John Richardson

[Abby Normal]

He's my suspect of the week Abby, lol. I do like Hutchinson as well. It's all so maddening!

ok cool. yes it is. its one the rare unsolved serial killer cases where im also bamboozled and there are no strong suspects. hutch is my favored but i think a handful of others are also the least weak. while a valid suspect imho richardson is a long shot, but hes exactly the type of suspect that needs looking into.

hey whats the meaning of your screen name the macdonald triad?

[harry]

If what I say Wickerman is nonsense,why do you allow Herlock to speak for you.I have explained why you cannot use a generalisation.There are too many laws,each with their own interpretation and characteristics.Military law for example,is quite different to criminal law,so is the Concilliation and Arbitration laws.Some laws are not conducted under oath.In those cases there can be no case for perjury,and a person cannot be held in contempt.So the excuse of generalisation,and the nonsense given to support that arguement is invalid.You and Herlock know it but you haven't the guts to admit it.

[The Macdonald Triad]

ok cool. yes it is. its one the rare unsolved serial killer cases where im also bamboozled and there are no strong suspects. hutch is my favored but i think a handful of others are also the least weak. while a valid suspect imho richardson is a long shot, but hes exactly the type of suspect that needs looking into.

hey whats the meaning of your screen name the macdonald triad?

It's three proposed precursors to serial killers. Cruelty to animals, arson, and bedwetting. I wouldn't doubt it if there are arson cases on the books going back no more than 20 years from 1888 that Jack would be involved.

[Wickerman]

Found this illustration online by Alan Clark 2017 and while Chapman and the girl is a bit silly it's the closest to accurate representation of the height of the canopy. Compare it to the original I posted earlier. No way Richardson can see anything from the top step unless he's a circus acrobat.

Nice pic. I don't know if you've been following the thread, but if you look back at page 5, there are several sketches on this very subject (the canopy), we've been debating the finer details from about page 3, onwards.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Nice pic. I don't know if you've been following the thread, but if you look back at page 5, there are several sketches on this very subject (the canopy), we've been debating the finer details from about page 3, onwards.

I had gotten up to around page 18 and couldn't restrain myself anymore so I had to log in. I usually read a couple of pages a night before bedtime but I do remember the illustrations more than the actual conversations. But I did just reread page 5 and it looks like we're essentially on the same page. Pun intended. People take those illustrations for granted. Here's one where the sides are enclosed. Lack of journalistic integrity me thinks. Would you agree that sitting on the middle step with the door propped open, given where the second step is in relation to the bottom edge of the door would make it impossible not to see a body? I do. But then we run into the whole body cooling faster than usual debate. Does rigor mortis automatically follow a fast cooling?

[FISHY1118]

How would you explain the news stories that Joshua posted that did mention the sitting on the steps? They could only have got that from Richardson himself. Therefore as there were newspaper stories at the same time that omit this we surely can believe that Richardson gave different stories at different interviews. The stories where the steps are omitted were surely a result of Press error. I posted a few other examples of press error too. One from as late as the 10th that said that John Davis ‘crossed the yard.’ We don’t believe that to have been the case so why can’t the examples of omitted the sitting on the steps have been Press error too?

Im aware of the press reports that mentions the boot cutting ,as im aware of the press report that George posted that mention just what he told to chandler . [ can you repost please george,? i cant see where it was ]. If there from two different newspaper sourses are you claiming one [ the one that doesnt mention a boot is somehow an error ?. Im not sure how you come up with that .

[FISHY1118]

I had gotten up to around page 18 and couldn't restrain myself anymore so I had to log in. I usually read a couple of pages a night before bedtime but I do remember the illustrations more than the actual conversations. But I did just reread page 5 and it looks like we're essentially on the same page. Pun intended. People take those illustrations for granted. Here's one where the sides are enclosed. Lack of journalistic integrity me thinks. Would you agree that sitting on the middle step with the door propped open, given where the second step is in relation to the bottom edge of the door would make it impossible not to see a body? I do. But then we run into the whole body cooling faster than usual debate. Does rigor mortis automatically follow a fast cooling?

As these drawings show if indeed Richardson stood on the step and he only opened the door 35degrees, on that angle he only needed to look hard to his right to check the cellar door. And look into the yard without glancing to his left to spot Chapmans body

From the height of the steps he would have had to look straight down and slighly to his left to see her body , remembering he only went to check the cellar down, which he might have done many times befor. He knew just a slight opening of the door then put his head around would allow him to see the cellar door lock easily.

So i believe its just possible he did miss chapmans body .

That is of course we believe Insp Chandler when he said Richardson made no mention of sitting on the step to cut the leather from his boot .

Its worth remembering these two sketches done by two different hands, there similarities should not go unnoticed when judgeing there accuracy of the crime scene . These, according to casebooks own record are ''Contemporary Newspaper Illustration '' [happening at the same time or happening now]


Seriously ,some of those other sketchers should never have been posted when discussing whether Richardson could have seen the lock from a standing postion on the step. In my opinion and others its quite clear he was more than able to see the lock according to these two sketchers.

His own mother testifiyed that he could see the lock from the step , he regulary checked the cellar door/lock on market mornings, are we to assume that everytime he did this he sat on the middle step ? yes ,he could on those accasions walked down the steps facing the cellar door and checked it, so both work. .

However on that morning he told Chandler he didnt do that .No need to quote what he said ,ive done that enough . As ive also done by admitting if he sat on the step if the body was there he would have see it . No problem .


If you havent already my post #450 sums up this incident, and why its not just a clear cut certainty what richardson claimed he did on that morning .

