Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Just as a matter of interest George , i have a 3 step front entrance to my home with a screen door opening to the left as shown in post 2 ,youd be amaized at what you cant see holding the door open on a 40 degree angle.
    Hi Fishy,

    Be that as it may, I don't believe that he wouldn't have seen the body, if it was there, if he sat on the step. Apart from the visual, there is the odour from an eviscerated body, which he could not have missed had he sat on the step for two minutes. However, if he quickly opened the door it may have acted as a fan for the odour for long enough for him to glance at the lock and leave with the door closing behind him. He testified that he had attempted a boot repair the day before without success, so why would he try again sitting on a step in semi-light with the same knife that he said wouldn't cut leather?

    Cheers, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      Hi Herlock,

      If the medical ToDs are compared to the generally accepted ToD for the C5, how much error is there in each case? Setting aside Maxwell for this exercise, four have errors in minutes or small percentages, but it is proposed that for Chapman's ToD, Phillips was out by an hour (100%) or more. Phillips testified that rigor mortis was just beginning, and that usually does not commence before two hours, and its onset is delayed by cold temperature. Then, as now with the aid of CCTV, witness testimony has been proved to be notoriously unreliable, so with all due respect to the opinion of your good self, I'll take the opposite side of the argument, which in itself in not unusual.

      Cheers, George
      Hello George,

      The inaccuracy and unreliability of TOD estimations isn’t my opinion though George. Modern day experts tell us that they shouldn’t be relied upon. To be honest in the cases of Stride, Nichols and Eddowes I could have given an accurate TOD knowing the information to hand at that time. PC Neil passed at 3.30 - no body, so TOD between 3.30 and 3.45. Stride - no one in the yard at 12.40, body found at 1.00 so TOD between 12.40 and 1.00. Likewise Eddowes.

      But, as you say, we see things differently on this point and there’s nothing wrong with that.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        Sometimes opinions crop up here on Casebook that for the life of me I can't believe are supposed to be taken seriously, this is one of them.

        Chapman's head (as described) was in front of the bottom step, her body extended 5+ feet out into the yard, her legs were bent out at the knee (butterfly-style), so her right knee would have been in front of Richardson. The body was not hidden behind the door in any way, and him sitting on the middle step only serves to emphasize the point.
        He couldn't possibly have missed the body, had it been there.
        I don't know where you live, but it is pretty light at 4:50 in the first week of September.
        The whole idea that he couldn't have seen the body, in my view is preposterous, a purely unrealistic argument, sorry.
        As you’ve said Wick, why is it reasonable to assume that Richardson lied? Chandler simply said that Richardson didn’t mention working on his boot. He might simply have said that he’d sat on the step without mentioning his reason for doing so? Why couldn’t Chandler have been wrong?

        I think it’s also worth asking why Richardson would have lied if he wasn’t 100% certain that there was no body there when he knew full well that killers do get caught. What if the killer had then said “yeah, I killed her at 3.30?”

        Richardson said that he sat on the step. I see no reason to doubt him. I’ve also no doubt that he could see the entirety of the yard and that Chapman wasn’t there and that Phillips, using inaccurate methods, was simply mistaken.

        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Hi Fishy,

          Be that as it may, I don't believe that he wouldn't have seen the body, if it was there, if he sat on the step. Apart from the visual, there is the odour from an eviscerated body, which he could not have missed had he sat on the step for two minutes. However, if he quickly opened the door it may have acted as a fan for the odour for long enough for him to glance at the lock and leave with the door closing behind him. He testified that he had attempted a boot repair the day before without success, so why would he try again sitting on a step in semi-light with the same knife that he said wouldn't cut leather?

          Cheers, George
          Or why didnt he repair his boot before he put it on that morning before going to hanbury Street, or after he took it off the night before, His account does have its flaws

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #95
            Calling Dr Shoe and the Shoe Police.

            Where are you when we need you Al?
            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              And yet something as simple as Richardson standing on the top step with the door open on enough of an angle to look to his right then turn back and go inside is somehow preposterous and unrealistic !! im sorry but i dont agree .
              Chandler not mentioning him sitting on the steps, is not evidence.
              If Chandler had said "he stood in the doorway at the top of the steps all the time", that would be evidence, but he doesn't.
              What you have chosen to believe is called negative evidence, that's where the old adage comes from - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
              There's a reason for that adage, it accounts for those who jump to conclusions when they can't find what they're looking for.

