Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Another point which favours Richardson telling the truth is one that I don’t think has been mentioned so far, but if it has and I missed it then my apologies to whoever brought it up.

    On a previous thread when the question was raised - why didn’t Richardson simply not mention going to number 29 that morning - it was suggested that it might have been the case that someone could have come forward to say that they had seen him enter the yard and exit the yard that morning (someone living across the street for example). It’s a perfectly valid suggestion and something I can’t see anyone disagreeing with. Bearing that point in mind we have Richardson saying this at the inquest:

    “[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.”

    If, as has been suggested, Richardson had simply gone to the yard door, partially opened it, checked the lock then left (as he wouldn’t have stood there for any length of time with the door partially open) What would have happened if he had been seen? The witness would have testified to seeing John Richardson entering the front door then exiting a matter of 10 or 15 seconds later immediately showing Richardson to have lied.

    Why did Richardson return so soon to the scene of the crime to gawk from another yard?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Macdonald Triad View Post

      Why did Richardson return so soon to the scene of the crime to gawk from another yard?
      A guy called Thomas Pierman had told him about the murder at the market so he dashed back. Possibly in a panic in case it was his mother? News spread quickly though. I wonder if Pierman had passed along Hanbury Street and learned of the murder that way? He might have known that Richardson’s mom lived there or he might have just been spreading the news and Richardson heard him?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        Another point which favours Richardson telling the truth is one that I don’t think has been mentioned so far, but if it has and I missed it then my apologies to whoever brought it up.

        On a previous thread when the question was raised - why didn’t Richardson simply not mention going to number 29 that morning - it was suggested that it might have been the case that someone could have come forward to say that they had seen him enter the yard and exit the yard that morning (someone living across the street for example). It’s a perfectly valid suggestion and something I can’t see anyone disagreeing with. Bearing that point in mind we have Richardson saying this at the inquest:

        “[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.”

        If, as has been suggested, Richardson had simply gone to the yard door, partially opened it, checked the lock then left (as he wouldn’t have stood there for any length of time with the door partially open) What would have happened if he had been seen? The witness would have testified to seeing John Richardson entering the front door then exiting a matter of 10 or 15 seconds later immediately showing Richardson to have lied.

        You have this bee in your bonnet about Richardson lying. I dont believe he lied, I think he genuinely missed seeing the body due to the angle of the door restricting his view, and all he was interested in was looking to his right to check the cellar. He was not asked if he looked all around the yard,

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          A guy called Thomas Pierman had told him about the murder at the market so he dashed back. Possibly in a panic in case it was his mother? News spread quickly though. I wonder if Pierman had passed along Hanbury Street and learned of the murder that way? He might have known that Richardson’s mom lived there or he might have just been spreading the news and Richardson heard him?
          Also, he couldn't get into 29 the police had sealed it up, he had to view the yard from next door.

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            You have this bee in your bonnet about Richardson lying. I dont believe he lied, I think he genuinely missed seeing the body due to the angle of the door restricting his view, and all he was interested in was looking to his right to check the cellar. He was not asked if he looked all around the yard,
            Why do you assume he opened the door to the least possible angle? Why didn't he kick it open with his boot and yell "c#$ts!" You presume too much.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
              What about the commotion heard by Cadosche.the/those person(s) also missed the body?
              hey varq
              good point. not sure why no one has responded. ive brought this up in the past too. if she was dead and lying there and richardson missed her, or was tje killer for that matter, did they miss her too? did cadosh lie too about hearing people?!?

              would love to see the richardson doubters explanation for this one lol

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                A guy called Thomas Pierman had told him about the murder at the market so he dashed back. Possibly in a panic in case it was his mother? News spread quickly though. I wonder if Pierman had passed along Hanbury Street and learned of the murder that way? He might have known that Richardson’s mom lived there or he might have just been spreading the news and Richardson heard him?
                Or he just waited for the first person to give a garbled something for an excuse.

