John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is quite clear that the police did look into this thoroughly. To quote Swanson (yet again), "there was not a shred of evidence,suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him." If the police "specially directed their attention to him", they must have carefully checked out every aspect of his story in some detail. Unfortunately, as is the norm, we don't have his detailed witness statement, nor the report and views of the interviewing officers. But they reckon they checked his account thoroughly and cleared him. They had evidence which we don't have, so I am inclined to accept that they probably did their job. We certainly don't have the evidence to dispute it.

It’s difficult to see how this could be disputed Doc. They questioned him at length and believed him. Someone 134 years later suggests that the unknown amount or unknown type of shoe repair or the unknown time that discomfort might have started is cause for doubt. You couldn’t really make it up.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for that Caligo. Although Harry probably won’t accept it unless you produce it in Latin.

lol! or better yet-Pig Latin. ix-nay on the otten-ray

[JeffHamm]

I am sorry Jeff I dont buy it, if you have a pair of boots that need an ajustment by removing a piece you do it asap. and you make the alteration/repair so as to make the boots comfortable, when you think you have made the repair you put the boots back on to see if you have rectified the problem, If you havent then you take them off and try again to make the repair. You dont put them back on and walk around in them for how ever many hours, and if you do then when you take them off last thing at night you make the repair and try them again. If you are to tired to do that, you do it first thing the next morning before you put them on and go out in them.

The police found no evidence of a piece of cut leather

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No worries Trevor. Personally, having repaired my own clothing at times, I have had the experience of a repair that I thought was fine turn out, after a short while, to require a bit more attention. If, for example, his boot repair involved some of the internal leather just not sitting right, during the removal of some of the leather bits that are irritating him the leather will also be pushed back out of the way. It can get caught such that it stays out of the way, making it feel fine. But, after further use, it lets loose again, and while some of it has been removed it turns out not enough of it has been, and it requires more work. That to me sounds like what he's experienced, and the offending bit of leather came loose during his walk to Hanbury Street. If it was not ok at the time he put his boots on, as you say, he would have dealt with it then, but clearly he didn't, so it appears it seemed fine to him at that point in time. Given he works on it after his walk to Hanbury Street, I suggest that something about his repair "came loose" during that walk, starting bothering him again, hence his decision to deal with it at that time. I really don't see how that is contentious, and see no reason to dismiss it in favour of him doing something strange like not continuing to work on it if he knew it was still problematic the day before. And given it's entirely reasonable, it in no way suggests he was lying.

Given the bits he was working on could very well have been quite small, as in shavings, or very tiny slivers, not finding them doesn't mean they weren't there.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

No worries Trevor. Personally, having repaired my own clothing at times, I have had the experience of a repair that I thought was fine turn out, after a short while, to require a bit more attention. If, for example, his boot repair involved some of the internal leather just not sitting right, during the removal of some of the leather bits that are irritating him the leather will also be pushed back out of the way. It can get caught such that it stays out of the way, making it feel fine. But, after further use, it lets loose again, and while some of it has been removed it turns out not enough of it has been, and it requires more work. That to me sounds like what he's experienced, and the offending bit of leather came loose during his walk to Hanbury Street. If it was not ok at the time he put his boots on, as you say, he would have dealt with it then, but clearly he didn't, so it appears it seemed fine to him at that point in time. Given he works on it after his walk to Hanbury Street, I suggest that something about his repair "came loose" during that walk, starting bothering him again, hence his decision to deal with it at that time. I really don't see how that is contentious, and see no reason to dismiss it in favour of him doing something strange like not continuing to work on it if he knew it was still problematic the day before. And given it's entirely reasonable, it in no way suggests he was lying.

Given the bits he was working on could very well have been quite small, as in shavings, or very tiny slivers, not finding them doesn't mean they weren't there.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

And I’d suggest that it’s possible that he might not have removed enough leather first time if he was concerned about potentially ruining a pair of boots and having to buy a new pair. Erring on the side of caution and not doing a sufficient job first time.

[Trevor Marriott]

C'mon Trevor, several posters have tried to explain how the real world works; whether its trimming your boots, or carrying blood soaked rags, you seem to struggle with the simplest tasks.

I know how the real world works I am part of it on a daily basis but it seems your real world is in the land of make believe, and wasnt it you who came up with the suggestion that the killer took away the organs in the apron piece and was it not I that disproved that theory, so you are not in a position to crtiicise me for thinking out of the box. which is what criminal investigators do sometimes in order to prove or dipsrove evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It is quite clear that the police did look into this thoroughly. To quote Swanson (yet again), "there was not a shred of evidence,suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him." If the police "specially directed their attention to him", they must have carefully checked out every aspect of his story in some detail. Unfortunately, as is the norm, we don't have his detailed witness statement, nor the report and views of the interviewing officers. But they reckon they checked his account thoroughly and cleared him. They had evidence which we don't have, so I am inclined to accept that they probably did their job. We certainly don't have the evidence to dispute it.

