the middle of the cellar stairs, you can't really say you're at the back door stairs (and at that point, one might start wondering if they've "gone into the yard", although even then we're might be in that grey area).

                                The important thing, in my view of course, is that walking down the backdoor stairs, standing on the flags at the top corner of the cellar stairs, does not require going "into the yard", yes, one is "in" the yard, but the concept of "going into the yard" is different from "being in the yard"; the first is used to mean going to the interior area, the latter includes the edges as well; Richardson is still clearly at the edge of the yard, so he did not "go into" the yard.

                                Chandler's description is that Richardson stood at the top of the cellar stairs, and that doesn't work if we theorize that Richardson is on the top step. Moreover, the height of the awning, as indicated by the staining on the bricks, would make it nigh on impossible for him to see the lock from the top of the steps, even if the awning is as short as it looks like it had to be. But going down the backdoor steps, ending up at the top corner of the cellar steps, probably means he's past the awning, and so that is the first location from which he could look down and see the lock.

                                And, of course, that location means when he sits to fix his boot, he just sits down. And it also means there is no chance that he would have missed seeing Annie's body - there's no door against him (which never sounded plausible to me in the first place, to be honest).

                                Anyway, I've side tracked. What I'm getting at is that I think Richardson would agree he was "in the yard", what he's saying he didn't do was "go into the yard", and "going into the yard" is a slightly different concept from being "in the yard". Language is weird that way.

                                - Jeff
                                Hello Jeff,

                                You won’t be surprised that I completely agree with what you’ve said. Language can be deceptive and so we have to consider all possibilities. For me with the language that Cadosch uses it makes more sense that he meant that he wasn’t sure what side of number 29 the ‘no’ came from that it does for him to have said, in effect, ‘I think it came from number 29 but I can’t say where it came from.’

                                Even from a position sitting on the steps some would say that he was actually ‘in the yard,’ where as some would say that he wasn’t. But from a sitting on the steps position he certainly wasn’t still in the house. As you say, Richardson was saying that he didn’t go out into the yard. He didn’t walk into the yard. He stood on the flags at the bottom of the back door steps from which position he looked down the cellar steps. So it could be said that he’d checked the lock from the top of the (cellar) steps without having gone out into the yard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X