                Comment


                • It's been suggested Richardson missed seeing the body.Most probably.It is clear he did not make a physical search of the yard,just a quick visual search from the top step as he closed the door on leaving.Where would his focus be.Not on the recess.That would have been in deep gloom and hidden by the door?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by harry View Post
                    It's been suggested Richardson missed seeing the body.Most probably.It is clear he did not make a physical search of the yard,just a quick visual search from the top step as he closed the door on leaving.Where would his focus be.Not on the recess.That would have been in deep gloom and hidden by the door?
                    Inherent in that summary, though, is that he had to lie about sitting on the steps fixing his boot with a knife - a lie that is a highly improbable one to resort to if all you want to do is insist you didn't miss seeing her when all he had to say was he was able to see that location and she wasn't in it. Also the summary requires his legging spring to coincidently be located where the body was, and while that could be explained by his boot fixing if true, it becomes a lucky coincidence we have to just accept occurred if he made up the boot fix. It also requires both Cadoche and Long to be wrong in their testimony. Basically, there's a whole lot of evidence that doesn't contradict Richardson's claim she wasn't there at the time that, by claiming Richardson was wrong and she was there, ends up also having to be thrown out to make it work. A lot of evidence that we have, that otherwise produces no real problems, has to "go away" to get her there at that time. Even the timing issues between Long and Cadoche are not so hard to reconcile in a reasonable way (clocks out of sync, Long misrecalls the quarter hour chime as the half hour, etc; all typical of witness testimony errors without invoking any deliberate falsehoods). I think that tends to weigh against the idea that she was there.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      I went through the suggestion that Richardson might have lied in my long post George. Again, I’ll say that we have to agree to disagree but I have to give my honest opinion as you will give yours (and I’m far from alone in this) The idea that Richardson lied is simply not credible when looked at in anything more than a cursory way. I think that the chances of him lying are so low that to be honest I don’t think that they’re worthy of discussion and I’m more than surprised that the idea should get backing. It seems close to clear cut to me.

                      Id say what happened was….. Richardson tried repairing his boot the day before and initially at least he felt that he’d done a good job. He heads to work the next day with the knife in his pocket that he’d used for feeding the rabbit. As he began pacing it out his boot began to hurt again so he decided to have another attempt when he reached his mothers house because he could sit down to work. He opens the yard door to an angle of above 90 degrees because in stepping down the steps he’s moving forward too and so has to allow for the width of his body. He sits on the middle step and manages to cut another small piece from his boot but it was a struggle due to the bluntness of the knife and so he couldn’t cut as much as he wanted to so he puts his boot back on and heads for the market where he could lay his hands on a sharp knife to do the job properly. Later he returns and from next doors yard he sees the body and realises how close she is to where he’d sat. He can see for an absolute fact that the body couldn’t have been there when he’d sat on the step or he couldn’t have missed it.

                      No need for an Da Vinci code stuff George. Simple, obvious and supported by the facts.
                      Hi Herlock,

                      The part of your post I've boldened was very well set out, and for one brief moment I was almost persuaded. We have very different opinions. You are not without your supporters and I have mine, including the police and the foreman of the jury. I am nowhere near as convinced as you in your opinion. My rating is about 65/35 against Richardson, and I don't discount him as a suspect. Lechmere can be placed at a murder scene. So can Richardson, but with a knife and a leather apron. If everyone agreed on everything, what would we find to talk about?

                      Cheers, George
                      It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        We can’t assume that it was specified George. We have no way of knowing how he checked the locks on every previous occasion. All that we know is that on that occasion he’d checked the lock from sitting on the steps. And all that we can say about his mother is that she concurred that on that particular day her son sat on the steps and checked the lock from there without having to go into the yard.
                        Hi Herlock,

                        I see two distinct lines of questioning by the coroner:

                        1. Why was Richardson there that morning - answered with his usual routine.
                        2. What were you doing sitting on the steps - a once only event.

                        I see the fact that questions were intermixed as the coroner's attempt to trip up the witness.

                        Cheer, George
                        It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                        All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                        ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                          Hi Herlock,

                          The part of your post I've boldened was very well set out, and for one brief moment I was almost persuaded. We have very different opinions. You are not without your supporters and I have mine, including the police and the foreman of the jury. I am nowhere near as convinced as you in your opinion. My rating is about 65/35 against Richardson, and I don't discount him as a suspect. Lechmere can be placed at a murder scene. So can Richardson, but with a knife and a leather apron. If everyone agreed on everything, what would we find to talk about?

                          Cheers, George
                          Lechmere was found in situ with a barely dead body, Richardson was not. A big difference I'd say George.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                            With Richardson sitting on the middle step, feet on the flagstones, even if the door is resting against him, it would be open more than shown in the photo as if he's working on his boot he's not going to be leaning back but forwards. I just can't see how, given his position how the body could be obscured, even if he did the unlikely and had door against him while working on his boot.

                            I realize that's an opinion since to prove that one would have to do a recreation, with similar sized people and steps and doors, etc. I know George has shown a video, but that gives us the view of someone standing inside the house as the door opens, not of someone sitting on the middle step as Richardson testifies he was, so not really showing the view we need to consider (and also, we don't know the size or placement of the various items in the scene).

                            I guess it boils down to speculating that Richardson lied about sitting on the steps to repair his boot and that he only opened the door and glanced at the lock then left. To me, that is the only way I could envision him missing the body if it were there. However, there's nothing about his statements that, in my view, indicate he was lying about the boot repair. Moreover, we have it entered into evidence that the spring to his leggings was found in a location appropriate for his given statement. We also have his confidence that the body was not there and he is sure he could not have missed seeing it. Finally, the nature of the lie that is being speculated he told places him at a crime scene with a knife, however unsuitable, simply out of pride - he's annoyed he is not being believed she wasn't there so he fabricates a boot repair with knife story seems to be the motivation for his speculated lie. That, to me, just doesn't have the ring of plausibility to it. If he simply is annoyed about being questioned as to his accuracy, all he has to say is that when he checked the lock he could see into the yard and she wasn't there, there's no need to create a story with a knife or boot repairs or anything. Those sorts of details only make sense under the circumstances if he actually did them, and we even have the leggings spring pointing towards that story being plausible and true.

