Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Yet what some might see as overwhelming, others see in Richarsons own words a considerable amount of doubt , and i do mean doubt .

    Its like playing Texas Holdem, both players have a pair of Aces and nothing of value comes from the flop

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      And in the real world George, especially the LVP in crime ridden Whitechapel, how likely is it that a witness would have lied to a Police Inspector and said “oh yeah and by the way, I was in that yard alone and I had a knife in my hand.”
      zero, unless he was the killer. and even that would be highly unlikely

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

        That part of his Inquest testimony was after his claim that he sat on the step to cut the leather from his boot , which if tru then yes he certainly would not have missed the body . However , we have to also take into account Insp Chandlers inquest testimony where he said this.

        [Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - [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.

        [Chandler] He told me he did not go down the steps.

        Its seems pretty obvious Richardsons doing a lot of telling what he did that morning .

        Its not possible to see the body when the door is opened on a 40 degree angle while standing on the first step to checking the lock on the right hand side .

        I'm not convinced that Chandler's statement negates Richardson's later testimony. I'm aware of the whole introduction of a borrowed knife debate also. This one needs a bit more thought on my part as at this point I'm not fully sold on Richardson's statement being somewhat unreliable. 'Think I'm in the not sure camp at the moment.

        'Just a point on Dr Phillip's statement which has been mentioned in this thread:

        I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

        I have always taken this to mean Phillips was confident at least two hours but due to it being a 'fairly cold morning' he was not able to go further with any degree of confidence, i.e. the 'fairly cold morning' part of his statement relates to the 'probably more' part and in no way casts doubt upon the 'least two hours' part. I concluded that Phillips believed Annie was murdered prior to 4:30am and by a decent margin too but certainly no later than 4:30am and he took into account all conditions and variabilities when making that unequivocal no later than 4:30am statement.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Macdonald Triad View Post
          Very hot thread, been reading it for days but forgot my login until now. I've always had a niggling feeling that the answer to everything was in the Chapman murder. I am highly suspicious of Richardson due to the obvious. Sitting on the steps with a knife making cutting motions at his feet. To a potential witness up and behind him to the left I feel this modification to his statement wouldn't work but to Cadosch it just might if he was panicked and thought Cadosch popped his head over (or if Richardson thought he may have after hearing Cadosch's statement in the press). Also when Richardson was hob nobbing with a reporter a crazy incident occurred when someone approached him and said something menacing. I feel like he tried to "flip the script" back onto the stranger and project. I believe Richardson to be the obvious Leather Apron and somehow it was put onto Pizer. So what would be Richardson's motive if he was JTR? If I remember right, his young son lived in the building at Richardson's Moms apartment. A father would stew at having his son exposed by that kind of behavior taking place in hallways, stairwells and back gardens. Also combined with the theft of tools needed for the packing crate business it's quite possible he just had enough. All victims quite possibly used this building for prostitution and after not being caught he felt invincible.
          hi mac
          my last post made me ponder, why would richardson, if the killer, admit about having a knife. and lo and behold i then read your post.

          if he was the killer, and thought someone like cadoshe might have seen him with a knife, then he has the ready made answer.

          kind of like why would hutch later add he stood by marys window..worried someone saw him there.

          classic guilty behavior 101. changing your story to account for if a witness saw you there.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            George, it was stated that the gap between the bottom of the door and the flags was 3 feet (by people who were actually there) It looks slightly less to me though. Neither of us can know for certain and camera angles can make things like this difficult to access accurately.

            Richardson’s knees would have been less that 22 inches above the flags though (as he was shorter than myself) If the door was only 2 feet from the flags and his knees were 20 inches from the floor that gives a gap of 6 inches. I consider this a minimum. The door could have been a little higher and Richardson’s knees might have been say 18 inches high. So the gap could easily have been 10 inches. Richardson was there and knew that he couldn’t have missed the body.

            Its my opinion that we have a pretty good level of certainty of how far he would have had to have opened the door (unless you go for the Fisherman method of him going down edged to the right and only facing right) To step down onto the flags would mean that the usual way of opening the door would have been to have opened it to close to 90 degrees.

            Im afraid that you’ve glossed over the 5 reasons. It’s you that is claiming stupidity on Richardson’s part. You have him being so ridiculously stupid, so careless of any risks of police interest, that he goes for the worst possible explanation and ignores 5 that even a child couldn’t have failed to have come up with. This makes the idea that he invented the story of sitting on the step unbelievable. We also have the story of him sitting on the step in the Press pre-dating the inquest. So where did that come from if not Richardson.

