John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

Hi Doc,

I agree that there is much conflicting evidence in the newspaper reports, but they are largely all we have, so if we don't take too much stock of them, what do we have to talk about?

Richardson may have just been brief in his initial statement to Chandler, but such brevity would not be expected when talking to the press.

Star 8 Sep:
I always go round to mother's (Mrs. Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street) on market mornings just to see that everything is right in the back-yard, where her underground packing-case workshops are. The place was burgled a short time back. This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there.

Daily News 10 Sep:
John Richardson, living in the house, states that he, in accordance with his usual practice, entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall Market, and at that time, 4.50, he was certain no one was in the yard.

Not a word about his boot, just his usual practice. Not even one mention of Herlock's eight alternative stories.

There are some reports that convey the feeling of the time as well as the words.
East London Observer 15 Sep
The Coroner was very severe on him over the story of the knife with which he had cut a piece of leather off his boot before five o'clock on Friday morning, on the stone steps near which the body was found. He wanted to know why he had the knife, why he should put a table knife in his pocket, and altogether made the witness look very uneasy and very uncomfortable. His discomfort was increased when, at the suggestion of the Coroner, he was sent off in charge of Inspector Chandler to find the knife with which he had cut the leather off his boot.

Daily News 14 Sep
The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable. The jury questioned the police-officer with the view of ascertaining whether it may have been possible that when Richardson went to the yard the body might have been laying there without his perceiving it. The inspector thought that it was very possible if he had only gone to the top of the steps. In that case, as the door opened outwards, it might have concealed the body behind it. Richardson, however, had sworn that he sat on the middle step with his feet on the ground, to cut a piece from his shoe, and it was allowed that in this position he must inevitably have seen the murdered woman. The importance of this point is that upon it depends the limitation of the time within which the murder must have been committed.
The boldened seems to sort out that it is the house steps being talked about, not the cellar steps. It also appears that coroner and the jury were part of the "soft conspiracy".

Echo 14 Sep:
It is regarded as of considerable importance that Dr. Philips yesterday established the fact that the deceased must have been lying in the backyard in Hanbury street at least upwards of two hours before her body was found, and that young Richardson, therefore, must have been mistaken in his evidence.

There is our alternative. Richardson wasn't lying, just mistaken in his evidence.

Well researched post George, pretty much explains what I've been saying all along about conflicting evidence and confusion with witness testimony, and press reports that differ in many ways .in this case I just don't see how anyone could conclude one way or the other the truth of what transpired that morning with J R. And Chandler.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So he could have sat on the steps with the door between the steps thus hiding the body !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats it then, mystery solved he didnt lie, he sat on the step to repair his boot, and could not have seen the body because the door was blocking his view. Might as well close the thread down now, Phillips was right, Richardson didnt see the body !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nice try.

Richardson actually saw the body. He knew for a fact that he couldn’t have missed it. And he was right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well researched post George, pretty much explains what I've been saying all along about conflicting evidence and confusion with witness testimony, and press reports that differ in many ways .in this case I just don't see how anyone could conclude one way or the other the truth of what transpired that morning with J R. And Chandler.

Because we have Richardson at the inquest telling us that he’d sat on the step. And that should be the end of it. No need for works of fantasy. Chances of Richardson lying - virtually non-existansnt. There should be no real need even to discus it.

[FISHY1118]

Because we have Richardson at the inquest telling us that he’d sat on the step. And that should be the end of it. No need for works of fantasy. Chances of Richardson lying - virtually non-existansnt. There should be no real need even to discus it.

The fact you choose the word fantasy when many posters have shown that evidence exists which shows conflict and confusion between different version of events with witnesses and the press, is strange to say the least . If you feel that strongly and not willing to be at least open minded to other possibilities then perhaps best you don't discuss it .

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact you choose the word fantasy when many posters have shown that evidence exists which shows conflict and confusion between different version of events with witnesses and the press, is strange to say the least . If you feel that strongly and not willing to be at least open minded to other possibilities then perhaps best you don't discuss it .

