John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

A shoe can begin to be come uncomfortable over a period. If he’d done an initial repair then it would have seemed initially that he’d done a good job but the next morning they had become uncomfortable again. People often try and ‘walk in’ a pair of shoes thinking that they will become more comfortable with wear.

If you are going to imagine what Richardson ‘might’ actually have been thinking or ‘why’ would he have done…….;and how it would have affected his actions why don’t you do the same when faced with the suggested that he lied about repairing his boot on the step?

His aim in lying - to strengthen his claim that he couldn’t have missed the body. Agreed? So……

Why didn’t he simply say that he’d sat on the step for a smoke and couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that when he’d sat on the steps he’d pushed the door back to the fence and couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d stood on the steps and pushed the door back to the fence and couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he just say that he’d stepped into the yard and gone over to the cellar to check and the door had closed on the spring and so he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d gone over to the outside loo and the door had closed meaning that when he’d returned he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d closed the door behind him before he’d sat on the step meaning that he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d stood in the yard having a smoke and the door had closed so he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t the security conscious Richardson say that he’d walked around the yard to check the fences and the outside loo and the door closed behind him meaning that he couldn’t have missed the body?

I always wary of suggesting stupidity as an explanation. Can anyone claim that the above 8 options were anything but childishly obvious? Can anyone claim that his actual explanation didn’t leave more room for doubt? And most important of all can anyone doubt that, at the scene of an horrific murder/mutilation, a man would have been unfeasibly stupid to have lied and put a knife in his own hand at the scene when he had no one else with him to say that he’d done nothing wrong?

Whichever way you look at it, up, down, left, right, the suggestion that John Richardson lied just doesn’t hold water. He had no reason to - he had at least 8 other far simpler and more effective options had he been inclined to - and the option that he supposedly chose was about as dumb as it gets. Could it be clearer?

Well that was the point I was making that his explantion for sitting on the step has now been questioned. and his account of what led him to sit on the step is also questionable based on what a normal average man would have done faced with the same situation. He had ample time to make the repairs before he allegedly sat on the step to do just that.

You need to stick to what is contained in the posts and stop muddying the waters if he lied the reason for lying was that he found himself with a dead and mutilated body and he was in posession of a knife so every reason for not reporting seeing the body for fear of him becoming a suspect

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

George
What concerns me about Richardson and his boot cutting is that he stated he had cut some leather from it the day before and it was still giving him problems. That being said I have to ask why did he not make a second repair that day, or why did he not make the repair that morning before he left his home address. On both occassions he would have had access to the right knives available to him to make the second repair.

I think most people faced with the same situation would make the right repair at the first attempt, after all if your boot is hurting you and you make a repair surely you would after making the first repair make sure that repair had fixed the problem with the boot.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I'm sure if he did the repair the day before he stopped when he thought it was fine, but during his walk to work that day found it was still bothering him and wasn't quite right. As you say, it would be strange to stop if he didn't think it was done at the time.

- Jeff

[Losmandris]

I am amazed this discussion has gone on as long as it has. Surely the balance of probability indicates that the body and Richardson were never in the yard at the smae time. He would not have had to have seen it, the smell of the ripped innards and blood would have been overwhelming I would imagine. Plus if it was light enough in the yard to repair his boot, it was light enough to have seen the body.

[Losmandris]

As mentioned earlier the only reason it would be any different is, if Richardson is the murderer. And again balance of probability wise, he seems like an unlikely candidate. Why all the complexity around something seemingly so obvious?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I'm sure if he did the repair the day before he stopped when he thought it was fine, but during his walk to work that day found it was still bothering him and wasn't quite right. As you say, it would be strange to stop if he didn't think it was done at the time.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

But what about his walk home the previous day from work, after supposedly fixing his boot, he would then have realised that he hadnt fixed it and stopped to fix it either at work or when he got home, or when he put his boots on the following morning before he left for Hanbury Street, why wait till he got to Hanbury Street doenst make any sense.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well that was the point I was making that his explantion for sitting on the step has now been questioned. and his account of what led him to sit on the step is also questionable based on what a normal average man would have done faced with the same situation. He had ample time to make the repairs before he allegedly sat on the step to do just that.

You need to stick to what is contained in the posts and stop muddying the waters if he lied the reason for lying was that he found himself with a dead and mutilated body and he was in posession of a knife so every reason for not reporting seeing the body for fear of him becoming a suspect

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you just ignore the reasons that I’ve just posted to show that he had no reason for lying and that even if he did have a reason he wouldn’t have put himself in situ with a knife whilst in the process completely ignoring the 8 obvious and more effective ‘lies’ he could have told?

So you’re now saying that he saw the body, pretended it wasn’t there, and to try and prove that it wasn’t there he told a lie about being there with a knife! Richardson gets stupider and stupider!

