Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    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
    All that I’m saying George is that the doctors did have other evidence that they would have been aware of which would have assisted the process of narrowing down. Another way of putting my point perhaps is that in assessing Richardson we have to consider, a) the location (the door, the steps, the position of the body etc) b) the visibility at the time, c) Richardson’s competence as a witness and d) his honesty.

    So my opinion would be that with a) the location would preclude the suggestion of him missing the body if he’d sat on those steps - I realise of course that you agree with this point and that your doubt comes from a suggestion that he might just have stood on the top step and looked into the yard - which, if that happened, I’d agree that it could have been possible for him to have missed the body. b) I think that we all agree that the light couldn’t have been an issue, especially with the body being so close to the steps. c) we have no reason for challenging Richardson’s competence as a witness whilst stressing his awareness of the position of the body and the possibility that a door might obscure a body.

    Your doubt comes from d) of course. As you know, my point is that Richardson has no reason that we’re aware of to have deliberately lied. In fact I’d say that he would have done himself a favour if he had just said that he’d opened the door slightly and glanced over to the cellar. Why add that he’d sat on the step if it wasn’t true? Why introduce the knife when he could have said that he’d smoked his pipe for example? For me the lie isn’t just unnecessary but he was creating issues for himself. As I suggested in an earlier post, what if the killer had been discovered and he’d told the police that he’d killed Chapman at 3.30? It’s also worth remembering that he had ample time between the murder and the inquest to think about what he was going to say. Why complicate? It’s just my opinion of course but I think that it’s possible that he might have told Chandler that he’d sat on the step but he might not have mentioned the boot at the time but he thought that he’d mentioned it. This was an interview in a corridor at a busy crime scene after all. Equally Chandler could have misremembered. I tend to favour understandable errors of communication rather than deliberate lies.

    So I compare the above with the fact that we know from modern day medical experts how hit and miss TOD’s can be and how we’ve scene examples even in the modern day, of Doctors being wildly out in there estimations by way more than Phillips might have been out. So basically for me two witnesses (3 including Long) trump a Doctors unreliable estimation.
    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

      All that I’m saying George is that the doctors did have other evidence that they would have been aware of which would have assisted the process of narrowing down. Another way of putting my point perhaps is that in assessing Richardson we have to consider, a) the location (the door, the steps, the position of the body etc) b) the visibility at the time, c) Richardson’s competence as a witness and d) his honesty.

      So my opinion would be that with a) the location would preclude the suggestion of him missing the body if he’d sat on those steps - I realise of course that you agree with this point and that your doubt comes from a suggestion that he might just have stood on the top step and looked into the yard - which, if that happened, I’d agree that it could have been possible for him to have missed the body. b) I think that we all agree that the light couldn’t have been an issue, especially with the body being so close to the steps. c) we have no reason for challenging Richardson’s competence as a witness whilst stressing his awareness of the position of the body and the possibility that a door might obscure a body.

      Your doubt comes from d) of course. As you know, my point is that Richardson has no reason that we’re aware of to have deliberately lied. In fact I’d say that he would have done himself a favour if he had just said that he’d opened the door slightly and glanced over to the cellar. Why add that he’d sat on the step if it wasn’t true? Why introduce the knife when he could have said that he’d smoked his pipe for example? For me the lie isn’t just unnecessary but he was creating issues for himself. As I suggested in an earlier post, what if the killer had been discovered and he’d told the police that he’d killed Chapman at 3.30? It’s also worth remembering that he had ample time between the murder and the inquest to think about what he was going to say. Why complicate? It’s just my opinion of course but I think that it’s possible that he might have told Chandler that he’d sat on the step but he might not have mentioned the boot at the time but he thought that he’d mentioned it. This was an interview in a corridor at a busy crime scene after all. Equally Chandler could have misremembered. I tend to favour understandable errors of communication rather than deliberate lies.

      So I compare the above with the fact that we know from modern day medical experts how hit and miss TOD’s can be and how we’ve scene examples even in the modern day, of Doctors being wildly out in there estimations by way more than Phillips might have been out. So basically for me two witnesses (3 including Long) trump a Doctors unreliable estimation.
      So who do you believe the doctors estimated TOD based on his examination and experience, or several witnesses who are all over the place with their testimony which each conflicting with the other amd the reliance the sound of bangs against the fence, and Cadoch not recalling whether he went out to use the outhose once or twice these witnesses are unsafe to rely on to support an earlier time of death.

      Not forgetting you are sugesting that the murder took place after 5am when people ewere moving about and the fact that no murders took placce at that time of the morning suggests that Phillips TOD must not be far off.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        So who do you believe the doctors estimated TOD based on his examination and experience, or several witnesses who are all over the place with their testimony which each conflicting with the other amd the reliance the sound of bangs against the fence, and Cadoch not recalling whether he went out to use the outhose once or twice these witnesses are unsafe to rely on to support an earlier time of death.

        Not forgetting you are sugesting that the murder took place after 5am when people ewere moving about and the fact that no murders took placce at that time of the morning suggests that Phillips TOD must not be far off.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        It’s as simple as this for me Trevor. Richardson was there at 4.45 and the body wasn’t there. Therefore Phillips must have been wrong. Then we have Cadosch hearing sounds from a yard that should have been empty apart from a mutilated corpse. So we have yet another two witnesses accused of lying?

