John Richardson

[Doctored Whatsit]

If Richardson was in the habit of regularly checking the cellar door lock, which we know he was, he would have had a simple routine way of doing it. He probably every time did something like, went down one step, took hold of the canopy for support, and bent down a little, glanced across, and then satisfied, he would leave. It would have been a simple routine taking a few seconds.

I agree with the view that if he sat on the steps he must have seen the body, and that if he didn't sit on the steps, why in heaven's name would he say that he did? This was a murder scene, why would he tell an unnecessary lie which could put him "in the frame" for the murder? It makes no sense to me!

However, I don't therefore say that the murder was definitely committed as late as 5. 20 - 5. 30 am, and that Cadosch was necessarily correct. It could have been done just after Richardson left.

On the question of how much daylight there was, JtR would probably have been reluctant to commit a murder in good light, but he needed some light to be able to disembowel a victim. For what it is worth, I would propose that the available evidence suggests that Dutfield's Yard might well have been the darkest of the canonical five sites, and Stride was not mutilated at all, and that Buck's Row was so dark that it was accepted that Paul and Cross could not see the gaping neck wound, and possibly also that Polly's eyes were wide open, and though she was mutilated, it was more of an untidy job, and not a disembowelment. After Polly, did JtR decide he needed more light next time?

[FISHY1118]

I dont see any problem what so ever that the man if further across as Richardson would have been if as described in post #145. He could easily have seen the door if flush with the brickwork and the lock if fixed to the wall .
Remembering the canopy would not obstruct his view looking straight down, it was high enough for anyone to see the lock from the steps as Mrs Richardson suggested .

Certain things point to both senarios but one does not eliminate the other imo.

[GBinOz]

So we know that to have checked the lock Richardson would have needed to either, a) stepped into the yard, or b) sat on the step.

If he’d stepped into the yard he would definitely have seen a body had it been there - incidentally, if, as I believe some suggest, he lied about sitting on the step just to emphasise that there couldn’t have been a body there, why didn’t he simply tell a better lie and say that he went to the cellar steps and left the door to swing back to the fence revealing no body?

But Richardson told us that he’d sat on the steps and he had no reason to lie. The issue with Chandler is a minor one and stands very reasonable explanations. Richardson might simply have mentioned sitting on the step but not the reason for doing so if he felt it irrelevant. Chandler might simply have misheard him or misremembered (understandable on the circumstances) Richardson might simply have said that he’d gone to the back door and couldn’t have missed a corpse had it been there - without bothering to mention his position seating or standing? Chandler knew that he wasn’t blind or an idiot and so didn’t pursue it.

So any nitpicking on the wording is just that imo. Everything points to Richardson sitting on that step and to the body not being there.

Hi Herlock,

It is fully acknowledged that IF Richardson sat on the steps he would have seen the body, had it been there. The question is, could he have seen the padlock if not going in the yard or sitting on the steps, and Richardson supplies the answer for every market day other than Sep 8.

[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.

Amelia Richardson: My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.

Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

Richardson did a number of interviews with the press, and I haven't been able to find one that varied from the story he told Chandler, or mentioned any step sitting...Have You?

I have noticed over time that you are quite fond of the word "nitpicking"...........good word.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

It is fully acknowledged that IF Richardson sat on the steps he would have seen the body, had it been there. The question is, could he have seen the padlock if not going in the yard or sitting on the steps, and Richardson supplies the answer for every market day other than Sep 8.

[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.

Amelia Richardson: My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.

Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

Richardson did a number of interviews with the press, and I haven't been able to find one that varied from the story he told Chandler, or mentioned any step sitting...Have You?

I have noticed over time that you are quite fond of the word "nitpicking"...........good word.

Cheers, George

Hi George , so can i just clarify something ? So did Richardson do several interviews with the press leading up to the inquest, and that no interview mentions the boot cutting incident but it only appears at the inquest?. Have i got that right ?

[GBinOz]

If Richardson was in the habit of regularly checking the cellar door lock, which we know he was, he would have had a simple routine way of doing it. He probably every time did something like, went down one step, took hold of the canopy for support, and bent down a little, glanced across, and then satisfied, he would leave. It would have been a simple routine taking a few seconds.

I agree with the view that if he sat on the steps he must have seen the body, and that if he didn't sit on the steps, why in heaven's name would he say that he did? This was a murder scene, why would he tell an unnecessary lie which could put him "in the frame" for the murder? It makes no sense to me!

However, I don't therefore say that the murder was definitely committed as late as 5. 20 - 5. 30 am, and that Cadosch was necessarily correct. It could have been done just after Richardson left.

Hi Doc,

Trevor may care to comment on this, but I believe that it is not unusual for witnesses to embellish or adjust their evidence to create for themselves a larger role in proceedings than that which would be achieved by a strictly accurate narration of their role. I could role out the old "he was mistaken about the day of his boot cutting" excuse....but I won't.

It could have been done just after Richardson left.....or while he was there? Nah, he couldn't have done it because he said the body wasn't there when he was there, and serial killers never lie.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George , so can i just clarify something ? So did Richardson do several interviews with the press leading up to the inquest, and that no interview mentions the boot cutting incident but it only appears at the inquest?. Have i got that right ?