I can’t believe that I’ve just read that point and that it came from an ex-Police Officer. Get a grip Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am amazed this discussion has gone on as long as it has. Surely the balance of probability indicates that the body and Richardson were never in the yard at the smae time. He would not have had to have seen it, the smell of the ripped innards and blood would have been overwhelming I would imagine. Plus if it was light enough in the yard to repair his boot, it was light enough to have seen the body.

That’s exactly what the overwhelming balance of probabilities tell us Tristan.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As mentioned earlier the only reason it would be any different is, if Richardson is the murderer. And again balance of probability wise, he seems like an unlikely candidate. Why all the complexity around something seemingly so obvious?

A question that I’ve asked myself one or two hundred times.

[Trevor Marriott]

So you just ignore the reasons that I’ve just posted to show that he had no reason for lying and that even if he did have a reason he wouldn’t have put himself in situ with a knife whilst in the process completely ignoring the 8 obvious and more effective ‘lies’ he could have told?

So you’re now saying that he saw the body, pretended it wasn’t there, and to try and prove that it wasn’t there he told a lie about being there with a knife! Richardson gets stupider and stupider!

I can’t believe that I’ve just read that point and that it came from an ex-Police Officer. Get a grip Trevor.

There is only one person that needs to get a grip and that is you.

You dont read the posts properly, I simply said if he lied, you clearly dont belive he lied but you need to think outside the box all possibilites need to be considered because of the flaws in his testimony which have been highlighted

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is only one person that needs to get a grip and that is you.

You dont read the posts properly, I simply said if he lied, you clearly dont belive he lied but you need to think outside the box all possibilites need to be considered because of the flaws in his testimony which have been highlighted

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Didn’t you read my post Trevor? I did assess whether he lied or not. I’ve assessed both sides and I don’t just assume that inconvenient witnesses must have lied or been mistaken. I posted 8 very obvious ‘lies’ that he could have told which would have been simpler, more effective and wouldn’t have made the police suspicious about him.

The conclusion is obviously in favour of him not lying. No reason for doing so/ better lies available if he felt the need/ stated under oath etc. Its pretty simple stuff.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Hi Jon,

You may certainly dare to ask why. I'll even add that there was a little more before my quoted statements.

The Coroner-Do you go every morning to see if the cellar is secure?-No; only on market mornings, when I am out early and there's a good lot of people about. I have done so for some months. Is that all you went for?-Yes, sir.

A Juror-His mother said there had been no robberies.

The Witness-She forgot. If you will ask her, you see that it is right.

The Coroner-On other than market mornings do you leave the cellar to take care of itself?-Yes, sir.

Was the front door open on Saturday morning.

The Witness-No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot.

What sort of a knife did you use?-One four or five inches long.

What do you usually use that knife for?-I had been using it to cut up a piece of carrot for the rabbit, and I afterwards put it in my pocket.

Do you generally keep it in your pocket?-No.

Why did you put it there on this occasion?-I suppose it was a mistake on my part.

When you had cut the piece of leather off your boot did you leave the house?-Yes. I tied my boot up and went out. I did not close the back door. It closes itself. I shut the front door. I was not in the house more than two minutes at the most. It was not quite light, but enough for me to see.

Did you notice any object in the yard?-No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.

You have heard where she was found?-Yes, I saw the body.

How came you to see it?-A man in the market told me there had been a murder in Hanbury-street. He did not know at which house. I saw the body from the adjoining yard.

When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.

Then all you did at Hanbury-street was to cut your boot?-That's all, sir.

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?-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.

And that was the sole object you had in going there?-Yes, sir.

Jeff has pointed out that statements can be interpreted differently by different people. I am interpreting based on grammatical construction. Baxter already knew he sat on the second step to cut his boot and may have been trying to trap Richardson by asking, if all he did was cut his boot, and he didn't go in the yard, how come he said he was there to check the lock?
He is referring to Richardson's contention that his purpose in being there was to view the lock, as he had done for two months, and how could he do that if he did not go into the yard. Richard's reply has its subject in his regular checking of the lock, not in his once only sitting on the steps. The object was the lock check. Although Richardson says he started repairs the day before, he doesn't say where, at home, at work, or on the steps?. He testifies he continued repairs that morning sitting on the steps, with a knife he had put in his pocket by mistake, but fails to mention the knife was inadequate for the task until he is required to show it to the coroner. He that remembers that he finished the job with a borrowed knife when he got to the markets.

Jon, are you really suggesting that he was telling the coroner that he could only see the lock when he was sitting on the step? That the step sitting was part of the two month lock checking procedure? The coroner obviously had doubts about his story because he chose to double check with John's mother in John's absence.
My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.
Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

Richardson decided to attempt a second repair in the dark on the steps instead of a few minutes later at the market where he eventually succeeded. When do you suppose that he remembered that he had a knife in his pocket that he had mistakenly put there?

You were asking if I was contriving to present only evidence that supported, and did not contradict, my opinions. I didn't include the inquest extracts before or after because I didn't want to expand the post with what I considered irrelevancies. I hope I have alleviated your suspicion with my explanations.