              Inspector Chandler has her head in a different position [ at the bottom of the step] , so again we have two different placements of her body position ]...
              Different from who?
              Davies, Kent, Chandler & Phillips all say her head was towards the house, both Chandler & Phillips said her face was turned on the right side.
              Can you explain what you mean?


              Im truly at at loss as why some posters want to use the evidence in a certain way yet **** can someones opinion using the same evidence!

              This is an all to common occurrance here on casebook .
              Given what I pointed out above, I'm not understanding this either.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Or why didnt he repair his boot before he put it on that morning before going to hanbury Street, or after he took it off the night before, His account does have its flaws

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                This isn’t a flaw though Trevor. It’s quite reasonable that someone might put on a pair of shoes only for them to start to become uncomfortable after walking for a while. Or perhaps he intended to put up with them until he got to work but found that they were too uncomfortable and so decided to try and repair them at Hanbury Street with a convenient step to sit on?
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Herlock,

                  I don't know why, but I'll ask you to consider that when the coroner started putting pressure on Richardson about his carrying a knife and ordered him to present it, he put forward a knife obviously unsuited to the task and commented that it was not sharp enough to cut leather and he had to finish the job at work with a borrowed knife. The was after this testimony:

                  [Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market.

                  It is far easier to contradict yourself if you are making up a story than if you are telling the truth.

                  Cheers, George
                  Hi George,

                  He doesn't contradict himself though? He testifies that he cut some leather off his boot while sitting on the steps, and after being recalled, he says the knife wasn't sharp enough so he borrowed another when at work.

                  He doesn't say it wasn't sharp enough to cut some leather off his boot, though. Rather, it reads to me that it wasn't sharp enough to trim the repair properly, so it appears he needed a sharper knife to complete the repair.

                  Basically, I don't see anything that actually contradicts itself in what he says. I've tried to highlight the bits associated with the boot cutting (so where he was sitting, what he said he did, etc) in his testimony as presented in the Daily Telegraph here on Casebook. I only see it as a contradiction if one interprets his last statement (after being recalled) is supposed to mean "Ok, I didn't actually cut any leather the first time despite having saying I did", but he doesn't say that. He just comments that the knife was too dull so he trimmed some more while at work with a sharper knife. Too dull for what? I think you're suggesting he means "too dull to cut any leather", but it seems to me that isn't a necessary interpretation and it sounds to me he's saying "too dull to do a complete job". I think that must be what everyone interpreted him to mean as well, given he's not quested about it (as your interpretation would, of course, be a problem for him).

                  - Jeff

                  ----

                  John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
                  [Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
                  [Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
                  [Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
                  [Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
                  [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. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
                  [Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
                  [Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
                  [Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
                  [Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
                  [Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.
                  At this stage witness was despatched by the coroner to fetch his knife.

                  John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
                  By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.
                  The Coroner: I think we will detain this knife for the present.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    This isn’t a flaw though Trevor. It’s quite reasonable that someone might put on a pair of shoes only for them to start to become uncomfortable after walking for a while. Or perhaps he intended to put up with them until he got to work but found that they were too uncomfortable and so decided to try and repair them at Hanbury Street with a convenient step to sit on?
                    New shoes yes but there is no evidence that the shoes were new.

                    I read somewhere that the shoes had been hurting him the day before. so if that be the case he had ample opportunity to make the repair

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      New shoes yes but there is no evidence that the shoes were new.

                      I read somewhere that the shoes had been hurting him the day before. so if that be the case he had ample opportunity to make the repair

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Any shoes can become uncomfortable with wear though, not just new ones. If they had been hurting the day before perhaps he’d already made some attempts at repair which turned out not to have been sufficient? Maybe he’d tried a repair but had made a bit of a hash of it and so he needed to try again? We can ask any number of questions about Richardson but there’s just nothing suspicious about him deciding to attempt to make his shoe more comfortable.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        Hi George,

                        He doesn't contradict himself though? He testifies that he cut some leather off his boot while sitting on the steps, and after being recalled, he says the knife wasn't sharp enough so he borrowed another when at work.

                        He doesn't say it wasn't sharp enough to cut some leather off his boot, though. Rather, it reads to me that it wasn't sharp enough to trim the repair properly, so it appears he needed a sharper knife to complete the repair.

