John Richardson

[The Macdonald Triad]

But if he was seated on the first step that would effect his line of vision with the door being propped open by his leg or his arm we are looking at this from the wrong angle we should look at it from the angle from the inside of 29 looking out

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Except he said himself he was on the second step with his feet on the flagstones of the yard. Stop trying to move the goalposts lol.

[The Macdonald Triad]

hi mac
excellent photo! now just add the body lol! as everyone can see her head and face would have been inches from his left foot and her body and legs extending out clearly right in his line of view (even with the door propped up against him!) and as jerryd pointed out her legs were spread/ splayed which would have put them even closer him and his line of sight.

there is no way if she was there he could have missed her. i cant even believe people debate this, its utterly ridiculous.

Thanks Abby. I thought about it afterwards but we all know where the body was anyway.

[Wickerman]

........ with the door being propped open by his leg or his arm ......

Isn't it about time we dropped this idea that the door rested against his leg/arm?

Isn't this another one of those 'unsafe' assumptions, or perhaps you can show where it is written?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How about some perspective? I've used a random stock image of a guy tying his shoe. His image has 4 steps but I've lined up the other 3 as you can see by the opacity. If there was a body, his left foot would be right next to intestines and her right shoulder and head. Her legs were propped up with her soles flat and she was wearing bright red and white stockings. Now if that door was level with the ground there might be a case for him not seeing (if it was there) the body.

Excellent picture Mac. And as we can see that the door in that photo is at a level with the top of his legs but George estimated a gap of 3 inches which would have made it even less likely that he could have missed the body.

Plus he’d have had to have pushed the door open pretty close to the angle in the photo to have allowed himself to walk down 3 steps without bumping into the door with his body. He’d have seen half of the body at least.

[Wickerman]

How about some perspective? I've used a random stock image of a guy tying his shoe. His image has 4 steps but I've lined up the other 3 as you can see by the opacity. If there was a body, his left foot would be right next to intestines and her right shoulder and head. Her legs were propped up with her soles flat and she was wearing bright red and white stockings. Now if that door was level with the ground there might be a case for him not seeing (if it was there) the body.

Hey Mac.
Can you work your magic with this picture below?
Show the person sat with the door closed behind him, though the angle may be wrong.
The red mark means nothing, if you can erase it that would be great.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if he was seated on the first step that would effect his line of vision with the door being propped open by his leg or his arm we are looking at this from the wrong angle we should look at it from the angle from the inside of 29 looking out from the hallway

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why should we make things up just to make your opinion fit?

[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

Out of 3 steps that means…not the top one….not the bottom one…..but the one he’s sitting on in the photo.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Hey Mac.
Can you work your magic with this picture below?
Show the person sat with the door closed behind him, though the angle may be wrong.
The red mark means nothing, if you can erase it that would be great.

Without door open.

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Mac.

I can see his legs are bent too acute to have him sat on the higher (2nd) step, thats not your fault, his feet are on the yard.
At least it gives us an idea of how it looked - in my view of course - thankyou.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Thankyou Mac.

I can see his legs are bent too acute to have him sat on the higher (2nd) step, thats not your fault, his feet are on the yard.
At least it gives us an idea of how it looked - in my view of course - thankyou.

No problem. It's not meant to be 100% accurate but yes it's just some perspective. The door would mean nothing (unless someone was standing up in the corner itself) because at the very least he would see her legs. Is that red line in your version meant to be the least possible opening with viewing the lock from the landing?

[Abby Normal]

i hope now that macs excellent picture proves once and for all...door closed or resting against him, he would have seen the body. it cant get any clearer than that.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Thanks Abby. Something to consider. The coroner at the inquest probably did not have a crime scene photo to go from. Depending on the dates of those illustrations showing the backyard with the canopy raised by a good three feet from actual, he may have actually gone off the illustrations. It really stinks that a detective didn't verify Richardson's multiple stories with a demo.

[The Macdonald Triad]

But if he was seated on the first step that would effect his line of vision with the door being propped open by his leg or his arm we are looking at this from the wrong angle we should look at it from the angle from the inside of 29 looking out from the hallway

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

To be fair Trevor, you are correct in that we need to see out from Richardson's POV. Before I made that photo I watched this but they bottled it at the last second and went out backwards. https://jtr3d.com/category/hanbury-street/

[Herlock Sholmes]

i hope now that macs excellent picture proves once and for all...door closed or resting against him, he would have seen the body. it cant get any clearer than that.

In my opinion Abby he’d have seen the body before he sat down. As Wick also pointed out, he’d have opened the door pretty wide (90+ degrees imo) so that he could walked forward and down 3 steps. Unless it’s being suggested of course that he walked down the steps pushing the door open with his body to the absolute minimum extent for him to have been able to place both of his feet on the flags, but how far do we have to keep bending over backwards in an effort to engineer such circumstances that allow for the body not to have been seen?

[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard.

I’d say that’s it’s about time that the demonisation of John Richardson should end.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One last point for the night. Although there’s rarely such thing as a perfect witness we have two witnesses who tell us (no matter how much it irritates some) that Annie Chapman died sometime around 5.20. There’s a third witness of course in Elizabeth Long. We discussed timing a lot on other threads recently - how in the LVP many people relied on being ‘knocked up’ to get to work on time, how many relied on hearing church bells or factory clocks. Most posters accept the indisputable fact that we should always keep in mind a margin for error when it comes to timing; especially with recollections of timings. Not that we should stretch things beyond reason of course.

With that in mind we should accept the very real possibility that Elizabeth Long simply saw two different people and that the woman just resembled Annie Chapman. But….is it too much to wonder if she was simply 15 minutes out in her timing….because if she had heard the quarter past bells and mistaken them for the half past bells then she might have seen Annie just a minute or two before she entered the backyard. Just a quarter of the clock and we have perfect timing. No we shouldn’t get carried away but I think that we would be remiss (whether intentionally or unintentionally) in not considering this very real possibility. As someone is bustling along with there mind on other things and they realise that a distant bell is chiming, how easy would it be, when thinking back, to mistake how long that bell had been chiming when first noticed? How easy when not paying attention to only notice a part of the chime especially when chimes occur all over London and are a part of the soundtrack of London life. There has to be a very plausible possibility that Elizabeth Long might simply have been wrong in her timing.

And if that were the case I’d ask this question……..I wonder what the odds would be, at one murder scene, of the 3 vital witnesses all being mistaken or dishonest?

[Fleetwood Mac]

You are wrong his first action would have been to push the door open while standing on the step, he would only have need to open the door enough to look to the right at that point the door would have been blocking him from seeing where the body was. He then sits down with the door pushing agsinst his leg and the angle is still preventing him from seeing the body

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The inquest statements given by John Davies may prove useful:

There was a little recess on the left. From the steps to the fence is about 3 ft. There are three stone steps, unprotected, leading from the door to the yard, which is at a lower level than that of the passage. Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the lefthand recess, between the stone steps and the fence. She was on her back, with her head towards the house and her legs towards the wood shed. The clothes were up to her groins. I did not go into the yard.

I opened the back door, and stood in the entrance.

'Seems to me John Davies did not go into the yard and probably didn't go onto a step, but he saw Annie's body.