I use the word fantasy because balance is lacking. All across this case there are obvious discrepancies, errors, disagreements which give us at least 2 points of view (often more) on each topic. But that doesn’t mean that each side carries equal weight and that’s the case here. The side of the argument that points to Richardson telling the truth and the side where he lied aren’t close. They aren’t even remotely close. Just because we can say “it’s not physically impossible that Richardson might have changed his story” this doesn’t add weight to it because there is no real weight to it. And when we consider the fact that even if it were the case then it still wouldn’t mean that he’d lied or had anything to hide. So the case that Richardson lied is not worth discussing because it makes no sense whichever way you look at it. It’s a non-starter that we can safely dismiss.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nice try.

Richardson actually saw the body. He knew for a fact that he couldn’t have missed it. And he was right.

But he wasnt looking for a body, or anything, or anyone if he is to be believed, he sat on the step with the door propped up against his leg restricting his view on where the body was, a simple explanation no need for anyone to accuse him of lying.

Even you cant negate that explantion, but I am sure you will give it a good try in your inimitable blinkered approach to this topic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

The Echo 10 Sept;

"At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, of 2, St. John-street, son of the landlady of 29, Hanbury-street, the proprietor of a packing-case business, as usual went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. A short while before there had been a burglary in this place. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot. The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. The man is quite clear that he saw nothing to attract his attention before he left. "

2 days before he testified at the inquest George.

Two press interviews on the same day, one with the boot, one without. What this tells us is it was 2 days before he testified at the inquest that he started to change his story. Perhaps a journalist raised the same question as the jury regarding him missing the body during his "usual practice", so he shifted the boot cutting forward from the market to the yard. Even then the journalist suggests that the door may still had hidden the body. It has to be accepted that there was a great deal of suspicion about Richardson's story at the time. To quote the Daily Mail: "The importance of this point is that upon it depends the limitation of the time within which the murder must have been committed.".

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

But he wasnt looking for a body, or anything, or anyone if he is to be believed, he sat on the step with the door propped up against his leg restricting his view on where the body was, a simple explanation no need for anyone to accuse him of lying.

Even you cant negate that explantion, but I am sure you will give it a good try in your inimitable blinkered approach to this topic

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A child could negate it because you’ve had to fall back on the assumption the Richardson was a cretin who couldn’t understand that you can’t see through a door! I’ll repeat, he’d seen the body in situ so he knew it’s exact position on the ground. It also meant that he’d have known exactly how much floor space the body would have taken up. Therefore he couldn’t have been more aware if the door could have hidden the body or not. He was 100% confident that it couldn’t. He was there. We weren’t…….and neither was Annie Chapman.

[Wickerman]

But he wasnt looking for a body, or anything, or anyone if he is to be believed, he sat on the step with the door propped up against his leg restricting his view on where the body was,.....

Where does Richardson actually say that?

I know we've all spoken about him holding that door open, but how sure are we that we have not made the wrong assumption?

I did mention this before, that perhaps this is the reason he sat on the second step, because he let the door close, and that would mean there was no top step to sit on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two press interviews on the same day, one with the boot, one without. What this tells us is it was 2 days before he testified at the inquest that he started to change his story. Perhaps a journalist raised the same question as the jury regarding him missing the body during his "usual practice", so he shifted the boot cutting forward from the market to the yard. Even then the journalist suggests that the door may still had hidden the body. It has to be accepted that there was a great deal of suspicion about Richardson's story at the time. To quote the Daily Mail: "The importance of this point is that upon it depends the limitation of the time within which the murder must have been committed.".

Cheers, George

If he had changed his story, which he clearly didn’t, then why change it to a story that doesn’t achieve the purpose for which the lie was supposedly intended George? It didn’t change the fact that people could still say “well how do you know that the body wasn’t behind the door?” It would have been a pointless, useless lie that only served to make the police look closer at him. I just don’t see how anyone could think that this is reasonable. Just to take one of the 8 or 9 immeasurably more effective lies…… why didn’t he simply say “I sat on the step and pushed the door back to the fence so I couldn’t have missed the body?” Again it’s a case of resorting to “Richardson was a moron.”

