John Richardson

[Wickerman]

Well i would have thought the sketchers were the evidence the cellar cover was flat .

Its hard to imagine those two drawing, contemporary drawings of the day, could differ in such a way from the one you posted. Which btw may have been erected many years after the murder .

In some cases the press artist never left the office. These drawing were woodcut, made at the office using details listed by the journalist who came back from the site.

How could the curved canopy been erected years later when it was published in the press at the time?

[Wickerman]

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 ?

We made the point that what was deemed to be 'the yard', was further out away from the house. There is no demarcation line, obviously, but as the cellar steps reach furthest out into the yard, then possibly it was viewed as where 'the yard' begins.

If, this was the case, Richardson was saying that standing at the bottom of the house steps, or beside the cellar steps, was not in 'the yard'. In other words, it was not necessary to go far away from the house out into the yard to see down the cellar steps. You could see the cellar door lock from standing beside the cellar steps, at the foot of the house steps. This is roughly where Jeff placed his orange spot on the photograph.

He could stand there momentarily, before he sits down on the house step - the middle one, because the back yard house door has closed behind him making it impossible for him to sit on the top step.
Any 'body' would have been in full view of him as he sat on that middle step.

[Wickerman]

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.

Clear, concise, right on the money

[JeffHamm]

No jeff, Thats not the case its your opinion based on the same evidence available to us all and ill respect that, but there is more than enough evidence to suggest that has been shown that easily supports an earlier t.o.d .

No Fishy,

It's not an opinion. I didn't argue that my view/interpretation of the data was important at all, I was pointing out how, given the evidence we have, the only way to get to even 50/50 (for earlier/later) option requires dismissing all but Dr. Phillips. And even then, we do not reach a level of probability that fits with your claim that the evidence favours an earlier ToD. The evidence does not favour that. At best, we get to 50/50, and that is not "favouring", either. Your claim is, therefore, incorrect. The evidence favours a late ToD, but it does not preclude an earlier ToD, is what you should be claiming. Personally, I'm getting to the point where I think even that is pushing it, but I admit, I sometimes run with new information a bit more than I should

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

In some cases the press artist never left the office. These drawing were woodcut, made at the office using details listed by the journalist who came back from the site.

How could the curved canopy been erected years later when it was published in the press at the time?

The architecture supports a curved canopy, the weathering supports it, but "Cartoon says no..."
Fishy wants anything that might allow the flight of fancy that one might see a padlock from standing in the door frame, at the earliest crack of dawn to appear real. A padlock attached to a recessed door, down a set of cellar steps, and under a canopy.

This confabulation picks and chooses elements of testimony, and in order to attempt to give the argument weight, either deliberately or unwittingly, uses words like "Conflict" and "Contradiction" for testimony that is, what normal people would call, "Elaboration" and claims that it is "The Evidence" that leads to this.
The selective use of evidence is not methodical by evidentiary standards but slected based on it's ability to support an earlier Time of Death.
Yet when evidence is cited that show the theory of Richardson standing one the step is flawed, that evidence is invariably disputed.

And even if the roof/canopy on the lean-to WERE flat, it's edge, and would still be in the way of a man standing at the very top step, (by necessity of the argument keeping his head no further forward or further out, to avoid glancing past the door) so this is all just more chaff to try and defend the position.

The entire argument rests on the flimsiest position of, Statements that Richardson elaborated upon during his inquest deposition included things the newspapers never reported him saying to Chandler on their intial conversation on the day of the murder. Therefore the inquest testimony is discredited.
That's it. Oh and the theoretically implausible though techcnically impossible to disprove (it seems...) feat of seeing round a corner in the dark.

[Wickerman]

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 .

Fishy.
I'm afraid the problem lies more with your failure to understand terminology of the time.

I worked with a Chinese student many years ago, and he used to ask me all kinds of questions that he couldn't understand, yet westerners take for granted.
One thing I remember was, why do people say "top of the street" when the road is flat?
He couldn't understand terminology, we have similar expressions here with witnesses talking about going "up" or "down" Berner St., yet it is flat, or relatively so.
There are some expressions that we use without really thinking about it. To some a yard will begin at the house wall, but others are accustomed to regarding a yard as a place for leisure, not where you have steps, or rubbish bins, sheds, and such.
Even today some will say if it is grass, it is a garden, if it is paved, it is a yard. Yet others still call a grassed area - a yard, you have to understand these differences. None is necessarily right or wrong.

A yard is an open space generally not directly connected to a house, but divided from the house by some feature, like a path, fence, shed, or other.
The furthest structure that reaches away from the house, but that is still attached to the house is those cellar steps. After them, there is nothing until you reach the toilet in the bottom left corner, at the end of the fence we see in most photographs.
The 'yard' will be that same open space beyond the cement cellar steps, to the end of the property.
Therefore, when Richardson stands on the paving flags at the bottom of the house steps, which is also beside the cellar steps, in his opinion he is not "in the yard".