            Taken as a whole, everything favours the man who said that he couldn’t possibly have missed the body. He had absolutely no reason to lie and he certainly wouldn’t have avoided 5 obvious ones in favour of one that put him at the crime scene with a knife.

            Genuinely George, I’m little short of amazed that anyone viewing this issue can’t see that it’s overwhelmingly likely (and I really do mean overwhelmingly) that Richardson was correct.
            Herlock, please, there was no trick photography or strange angles in that video. The camera doesn't lie. The people who were there at the time were mistaken. A 3' gap, flag to underside of the door, would have the door at the 6' Mason's waist. Can you at least concede that error? Look at the photographic evidence. The gap is from Mason's knees to his mid-thigh - about 10", and then the depth of the thigh while sitting has to be subtracted. Measure your thigh depth, mine is about 7". For the gap to be 10" as to contend, Mason has to have a zero sized thigh.

            And by the way: If the door was only 2 feet from the flags and his knees were 20 inches from the floor that gives a gap of 6 inches. Two and a half feet was 30" when I went to school, and 30" minus 20" usually equals 10", which agrees with what I have said above.

            I am not aware of the "Fisherman method". Can you give me link please?

            I don't know how stupid Richardson may have been, I'm just quoting what he said.

            I think Abby said it best, though he probably meant the opposite, that Richardson needed to add the step sitting to make it certain that he couldn't have missed the body.

            Cheers, George
            It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

            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 GBinOz View Post
              [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings.

              Cadosch must have known Richardson and his assistant weren't working in the yard at this time. Can anyone venture an opinion on what he was talking about in this statement?

              Cheers, George
              Hi George.

              I had always assumed he meant workers in general, stacking or leaning crates against the fence. Didn't the Richardson's employ casual labour?
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                That part of his Inquest testimony was after his claim that he sat on the step to cut the leather from his boot , which if tru then yes he certainly would not have missed the body . However , we have to also take into account Insp Chandlers inquest testimony where he said this.

                [Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - [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.

                [Chandler] He told me he did not go down the steps.

                Its seems pretty obvious Richardsons doing a lot of telling what he did that morning .

                Its not possible to see the body when the door is opened on a 40 degree angle while standing on the first step to checking the lock on the right hand side .

                Hi Fishy,

                If we are going to consider Chandler's inquest testimony, then I think we must consider all of it, not part of it. Chandler told the inquest that Richardson had also said that he was sure that the body was not in the yard. How did Richardson know this? Well, Chandler didn't ask him, so we had to wait to find out, and now we know, don't we? The omission at the time was down to Chandler, not Richardson. Richardson was not being formally interviewed, and he clearly wasn't asked to provide details of everything that had happened.

                Swanson made it crystal clear that Richardson was closely questioned, "there was not a shred of evidence,suspicion could not rest upon him, although the police specially directed their attention to him." We don't have details of the police checks, but confirming that Richardson would have been able to see the body in accordance with his account seems to have been a necessity. Also checking his statement that he had to finish the boot leather cutting at the market also seems to have been required. If they didn't do these two things, I can't imagine what "specially directed" police action there could have been!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  And in the real world George, especially the LVP in crime ridden Whitechapel, how likely is it that a witness would have lied to a Police Inspector and said “oh yeah and by the way, I was in that yard alone and I had a knife in my hand.”
                  I don't understand how that comment relates Herlock.

                  To be clear, I see three possibilities:
                  1. Richardson was the ripper, or an accomplice, and was lying to cover his tracks.
                  2. Richardson did what he told Chandler and the press on the day, and added the step sitting afterwards to make it certain that he would be believed when he said he couldn't have missed the body.
                  3. Richardson did perform the boot repair attempt - what is attempted to be determined here is whether he still could have missed the body.

                  Cheers, George
                  It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                  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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    He is NOT quoting a law Harry, how many times do I need to restate this, he was stating the law in general. Do you honestly believe that Wickerman believes that there is some kind law that guarantees the truth? No law can guarantee anything. I just can’t understand why you are even suggesting it? Witnesses are asked to swear; it is meant as a pledge to be truthful on the understanding that there can be legal punishment for lying.
                    I am truly sorry you've been lumbered with this nonsense.
                    When a poster refuses to accept what was meant, it's a waste of time & effort trying to explain further.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Herlock, please, there was no trick photography or strange angles in that video. The camera doesn't lie. The people who were there at the time were mistaken. A 3' gap, flag to underside of the door, would have the door at the 6' Mason's waist. Can you at least concede that error? Look at the photographic evidence. The gap is from Mason's knees to his mid-thigh - about 10", and then the depth of the thigh while sitting has to be subtracted. Measure your thigh depth, mine is about 7". For the gap to be 10" as to contend, Mason has to have a zero sized thigh.