        By challenging the TOD estimation we aren’t saying anything outrageous. What’s a little strange is that I’m actually using your own, regularly (and very selectively imo) employed phrase. Dr Phillips TOD assessment is unsafe to rely on. A man simply looking all over a yard a seeing no mutilated corpse there is hardly a great skill. So I’d say that it would have been far easier for Phillips to have made an error than it would have been for Richardson to have done so.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

        Comment


        • Its fairly simple really , ''If'' Richardson sits on the step [ the big one ] and cuts the leather from his boot, he sees the body .

          ''If'' he opens the door on a 40 degree angle and stands on the step looking to his right only to check the lock on the cellar door, he cant see the body.

          All that remains is which one did he do ? and which one do people believe he did.

          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
            For goodness sakes Trevor, maybe Richardson was a Leo.
            I know a Leo who will whine & complain about something for days before she finally does something about it. This is not an argument, you're really sounding desperate now.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              ''If'' he opens the door on a 40 degree angle and stands on the step looking to his right only to check the lock on the cellar door, he cant see the body.
              But, unless he sat down, he couldn't see the lock.
              So, your second option is void, it also requires him to be seated (or at least positioned at a lower angle).
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                But, unless he sat down, he couldn't see the lock.
                So, your second option is void, it also requires him to be seated (or at least positioned at a lower angle).
                Thats according to your sketch ,not the two i posted , so my second point is valid .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  But, unless he sat down, he couldn't see the lock.
                  So, your second option is void, it also requires him to be seated (or at least positioned at a lower angle).
                  Hi Jon,

                  Both Richardson and his mother testified that the lock could be seen from the steps, no sitting down or crouching mentioned. The coroner put this question to Mrs Richardson specifically to clarify that point.

                  Eastern Post Sep 15, 1888:
                  Coroner & John Richardson: Did you go into the yard at all? - Not at all, sir.
                  I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right? - Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

                  Mrs. Richardson, recalled in her son's absence: Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door? - No, he can see from the steps.


                  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


                  • Surely the point has to be that Richardson himself said that he’d sat on the step and I see no reason for him to have lied. I see this as very simple. He could see the whole of the yard and there was no body there. If there had been a body there he would have seen it. But he didn’t……because it wasn’t.
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-15-2022, 01:45 PM.
                    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
                      Surely the point has to be that Richardson himself said that he’d sat on the step and I see no reason for him to have lied. I see this as very simple. He could see the whole of the yard and there was no body there. If there had been a body there he would have seen it. But he didn’t……because it wasn’t.
                      Or maybe because it wasn't that light but he didn't want to appear foolish at the inquest.

                      Sunrise in London at that time of year now is around 6.30. BST didn't exist then, so make that 5.30. Unless it was a clear sky, it would still be pretty dark 40 minutes before sunrise.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                        Or maybe because it wasn't that light but he didn't want to appear foolish at the inquest.

                        Sunrise in London at that time of year now is around 6.30. BST didn't exist then, so make that 5.30. Unless it was a clear sky, it would still be pretty dark 40 minutes before sunrise.
                        But it was light enough to see according to Richardson himself :

                        “[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.”

                        And the body was in such a position that from where he’d sat he could have reached and touched it.


                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          Thats according to your sketch ,not the two i posted , so my second point is valid .
                          Forget the sketches, I posted a photograph showing how low the canopy over the cellar steps was, where it attached to the house wall.

                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • How far back was the cellar door?
                            Attached Files
                            Last edited by MrBarnett; 07-15-2022, 06:26 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Forget the sketches, I posted a photograph showing how low the canopy over the cellar steps was, where it attached to the house wall.

                              So the canopy would have been at or below the level of the top of Richardson’s head as he’d sat on the steps. With him standing on the steps it would have been around knee height.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                Hi Jon,

                                Both Richardson and his mother testified that the lock could be seen from the steps, no sitting down or crouching mentioned. The coroner put this question to Mrs Richardson specifically to clarify that point.
                                George, we have him saying he sat on the steps - in the first exchange.

                                From, The Daily News, 13 Sept. 1888.

                                [Coroner]: Was the front door open on Saturday morning?

                                [The Witness]: No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot.


                                Then, in a later exchange he adds:


                                [Coroner]: Did you go into the yard at all?
                                [Richardson]: Not at all, sir.

                                [Coroner]: I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?
                                [Richardson]: Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

                                [Coroner]: And that was the sole object you had in going there?
                                [Richardson]: Yes, sir.

                                [Coroner]: Did you sit on the top step?
                                [Richardson]: No, the second step.

                                [Coroner]: Where were your feet?
                                [Richardson]: On the flags of the yard.


                                So, George, you only posted the later exchange, where he didn't need to say he sat down, he had already made that clear in the first exchange.

                                Mrs. Richardson, recalled in her son's absence: Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door? - No, he can see from the steps.[/COLOR]
                                Mrs Richardson only repeated what her son had already said - that he could see the lock from the steps. Which he could, while sitting down.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X