I think you're trying to make this a black & white issue, different people will have varying opinions. Neither opinion is right or wrong, but it is necessary to understand what some people of the time think, in order for you to understand what they meant.
The onus is on you to understand, don't accuse someone of lying because of your failure to understand.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clear, concise, right on the money

Cheers Wick

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Here is what Hair Bear did with some stills from it, (edited the post because I initially accidentally attributed it to Wick)

Perhaps you would like to answer the question I posed:

Do you think that when Mason descended the door steps and walked into the yard, he would have been able - before turning round - to see the body, had it still been there?

[A P Tomlinson]

Perhaps you would like to answer the question I posed:

Do you think that when Mason descended the door steps and walked into the yard, he would have been able - before turning round - to see the body, had it still been there?

Yes... Sorry, I thought that was obvious. His head is past the door, which by neccessity has to open wide enough for his left leg and left shoulder.
Of course he would have seen something extending two or three fee beyond and below the frame of the door.
Unless he were wearing a really deep hood, or some sort of blinkers, something that effectively gave him tunnel vision, he'd have seen her from the top step when he opened the door.
Human peripheral vision is pretty good in that regard.
The argument that Richardson might not have seen her relies upon him keeping the door (almost deliberately) half closed across himself and remaining at the very top of the staircase.

The intestines were over her right shoulder. Her right shoulder would have been inches away from the bottom step.
Had she been there Richardson would have been able to SMELL her. Anyone would from a seated position on the steps.

Again, take a look at this. Hair Bear added the body to Lemmino's (very well made) scale lay out with Richardson in situ. (I've had issues with some of Lemmino's conclusions over the years, but never doubted the quality of researching and attention to detail that goes into their maps and graphics.)

It shows that it would be impossible to miss from anywhere on the steps, once anyone had started to walk onto them. Including james Mason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes... Sorry, I thought that was obvious. His head is past the door, which by neccessity has to open wide enough for his left leg and left shoulder.
Of course he would have seen something extending two or three fee beyond and below the frame of the door.
Unless he were wearing a really deep hood, or some sort of blinkers, something that effectively gave him tunnel vision, he'd have seen her from the top step when he opened the door.
Human peripheral vision is pretty good in that regard.
The argument that Richardson might not have seen her relies upon him keeping the door (almost deliberately) half closed across himself and remaining at the very top of the staircase.

The intestines were over her right shoulder. Her right shoulder would have been inches away from the bottom step.
Had she been there Richardson would have been able to SMELL her. Anyone would from a seated position on the steps.

Again, take a look at this. Hair Bear added the body to Lemmino's (very well made) scale lay out with Richardson in situ. (I've had issues with some of Lemmino's conclusions over the years, but never doubted the quality of researching and attention to detail that goes into their maps and graphics.)

It shows that it would be impossible to miss from anywhere on the steps, once anyone had started to walk onto them. Including james Mason.

Absolutely impossible id say AP. A person would have had to have opened the door less than 90 degrees, descended the steps with his head facing permanently to the right then descended with the door bumping up against his body. Then sat down looking to his right only, with the door open less than 90 degrees up against the side of his body whilst moving his elbows around to repair his boot. Not a chance. He’d have seen a body as soon as he opened the door just as Davies did.

[Hair Bear]

Hi Hair Bear,

For some reason I'm not seeing your pictures B and C. However I do have the book CSI Whitechapel, and there is a CGI of the yard, but it is not an accurate representation as you will notice that the height of the canopy would exclude entry to anyone but Herlock's dwarves. I have laid flagging myself and I can't imagine anyone having a stone step an inch or two above the level of the flagging.

Cheers, George

Hello George, can you see B & C now? If not try this link.... https://imgur.com/a/JpKoMzd

Firstly, I have just checked. Yes, it is from CSI Whitechapel. I would be interested to know if you (or anyone else) think the canopy should be higher up covering the window?

Secondly, now that you can hopefully see the pictures, you can assess with the advantage of actually seeing them. I said that if you look at the arrow in picture 'B' you can see that the grass is growing around and not over this area, which I strongly suggest is the original flagging, which in turn is clearly below the little step and not level with it. If you have laid flagging you will know that there are rules and regulations regarding the height of a step. I'm not sure what they would be in 1888 but I'm guessing at minimum there is a guideline. And if, as suggested by the flagging marked by the red arrow, this is the level of the flooring then the shorter step is necessary because without it the drop is too big. (I myself have seen these short steps in the back of yards. I'm trying to recall where then I can go photograph them.) If you still believe there's only one step, how do you account for John Davis's description: "There are three stone steps, unprotected, leading from the door to the yard, which is at a lower level than that of the passage"? You can't just sweep that under the flagstones (lol)

[Hair Bear]

The only evidence that allows for it is Dr. Phillips' estimation of around 4:30, because that has an error of estimate of +- 3 hours..