[FISHY1118]

But if he only stood on the step with the door being propped open with his body and he looked to the right he could not have seen the body

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Correct.

[Wickerman]

..... Would you agree that sitting on the middle step with the door propped open, given where the second step is in relation to the bottom edge of the door would make it impossible not to see a body? I do.

Yes, I feel quite sure the body would be seen.

But then we run into the whole body cooling faster than usual debate. Does rigor mortis automatically follow a fast cooling?

Rigor Mortis occurs regardless how fast or slow the body cools, it's a chemical reaction.
Heat, or a warmer ambient temperature can speed up the process, whereas cooler temps. slow it down.
The chemical reaction can be sped up if the body is infected, infection creates heat, putrification also produces heat.

[The Macdonald Triad]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n790381]






Seriously ,some of those other sketchers should never have been posted when discussing whether Richardson could have seen the lock from a standing postion on the step. In my opinion and others its quite clear he was more than able to see the lock according to these two sketchers.

nitHis own mother testifiyed that he could see the lock from the step , he regulary checked the cellar door/lock on market mornings, are we to assume that everytime he did this he sat on the middle step ? yes ,he could on those accasions walked down the steps facing the cellar door and checked it, so both work. .

However on that morning he told Chandler he didnt do that .No need to quote what he said ,ive done that enough . As ive also done by admitting if he sat on the step if the body was there he would have see it . No problem .


Hello Fishy,

I trimmed down some of your quote to address what I feel is pertinent. First off you say "In my opinion and others it's quite clear he was more than able to see the lock ACCORDING TO THESE TWO SKETCHERS."

Huh? Your opinion is based from sketches that have obviously falsely raised the canopy several feet and not actual factual photos?

And his Mother testified he could see the lock from which step? The top step? Which top step? The one going into the yard or the one to the cellar? A Mother is incapable of lying under oath? She already did the Bible dance by kissing the Bible at the inquest and lied about prozzies using the public areas to play their trade. And then what you say after that I think only you understand. No offense but I'm having difficulty following what you're trying to say at different points.

Then lastly yes I can agree with that, if he sat on the step he would have seen the body. Except he DID sit on the step, no ifs ands or buts about it. And CLAIMS to not to have seen anything.

I find it odd that you would dwell on such a trivilaity. Why are you so insistent he never sat on the step when he clearly copped to it later on official record at an Inquest? How does this one detail derail your agenda?

[The Macdonald Triad]

Correct.

Fishy, it's obvious the real backyard photo (70 years later) has holes under the window used for the canopy. It's not like it was rebuilt and two new flagpole holes or light fixture holes were smashed in there in the 70-year interim. The leftover wood was still being used to cover the cellar. From the top step (not the landing) it's approximately 7-8 courses of brick. The illustration I posted is the only illustration I know of at this time that comes close. Your "sketchers" you rely on were flat out wrong.

[FISHY1118]

You lost me when you you said that the sketches from two different persons hand who, mind you were almost certain to have been on that very spot just after the murder looking right at the very object they were copying were "flat out wrong". ASTONISHING. please forgive me if I cross you off my " don't bother to reply list ".

I could reply to the rest of your post but as you missed the whole point of what I was explaining there's really no need is there.

[FISHY1118]

If you'd also been reading the all the post like you said you have all the things you posted
were already discussed , i suggest you might want to go back and reread some of them, as its explained quite clearly .

[Herlock Sholmes]

If what I say Wickerman is nonsense,why do you allow Herlock to speak for you.I have explained why you cannot use a generalisation.There are too many laws,each with their own interpretation and characteristics.Military law for example,is quite different to criminal law,so is the Concilliation and Arbitration laws.Some laws are not conducted under oath.In those cases there can be no case for perjury,and a person cannot be held in contempt.So the excuse of generalisation,and the nonsense given to support that arguement is invalid.You and Herlock know it but you haven't the guts to admit it.

Neither Wickerman or myself would claim to be experts on the law Harry (far from it my case at least) but I’m confident that we are both aware that the inquest wasn’t conducted under military law (or any other law for that matter apart from the law governing inquests.) Whether other proceedings aren’t conducted under oath or not is irrelevant to this debate because we all know that this particular one certainly was….so basically you have introduced a distraction. As you should have noticed not even the posters who challenge Richardson have come to agree with you on this particular point and it’s because they can see that you are plainly arguing for the sake of it. There’s enough to debate on this subject Harry without manufacturing things.

Witnesses at an inquest swear an oath which tells them 2 things…. 1) that God expects them to tell the truth (an important consideration in a more religious age than our own), and 2) that a witness can be punished in law (even with a term of imprisonment) for lying under oath. Nothing can prevent lying of course and no law can possibly eliminate lies, but your suggestion that Wickerman was claiming such a thing is not believable I’m afraid. Why do you defend that position instead of simply accepting that you misunderstood the point that Wick was making?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im aware of the press reports that mentions the boot cutting ,as im aware of the press report that George posted that mention just what he told to chandler . [ can you repost please george,? i cant see where it was ]. If there from two different newspaper sourses are you claiming one [ the one that doesnt mention a boot is somehow an error ?. Im not sure how you come up with that .

Because it would have been easy for a reporter to have assumed mistakenly that he’d stood on the steps but a reporter couldn’t have assumed the much more specific ‘sitting on the steps to repair a boot.’ So that particular explanation must have been one that Richardson had actually spoken of. Basically what I’m saying is that a reporter couldn’t have mistakenly heard an incorrect story about him sitting on the steps to repair his boot from another source.