                      And by the way: If the door was only 2 feet from the flags and his knees were 20 inches from the floor that gives a gap of 6 inches. Two and a half feet was 30" when I went to school, and 30" minus 20" usually equals 10", which agrees with what I have said above.

                      I am not aware of the "Fisherman method". Can you give me link please?

                      I don't know how stupid Richardson may have been, I'm just quoting what he said.

                      I think Abby said it best, though he probably meant the opposite, that Richardson needed to add the step sitting to make it certain that he couldn't have missed the body.

                      Cheers, George
                      George, if there was a 2” gap I’d still say that it was close to impossible for Richardson to have missed the body - because he didn’t miss it.

                      . I'm just quoting what he said
                      So am I George:

                      “[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
                      [Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her. “

                      For me this is the end of the line. He didn’t see her. He was there. He knew the yard. He saw the body. He said that he couldn’t possibly have missed it. This outweighs, or should outweigh, all other considerations.

                      Or this quote from the Coroner:


                      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.

                      Were not going to agree George. I’ll certainly admit to my miscalculation but whatever the gap between his knees and the door he couldn’t and didn’t miss that body. Nothing will persuade me of this imo baseless suggestion. He didn’t lie, he wasn’t hiding anything, he wasn’t in cahoots with Cadosch. It’s all very simple. Three witness have Chapman alive at 4.45. She was.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        I am truly sorry you've been lumbered with this nonsense.
                        When a poster refuses to accept what was meant, it's a waste of time & effort trying to explain further.
                        I’m used to it by now Wick.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          Hi George.

                          I had always assumed he meant workers in general, stacking or leaning crates against the fence. Didn't the Richardson's employ casual labour?
                          Hi Jon,

                          Not as far as I know.

                          Amelia Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street, deposed: I am a widow, and occupy half of the house - i.e., the first floor, ground floor, and workshops in the cellar. I carry on the business of a packing-case maker there, and the shops are used by my son John, aged thirty-seven, and a man Francis Tyler, who have worked for me eighteen years. The latter ought to have come at six a.m., but he did not arrive until eight o'clock, when I sent for him. He is often late when we are slack.

                          Seems to indicate they regularly started at 6am or later. Surely Cadosch would have known that?

                          Best regards, George
                          It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                          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 GBinOz View Post

                            I don't understand how that comment relates Herlock.

                            To be clear, I see three possibilities:
                            1. Richardson was the ripper, or an accomplice, and was lying to cover his tracks.
                            2. Richardson did what he told Chandler and the press on the day, and added the step sitting afterwards to make it certain that he would be believed when he said he couldn't have missed the body.
                            3. Richardson did perform the boot repair attempt - what is attempted to be determined here is whether he still could have missed the body.

                            Cheers, George

                            Or, the far more likely, Richardson told Chandler that he’d sat on the step but didn’t bother mentioning the boot because his reason for sitting there wasn’t relevant. Chandler possibly misheard ‘stood’ on the steps, for ‘sat’ on the steps. Reason tells us that as ‘sat on the steps’ appeared in newspaper print from before the inquest it must have come from Richardson himself so he clearly didn’t make it up for the inquest. Some papers mistakenly reported that he’d stood on the steps.

                            No mystery imo. The press make errors. Would Richardson put himself at the scene of the crime with a knife when he didn’t need to. Only if he was a colossal dimwit with a weird death wish.
                            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,

                              Not as far as I know.

                              Amelia Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street, deposed: I am a widow, and occupy half of the house - i.e., the first floor, ground floor, and workshops in the cellar. I carry on the business of a packing-case maker there, and the shops are used by my son John, aged thirty-seven, and a man Francis Tyler, who have worked for me eighteen years. The latter ought to have come at six a.m., but he did not arrive until eight o'clock, when I sent for him. He is often late when we are slack.

                              Seems to indicate they regularly started at 6am or later. Surely Cadosch would have known that?

                              Best regards, George
                              But this wasn’t a ‘clock-in’ job George. No one hears a noise from a yard where work is done and immediately suspects a murder. The natural thing would be to think “they’ve started early this morning; they must have a lot of work on.”
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                Herlock, please, there was no trick photography or strange angles in that video.

                                Cheers, George
                                I wasn’t suggesting trickery George, I was just suggesting geometry. Camera angles can make things seem higher or lower, taller or shorter. I wasn’t suggesting it as a fact, just a possibility.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X