Hi Jeff, if I recall rightly it was actually + - 4 hours in 1888.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello George, can you see B & C now? If not try this link.... https://imgur.com/a/JpKoMzd

Firstly, I have just checked. Yes, it is from CSI Whitechapel. I would be interested to know if you (or anyone else) think the canopy should be higher up covering the window?

Secondly, now that you can hopefully see the pictures, you can assess with the advantage of actually seeing them. I said that if you look at the arrow in picture 'B' you can see that the grass is growing around and not over this area, which I strongly suggest is the original flagging, which in turn is clearly below the little step and not level with it. If you have laid flagging you will know that there are rules and regulations regarding the height of a step. I'm not sure what they would be in 1888 but I'm guessing at minimum there is a guideline. And if, as suggested by the flagging marked by the red arrow, this is the level of the flooring then the shorter step is necessary because without it the drop is too big. (I myself have seen these short steps in the back of yards. I'm trying to recall where then I can go photograph them.) If you still believe there's only one step, how do you account for John Davis's description: "There are three stone steps, unprotected, leading from the door to the yard, which is at a lower level than that of the passage"? You can't just sweep that under the flagstones (lol)

I’m fairly certain that the photograph on the left has been doctored Hair. Richard Nixon wasn’t born until 1913.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hello George, can you see B & C now? If not try this link.... https://imgur.com/a/JpKoMzd

Firstly, I have just checked. Yes, it is from CSI Whitechapel. I would be interested to know if you (or anyone else) think the canopy should be higher up covering the window?

Secondly, now that you can hopefully see the pictures, you can assess with the advantage of actually seeing them. I said that if you look at the arrow in picture 'B' you can see that the grass is growing around and not over this area, which I strongly suggest is the original flagging, which in turn is clearly below the little step and not level with it. If you have laid flagging you will know that there are rules and regulations regarding the height of a step. I'm not sure what they would be in 1888 but I'm guessing at minimum there is a guideline. And if, as suggested by the flagging marked by the red arrow, this is the level of the flooring then the shorter step is necessary because without it the drop is too big. (I myself have seen these short steps in the back of yards. I'm trying to recall where then I can go photograph them.) If you still believe there's only one step, how do you account for John Davis's description: "There are three stone steps, unprotected, leading from the door to the yard, which is at a lower level than that of the passage"? You can't just sweep that under the flagstones (lol)

Looking at the two and comparing the detail, rather than the height being adjusted, the top stair looks like (on the reconstruction) it needs to come back a bit, probably about the depth of one tread, creating a longer stairwell, and the canopy may not extend much further than it is. There would be some degree of crouching, the cellars themselves weren't built for comfort and convenience, it was space within the foundations that (with very little extra effort involved) could be utillised.
Most would have low ceilings and be intended for little more than coal storage. The floors would not be wood, and are far more likely to be bare earth unless the owner had the money to spend flagging them. (My own home - built a couple of decades later than Berner St - has York stone flags in one part of the cellar and red house bricks as very effective floor tiles in the main part, and my house was used, - among many things - as a Butchers shop around the turn of the century... 19th to 20th...)
If the owner had gone to the trouble of erecting a canopy, there's a fair chance this had been done to some degree, and that may have been back in the days when Berner Street was less... run down.

I've realised that my earlier estimation of which side the lock would be on is wrong.
I had got it into my head that there was only one window and that the dividing wall between the property ran to the left of the cellar entrance.
That isn't right, and the cellar door could have swung either way inward. So there is just as much chance the padlock would have been on the left hand side of the door as the right hand side, and not, as I had previously said, more likely to have been on the right.
Not that that makes an iota of difference to the prospect of Richardson (a Tall man) standing in the doorway and seeing through the canopy, being on the left would render the canopy's shape utterly irrelevant, and its height would need to be above the window sill for any chance to exist. (And I don't care if a drawing in the paper shows that. It was wrong! And that is something I am sure of! It would serve no purpose as any water that collected on the window sill would pour straight into the stairwell making the purpose of a canopy completely and utterly redundant.) It would also halve the chances of him being able to just glance down and see through a gap between the canopy and brickwork of the stairwell, (assuming it was a really tall canopy) and assuming it was a really, really, big fat padlock that jutted out beyond the depth of the frame seating.

Is that Nixon???

[A P Tomlinson]

I’m fairly certain that the photograph on the left has been doctored Hair. Richard Nixon wasn’t born until 1913.

He met Doctor Who in 1969....