                            We even have the doctor pointing out he may have miscalculated how quickly the body would have cooled, indicating that he's not objecting to the ToD suggested by the witness statements and allowing for his estimate to be off. We also know that estimating ToD by feeling how warm a body is has been discounted as a method for estimating ToD (though in 1888 it was at the time considered a useable method - we know better now). We also have his objective observation of rigor mortis was commencing, and having looked at the progression of rigor (some earlier posts), that observation is also not at odds with the ToD suggested by the witnesses. Finally, we also have Cadoche's testimony that he heard people speaking and later a noise against the fence, both of which he believed came from the backyard where the crime occurred, and also Long's testimony that she believes she saw Annie outside Hanbury street (she later id's Annie's body at the morgue). Cadoche and Long's testimony are consistent with Annie being murdered after Richardson's visit.

                            In the end, we have a collection of evidence and statements that all make a coherent and realistic series of events, placing Annie's murder after Richardson's checking of the lock. The alternative requires accepting a highly implausible lie to be told by Richardson, a very particular positioning of the door when he checks the lock, and a subsequent discounting of Cadoche's testimony and Long's testimony, and acceptance of a ToD based upon a known to be unreliable method that was even presented in a qualified way.

                            Personally, I'm finding it hard to understand why the alternative should be preferred.

                            - Jeff
                            Hi Jeff,

                            I see this as a three part discussion.

                            1. What was Richardson's everyday routine? - My view is he opened the door enough to check the padlock and then left. I believe he would have missed the body in this circumstance.

                            2. Did JR sit on the step and cobble his boot? - requires an assessment as to whether his changed story was an adding of detail or an augmentation.

                            3. If he did sit on the step mending his boot, could the door have obscured his view of of the area where the body was found? - For this question there are too many variables to make the answer anymore than personal opinion. How far did he open the door, how did he position his feet to sit on the step, was he faced down the yard or angled to the right to avoid the door fouling his hands working on the boot. When he got up, did he turn to the left or the right before going up the stairs. Posters have expressed their opinions on these questions, usually with absolute certainty. I don't believe there is any certainty on these points, only speculation.

                            I don't believe that the spring can be used as corroboration as it attracted various descriptions, one of which was identification as the spring from a "child's gaitor".

                            What some see that Phillip's so called caveat was an explanation for how he may have miscalculated, I see and an explanation for a factor that he included in his calculation. Richardson's testimony was the crucial evidence that challenged the medical evidence.

                            Cadosch changed his story from one visit to the toilet to two visits 3 to 4 minutes apart. Voices would be commonplace at the time of morning and would echo in the space between the buildings. When the coroner asked Cadosch why he didn't even take the time to glance over the fence he replied that he had heard nothing out of the usual to prompt him to do so. Long walked down the street which she said had many people and couples. When the coroner asked if the couple she focussed on were doing anything to attract attention, she replied no, and added that she paid no attention to them. Three days after the event she comes forward and the day after she identifies, in the morgue, a woman she has never seen before as the woman on the street that day. There is nothing to be added to the case as evidence by these two people.

                            Phillips determined his ToD estimate from body temperature, rigor and digestion of stomach contents. By today's standard such estimates are considered unreliable, but to what extent. The estimated ToD for Eddowes, whose body suffered very similar conditions, proved to be very reliable. Phillip's estimate may have been in error, but I don't believe that it was as gross an error as is proposed.

                            There are those that wish to take JR's testimony as gospel and Phillip's testimony as unreliable, and those who have doubts about both. I don't think it is clear cut either way, but I do lean it one direction. JMO.

                            Best regards, George

                            It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                            All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                            ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                              Lechmere was found in situ with a barely dead body, Richardson was not. A big difference I'd say George.
                              The police didn't think so. Richardson was investigated as a suspect. There is no evidence that Lechmere was under suspicion at the time. That is not to say that I don't find Lechmere interesting as a suspect, just that he wasn't at the time.

                              Cheers, George
                              Last edited by GBinOz; 08-02-2022, 08:14 AM.
                              It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                              All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                              Comment


                              • The other side of the coin is Jeff,that two professional people,Chandler and Phillips have to be wrong.What it comes down to,is that Richardson gave an opinion as to whether the body would be seen if it was there.Yes a probing pysical search would have proved him true,but it appears that Richardson gave little more than a glance at the yard.The door hiding the recess did not,as far as I can tell,come into calculation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X