Hi Fishy,

Not quite, I just haven't found one yet, and I have looked, but maybe not enough.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

It is fully acknowledged that IF Richardson sat on the steps he would have seen the body, had it been there. The question is, could he have seen the padlock if not going in the yard or sitting on the steps, and Richardson supplies the answer for every market day other than Sep 8.

[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.

Amelia Richardson: My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.

Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

Richardson did a number of interviews with the press, and I haven't been able to find one that varied from the story he told Chandler, or mentioned any step sitting...Have You?

I have noticed over time that you are quite fond of the word "nitpicking"...........good word.

Cheers, George

Surely both Richardson and his mother would have said you could ''only see'' the padlock from sitting on the steps if that was the case.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

Not quite, I just haven't found one yet, and I have looked, but maybe not enough.

Cheers, George

.Cheers ,keep looking and please let us know if and when you find it .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

It is fully acknowledged that IF Richardson sat on the steps he would have seen the body, had it been there. The question is, could he have seen the padlock if not going in the yard or sitting on the steps, and Richardson supplies the answer for every market day other than Sep 8.

[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.

Amelia Richardson: My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.

Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

Richardson did a number of interviews with the press, and I haven't been able to find one that varied from the story he told Chandler, or mentioned any step sitting...Have You?

I have noticed over time that you are quite fond of the word "nitpicking"...........good word.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

But all that means is that he didn’t need to walk into the yard to check the lock. He could have done it from the steps. Out of curiosity do any of the quotes mention ‘standing’ on the steps? If not then how can we know that they didn’t mean from a sitting position? Did Mrs Richardson ever actually see him check the lock? It seems unlikely or she would have just checked it herself so perhaps he’d just told her that he checked it from the back door without mentioning sitting down.

The point is though that, under oath, he said that he’d sat on the steps. To me this should be game over. Why should we accuse him of lying purely on one sentence of Chandler’s which could have been explained any number of entirely innocent ways.

1. Chandler, talking to Richardson in the passageway, might have misheard him.
2. Chandler might have misremembered what Richardson had actually said.
3. Richardson might simply have said that he’d gone to the door and couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there, seeing no reason to elaborate further when Chandler accepted this.
4. Richardson might have thought that he’d mentioned sitting on the step to fix his boot but in fact he hadn’t.
5. Chandler appears to have believed Richardson truthful.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Fishy,

Not quite, I just haven't found one yet, and I have looked, but maybe not enough.

Cheers, George

Try 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. "

[Herlock Sholmes]

But is not just nitpicking on the wording you have to take into account the unsafe witness testimony which is being used to prop up a later time of death.

and again I refer to Dr Phiilps who says rigor was starting to set in, i know this has been done to death but reserchers like you who are fixated by this later time of death seem to want to ignore the medical facts as to how long it takes for that to occur and as stated although it was a cold morning it was not cold enough in late september for the body to cool in that short space of time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You never cease to amaze me Trevor. In every debate that we have on here you use the phrase ‘unsafe to rely on,’ but unsurprising it’s always to back up your own viewpoint. Yet when we produce modern day medical expert after modern day medical expert who tell us that TOD estimations in the Victorian era were ‘unsafe to rely on’ you just won’t accept it. This is blatantly selective. There were factors affecting any assessment of TOD that a Victorian Doctor like Phillips would have been blissfully unaware of. Not to mention the fact that he would hardly have experienced a corpse mutilated to anything like the extent of Chapman.

Dr. Phillips arrived in Hanbury Street at 6.30. If Cadosch was correct then Chapman could have been killed at around 5.20. Phillips said that she’d been dead for 2 hours and possible more:

“Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.”

So if she was killed at around 5.20 then we have an estimate of 2 hours or more when it might actually have been 1 hour and 10 minutes. Are we really quibbling that a Victorian Doctor couldn’t have been out in his estimation by 50 minutes or so. We had instances posted on here when modern day experts have been wrong by hours. I think that we’ve had doctors out by days but in different circumstances of course.

Phillips TOD estimation is ‘unsafe to rely on.’ So we have Richardson who sat on a step and couldn’t possibly have missed a mutilated corpse a matter of inches from his left foot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Try 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. "

And wasn’t the inquest first reported in the newspapers on the 11th Joshua?

[Joshua Rogan]

And wasn’t the inquest first reported in the newspapers on the 11th Joshua?

In the daily ones, yes, but the evening papers had coverage on the 10th.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the daily ones, yes, but the evening papers had coverage on the 10th.

Cheers Joshua

But Richardson appeared on day two didn’t he? So we have a newspaper reporting that he’d sat on the step before he’d testified to that effect at the inquest.

[Joshua Rogan]

Cheers Joshua

But Richardson appeared on day two didn’t he? So we have a newspaper reporting that he’d sat on the step before he’d testified to that effect at the inquest.

Absolutely.

The Irish Times (a daily) carries the first report, I think, on the 10th;

"It is a remarkable fact, however, that the man Richardson, who first went into the yard where the corpse was discovered says that he actually sat down on the step of the passage to cut a piece of leather off his shoe and yet did not see the body."


The Star of the 10th also has the same report as the Echo