But the inquest testimony does not answer the question as to why he waited so long to make a second repair to his boot when he had more than enough time to do that long before he got to Hanbury Street

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

No worries Trevor. Personally, having repaired my own clothing at times, I have had the experience of a repair that I thought was fine turn out, after a short while, to require a bit more attention. If, for example, his boot repair involved some of the internal leather just not sitting right, during the removal of some of the leather bits that are irritating him the leather will also be pushed back out of the way. It can get caught such that it stays out of the way, making it feel fine. But, after further use, it lets loose again, and while some of it has been removed it turns out not enough of it has been, and it requires more work. That to me sounds like what he's experienced, and the offending bit of leather came loose during his walk to Hanbury Street. If it was not ok at the time he put his boots on, as you say, he would have dealt with it then, but clearly he didn't, so it appears it seemed fine to him at that point in time. Given he works on it after his walk to Hanbury Street, I suggest that something about his repair "came loose" during that walk, starting bothering him again, hence his decision to deal with it at that time. I really don't see how that is contentious, and see no reason to dismiss it in favour of him doing something strange like not continuing to work on it if he knew it was still problematic the day before. And given it's entirely reasonable, it in no way suggests he was lying.

Given the bits he was working on could very well have been quite small, as in shavings, or very tiny slivers, not finding them doesn't mean they weren't there.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

You must accept that what you postulate is pure conjecture, but the point I raised I belive is relevant to his account, which we have no clear cut answer to and if he had been interviewed properly at the time then it is an issue that should have been expanded on by the police or the coroner.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

...... and wasnt it you who came up with the suggestion that the killer took away the organs in the apron piece and was it not I that disproved that theory,....

You did?

When did that happen?

I certainly don't recall you proving anything on that score, I'll wager no-one else does too.

[Trevor Marriott]

You did?

When did that happen?

I certainly don't recall you proving anything on that score, I'll wager no-one else does too.

You have a short memory but as it goes back years I will let you off

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the inquest testimony does not answer the question as to why he waited so long to make a second repair to his boot when he had more than enough time to do that long before he got to Hanbury Street

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Could you please tell us….

a) what time did Richardson perform his first attempted boot repair?

and,

b) what time after that did his boot begin to hurt again?

If you can’t answer those two questions - and you can’t - then the point that you’re making is moot. Pointless. Irrelevant.

Resulting question - why then are you bothering to make the point in the first place?

Obvious answer - because you are desperate to discredit John Richardson in an attempt to bolster or confirm your own opinion.

Just like you’re desperate to discredit Macnaghten to prove a point.

And you’re desperate to discredit Hutt and Robinson to prove a point.

In fact if I had the inclination I could come up with a fairly significant list of witnesses who you’ve bent over backwards more than Olga Korbutt to try and discredit just to support your own viewpoint Trevor. It’s simply a tactic that you employ in every single debate. If it was up to you it appears that we shouldn’t consider for a second that any witness might have been truthful or not mistaken. You just can’t see the difference between someone considering a possibility and someone assuming something as a fact. It’s why you’re always accusing people of ‘relying’ on things when all that they are actually doing is weighing up the pro’s and cons, assessing the possibilities and coming to their own conclusion which might differ from yours. To dismiss a witness on spurious grounds is just as worthy of criticism as blindly accepting the honest/reliability of a witness. There are others on here who doubt Richardson, that’s fair enough, I strongly disagree with them but it’s fair enough, but only you are going to ridiculous lengths like this fantasy about the boot repair. Frankly I’d be staggered if anyone agreed with you on this particular point that you’re trying to manufacture.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You did?

When did that happen?

I certainly don't recall you proving anything on that score, I'll wager no-one else does too.

Yeah, I can’t recall that one either Wick.

[Wickerman]

You have a short memory but as it goes back years I will let you off

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You're too kind, ...but then if you pressed it you'd feel obliged to show this 'proof', and as it doesn't exist, you'd be accused again of another monumental fail. So yes, I understand.

You're likely talking about that example where you told us you had a uterus & kidney extracted from a body and placed on a cloth. In your opinion the blood stains didn't match (was it too much, or not enough? I can't remember), to what we read on the Eddowes apron. So, in predictable Marriott fashion, you concluded the apron couldn't have carried any organs.
Not that your test example was wrong in any number of ways, no it couldn't be that.

Nothing there constitutes 'proof', PC Marriott, you should know that.