For me, the case that Richardson told the truth is 99.99% proven. It’s as clear as can be.

[Trevor Marriott]

A child could negate it because you’ve had to fall back on the assumption the Richardson was a cretin who couldn’t understand that you can’t see through a door! I’ll repeat, he’d seen the body in situ so he knew it’s exact position on the ground. It also meant that he’d have known exactly how much floor space the body would have taken up. Therefore he couldn’t have been more aware if the door could have hidden the body or not. He was 100% confident that it couldn’t. He was there. We weren’t…….and neither was Annie Chapman.

You dont listen do you, it has been explained that if he did sit on the step as he states with the door propped open against him he could not have seen the body. As for your contiuning statement that he says there was no body to see, there wouldnt have been because all he would have been able to see was what was in front of him and to his right which is the area he was focussed on having gone there for just that purpose.

Phillips estimated TOD is correct which puts the murder in the same time frame as all the other victims

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Where does Richardson actually say that?

I know we've all spoken about him holding that door open, but how sure are we that we have not made the wrong assumption?

I did mention this before, that perhaps this is the reason he sat on the second step, because he let the door close, and that would mean there was no top step to sit on.

He’s making it up Wick.

[Wickerman]

He’s making it up Wick.

Silly me!

[Herlock Sholmes]

You dont listen do you, it has been explained that if he did sit on the step as he states with the door propped open against him he could not have seen the body. As for your contiuning statement that he says there was no body to see, there wouldnt have been because all he would have been able to see was what was in front of him and to his right which is the area he was focussed on having gone there for just that purpose.

Phillips estimated TOD is correct which puts the murder in the same time frame as all the other victims

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

More kindergarten logic!

I do ‘listen’ Trevor but you can’t understand this because, as I’ve pointed out many times, you don’t seem to be able to grasp the idea that people don’t just assume something to be true or valid just because you’ve said it. So I ‘listened’ to your opinion and disagree. And few posters on here are so consistently wrong as you are.

There’s no real point in explaining a childishly simple concept that seems beyond you. If it was possible for the body to have remained hidden by the door from the position that Richardson was in, he would have been fully aware of that fact. Did someone fail to remind him that he didn’t have x-ray vision? Or that the back door of 29 Hanbury Street wasn’t made of glass? If a Police Officer had said “but isn’t it possible that the body might have been concealed by the door and you simply didn’t see it?” he had a very simple answer if it had been true “yes, I suppose that it could have been there and I didn’t see it.” But no, he was adamant that the body couldn’t have been there, because he knew exactly how much of that yard he could see, he knew exactly where the body had been and he knew exactly how much floor space the body had taken up. How for example could he have been certain that some witness might not have come forward and said “yes I saw Annie Chapman enter the yard with a bloke at about 3.30 and 5 minutes later I saw the bloke leave on his own.” Exposing Richardson as a liar. Every way we look at it favours Richardson as being truthful.

Yet 134 years later you know better based on a doctors estimated TOD which we KNOW to have been unreliable and which we have absolutely no way of assessing it’s accuracy. But you in your allegedly unbiased way still back a 50-50 estimation. It’s barely believable. And you back this by trying to claim that you can predict the actions and thought processes of a maniac who went around murdering a mutilating women.

So to dismiss a perfectly normal bloke with absolutely no reason to lie who, as far as we know wasn’t partially sighted or an imbecile, and whose testimony is supported by another witness you favour a doctors 50-50 estimation and your ability to second guess a serial killer.

Annie Chapman was killed sometime after 5.15. She certainly wasn’t dead in the yard when Richardson couldn’t have missed her and I doubt that her ghost brushed against the fence when Cadosch heard the noise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Silly me!

Go with the form Wick