Best regards, George

Ola GB.
It seems Richardson and his ma couldn't keep their stories straight. I like when confronted with his ma's statement about robberies he's all like ask her again. Basically, after he's coached her what's about to happen. That really wouldn't fly in 2022. Also notice when asked if he went INTO the yard he said no and repeated the word into. Ok back to language again, in his mind he didn't go INTO the yard, but this still leaves the door open (pun unavoidable) for being in the yard like on the edge by the cellar steps. For all intents and purposes, he's not lying but playing with words while maintaining a truthful demeanor.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Well that was the point I was making that his explantion for sitting on the step has now been questioned. and his account of what led him to sit on the step is also questionable based on what a normal average man would have done faced with the same situation. He had ample time to make the repairs before he allegedly sat on the step to do just that.

You need to stick to what is contained in the posts and stop muddying the waters if he lied the reason for lying was that he found himself with a dead and mutilated body and he was in posession of a knife so every reason for not reporting seeing the body for fear of him becoming a suspect

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Assuming you're correct and he saw the body but wasn't the killer one reason he may have lied is because he robbed the body of its brass rings and some things we don't know about?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Jon, are you really suggesting that he was telling the coroner that he could only see the lock when he was sitting on the step? That the step sitting was part of the two month lock checking procedure? The coroner obviously had doubts about his story because he chose to double check with John's mother in John's absence.
My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.
Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

The simplest explanations are usually the best ones imo.

After the discovery of the body John Richardson would naturally have discussed the events of that morning with his mother during which he would have told her about his sitting on the step and repairing his boot. This surely can’t be considered a stretch of anyone’s imagination? It would also have been very reasonable for her to have asked him if he was certain that he hadn’t been into the yard especially if she’d assumed that Richardson had usually checked the lock by doing just that. And it would have been an assumption on her part because she wouldn’t have been present when he usually checked the lock and there would have been absolutely no reason for her son to have told her how he checked the lock or where he’d usually stood. He’d have simply said “I’ve checked the cellar lock” if he’d seen his mother, and not “I stepped into the yard, took two paces to the right…..etc” or “I stood on the top step, ducked down, and turned to the right etc.” So no explanation as to how he’d usually checked the locks.

And so, when asked, Amelia Richardson stated that her son didn’t need to go into the yard to check the lock because he’d told her on the morning of the discovery of the body that he’d done it from a position sitting on the steps.

There’s nothing mysterious or sinister going on here. It’s simple.

[GBinOz]

A shoe can begin to be come uncomfortable over a period. If he’d done an initial repair then it would have seemed initially that he’d done a good job but the next morning they had become uncomfortable again. People often try and ‘walk in’ a pair of shoes thinking that they will become more comfortable with wear.

If you are going to imagine what Richardson ‘might’ actually have been thinking or ‘why’ would he have done…….;and how it would have affected his actions why don’t you do the same when faced with the suggested that he lied about repairing his boot on the step?

His aim in lying - to strengthen his claim that he couldn’t have missed the body. Agreed? So……

Why didn’t he simply say that he’d sat on the step for a smoke and couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that when he’d sat on the steps he’d pushed the door back to the fence and couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d stood on the steps and pushed the door back to the fence and couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he just say that he’d stepped into the yard and gone over to the cellar to check and the door had closed on the spring and so he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d gone over to the outside loo and the door had closed meaning that when he’d returned he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d closed the door behind him before he’d sat on the step meaning that he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d stood in the yard having a smoke and the door had closed so he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t the security conscious Richardson say that he’d walked around the yard to check the fences and the outside loo and the door closed behind him meaning that he couldn’t have missed the body?

I always wary of suggesting stupidity as an explanation. Can anyone claim that the above 8 options were anything but childishly obvious? Can anyone claim that his actual explanation didn’t leave more room for doubt? And most important of all can anyone doubt that, at the scene of an horrific murder/mutilation, a man would have been unfeasibly stupid to have lied and put a knife in his own hand at the scene when he had no one else with him to say that he’d done nothing wrong?

Whichever way you look at it, up, down, left, right, the suggestion that John Richardson lied just doesn’t hold water. He had no reason to - he had at least 8 other far simpler and more effective options had he been inclined to - and the option that he supposedly chose was about as dumb as it gets. Could it be clearer?

Hi Herlock,

A shoe may become uncomfortable over a period, but he had plenty of time to make further repairs in more opportune circumstances. Why pick the two minutes he usually spent checking the lock?

There is little to gain in pointing out what he could have said. No one knows why he didn't use those explanations. We only know what explanation he did use, and it doesn't pass the pub test.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

As mentioned earlier the only reason it would be any different is, if Richardson is the murderer. And again balance of probability wise, he seems like an unlikely candidate. Why all the complexity around something seemingly so obvious?

Hi Tristan,

For JtR to escape justice, he would need to look like an unlikely candidate.

Cheers, George