                        Basically, I don't see anything that actually contradicts itself in what he says. I've tried to highlight the bits associated with the boot cutting (so where he was sitting, what he said he did, etc) in his testimony as presented in the Daily Telegraph here on Casebook. I only see it as a contradiction if one interprets his last statement (after being recalled) is supposed to mean "Ok, I didn't actually cut any leather the first time despite having saying I did", but he doesn't say that. He just comments that the knife was too dull so he trimmed some more while at work with a sharper knife. Too dull for what? I think you're suggesting he means "too dull to cut any leather", but it seems to me that isn't a necessary interpretation and it sounds to me he's saying "too dull to do a complete job". I think that must be what everyone interpreted him to mean as well, given he's not quested about it (as your interpretation would, of course, be a problem for him).

                        - Jeff

                        ----

                        John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
                        [Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
                        [Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
                        [Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
                        [Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
                        [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. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
                        [Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
                        [Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
                        [Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
                        [Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
                        [Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.
                        At this stage witness was despatched by the coroner to fetch his knife.

                        John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
                        By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.
                        The Coroner: I think we will detain this knife for the present.
                        Hello Jeff,

                        I also think that’s it’s worth remembering that we aren’t getting a verbatim report of what was said at the Inquest. If we did have such a report I’m guessing that the situation would be much clearer than the version that’s been handed down to us? After all, it appears that no one at the Inquest thought that there was anything strange or inconsistent in what Richardson had said. No “hold on, but you said…..” from the Coroner for example. Doesn’t this imply that they had a fuller, clearer picture of what was actually said?

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Hello George,

                          The inaccuracy and unreliability of TOD estimations isn’t my opinion though George. Modern day experts tell us that they shouldn’t be relied upon. To be honest in the cases of Stride, Nichols and Eddowes I could have given an accurate TOD knowing the information to hand at that time. PC Neil passed at 3.30 - no body, so TOD between 3.30 and 3.45. Stride - no one in the yard at 12.40, body found at 1.00 so TOD between 12.40 and 1.00. Likewise Eddowes.

                          But, as you say, we see things differently on this point and there’s nothing wrong with that.
                          Hi Herlock,

                          Nothing wrong with differing opinions and civilised discussion on same.

                          I was suggesting that the evidence vindicated the doctor's ToDs, but you seem to be suggesting that they may have cribbed their estimates by knowing the answer?

                          I notice that you left out MJK. I find it curious that Richardson's evolving story can be preferred to Phillip's estimated ToD, but Maxwell's solid unbreakable (Abberline) evidence is discredited in favour of an "unreliable" ToD.

                          Cheers, George
                          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                          “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                          Comment


                          • Anexample Click image for larger version

Name:	sitting on stepp.jpg
Views:	118
Size:	26.8 KB
ID:	789685 Click image for larger version

Name:	sitting on stepp.jpg
Views:	148
Size:	26.8 KB
ID:	789686

                            Comment


                            • Hi Harry,

                              Excellent minimalist post. Speaking for myself, I feel that you have presented an absolutely undeniable proof that if Richardson sat on the step in the manner prescribed by your graphic that he could not have failed to see a body at his feet, if it was there. I won't repeat myself in saying that I don't believe he sat on the steps.

                              But if that was the level of light and visibility at about 4:45 AM, how much brighter would it have been at 5:30AM? JtR escaped justice because of his risk assessment, and how risky would it have been for him to to be conducting his business in a small yard in virtual broad daylight with potentially dozens of witnesses having the opportunity to view his activities?

                              For me, there are too many factors supporting the ToD of Phillips and too few supporting the questionable witnesses. JMO.

                              Cheers, George
                              “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                              “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                                Hi Harry,

                                Excellent minimalist post. Speaking for myself, I feel that you have presented an absolutely undeniable proof that if Richardson sat on the step in the manner prescribed by your graphic that he could not have failed to see a body at his feet, if it was there. I won't repeat myself in saying that I don't believe he sat on the steps.

                                But if that was the level of light and visibility at about 4:45 AM, how much brighter would it have been at 5:30AM? JtR escaped justice because of his risk assessment, and how risky would it have been for him to to be conducting his business in a small yard in virtual broad daylight with potentially dozens of witnesses having the opportunity to view his activities?

                                For me, there are too many factors supporting the ToD of Phillips and too few supporting the questionable witnesses. JMO.

                                Cheers, George
                                I totally agree with you

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X