[GBinOz]

No worries Trevor. Personally, having repaired my own clothing at times, I have had the experience of a repair that I thought was fine turn out, after a short while, to require a bit more attention. If, for example, his boot repair involved some of the internal leather just not sitting right, during the removal of some of the leather bits that are irritating him the leather will also be pushed back out of the way. It can get caught such that it stays out of the way, making it feel fine. But, after further use, it lets loose again, and while some of it has been removed it turns out not enough of it has been, and it requires more work. That to me sounds like what he's experienced, and the offending bit of leather came loose during his walk to Hanbury Street. If it was not ok at the time he put his boots on, as you say, he would have dealt with it then, but clearly he didn't, so it appears it seemed fine to him at that point in time. Given he works on it after his walk to Hanbury Street, I suggest that something about his repair "came loose" during that walk, starting bothering him again, hence his decision to deal with it at that time. I really don't see how that is contentious, and see no reason to dismiss it in favour of him doing something strange like not continuing to work on it if he knew it was still problematic the day before. And given it's entirely reasonable, it in no way suggests he was lying.

Given the bits he was working on could very well have been quite small, as in shavings, or very tiny slivers, not finding them doesn't mean they weren't there.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

There is logic in your argument. However, my question is, why would anyone chose to attempt repairs sitting on a damp step when it was only "getting light", when they were only two minutes from their destination at the markets where there would be lamp light and benches to work on? That is were the successful repair ended up happening.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

You must accept that what you postulate is pure conjecture, but the point I raised I belive is relevant to his account, which we have no clear cut answer to and if he had been interviewed properly at the time then it is an issue that should have been expanded on by the police or the coroner.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Of course it's conjecture, but that's all you can offer as well, conjecture that he knew the repair was incomplete prior to putting his boots on that morning. Neither of knows if he did, or did not know, his repair was incomplete. All we know is that he repairs his boot at Hanbury Street (I think the spring from his leggings is an example of Locard's transfer principle, that there will be transfer of material from a person at a scene and from the scene to a person. In this case we see Richardson's spring from his leggings was transferred to the scene, and given his boot repair testimony, that transfer is easy to understand (no, of course, we haven't all the information, like proof the transfer occurred on that occasion, but we're dealing with a case over 130 years old so hardly surprising).

Now, your conjecture, that he knew the repair wasn't good enough is, as you say, hard to fathom and it makes little sense if he knew the repair wasn't done for him not to have worked on it more the day before. My conjecture is that the day before he came to the belief he fixed it, and only became aware of his error after having left to Hanbury Street, hence his stopping to do a bit more work on it while there once he realized he had the rabbit knife. Only after trying to further the repair, and failing, does he conclude the knife isn't good enough, so he attempts a third repair at work with a better tool.

And as I say, both of us have to conjecture what his state of belief with regards to the repair might have been. You point out that your starting point of conjecture leads to irrational behaviour, which I agree with, his behaviour does appear irrational if we accept your conjecture to be true. I argue that my starting point of conjecture shows his behaviour to be entirely rational and easy to understand his choices.

No, that's not proof I'm correct, but it does mean there is no reason to reject his testimony on the grounds that his behaviour was not rational or logical or sensible. That only arises if we make a different conjecture, like the one you suggested, that he knew his boot was not fixed in the first place. Unless you have some evidence that shows that was the case, though, it's conjecture, and it leads to irrational behaviours. Since it is only conjecture, I suggest the fact it leads to irrational behaviour indicates it is a false conjecture, which is how I start my line of reasoning - I suggest he did not know his boot repair was incomplete until after he left for work that morning, and now his behaviour looks entirely reasonable.

Therefore, there is no basis to say he lied about anything from the boot repair sequence. That would only be the case if his behaviour were also irrational under my starting point conditions as well - effectively showing that no matter how we look at it, his story makes no sense.

As I've said many times, we have insufficient information to prove anything in these cases, so the best we can do is see how much we can make sense of and try and work things out that way. I see his story as being entirely sensible once I assume he must have thought his boot repair was fine when he left that morning and only realized it needed further work on his way to Hanbury Street. And because that results in his testimony appearing to be coherant, and because the police of the day did question him and found him to be reliable, I think that suggests my starting point of conjecture is far more likely to have been the case than yours, which by itself produces irrational decisions.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

There is logic in your argument. However, my question is, why would anyone chose to attempt repairs sitting on a damp step when it was only "getting light", when they were only two minutes from their destination at the markets where there would be lamp light and benches to work on? That is were the successful repair ended up happening.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Well, he does say he could see all over the place, so the light must have been good enough. We don't even know what the repair was, but it sort of sounds to me like some bit of leather inside the boot was sticking out/up somewhere and was irritating his foot. It might just have been a very small piece that had to be removed (a pin that has gone through the sole of your shoe is a large irritation even if only the tip of it is actually inside after all!) Upon realising he had the rabbit knife, he might have thought that would work, clearly it didn't, so he tries again later and 3rd time lucky. I suppose if the police questioned him, he could point them to someone at work who could verify his 3rd fixing attempt; but of course we don't know if that happened.

- Jeff