John Richardson

[GBinOz]

Sweet ''F'' ALL . You think people actually care about whether just because they swore to tell the ''Truth ,the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth'', if they knew they might lie /or wanted to lie ? . Pleaseeeeeeee.

Hi Fishy and Abby,

I think that most people try to take the ''Truth ,the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth'' seriously, but if they fear that they could run the risk of being indicted for a capitol offence, they adopt the view that the truth can be adjusted, with perjury being the lesser of two evils from their point of view. Particularly if they happen to be guilty. Had Richardson been charged with perjury over his sitting and cutting his boot addition, he could have opted for the simple out of "Oh, I must have mixed up the days, sorry about that". He did actually testify that he had attempted the boot repair the day before, so maybe he was confused under pressure.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Adding detail isn't the same as contradicting:
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

On the other question, murderers are not renown for telling the truth under oath, and neither are those attempting to establish an alibi.

Best regards, George

Hi George.

But, what reason do we have to regard Richardson as a murderer, aside from your decision to view him as such?
Little details you hi-lite are not evidence, it looks like you've decided to view him as potentially a killer, and now you are looking for anything you can throw at him to justify your choice.
This was done with Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

Sweet ''F'' ALL . You think people actually care about whether just because they swore to tell the ''Truth ,the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth'', if they knew they might lie /or wanted to lie ? . Pleaseeeeeeee.

You're jumping on the wrong bus.
The question was not "do witnesses always tell the truth?", but "does the law expect every witness to tell the truth?"

I would have thought that answer was obvious.

[Wickerman]

what i dont agree with is an innocent witness in a murder case would intentionally lie to police to make himself look more innocent.

Well put!

[FISHY1118]

You're jumping on the wrong bus.
The question was not "do witnesses always tell the truth?", but "does the law expect every witness to tell the truth?"

I would have thought that answer was obvious.

I think we're off topic here , best we look at the evidence of all the witnesses and make up our own minds . Which as shown can lead to different possibilities where Richardson and the Chapman murder is concerned .

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

But, what reason do we have to regard Richardson as a murderer, aside from your decision to view him as such?
Little details you hi-lite are not evidence, it looks like you've decided to view him as potentially a killer, and now you are looking for anything you can throw at him to justify your choice.
This was done with Hutchinson.

Hi Jon,

While I do regard Richardson as a more likely suspect that many on popular lists, my hi-lites were not addressing that aspect - I did that in my post #337 (can you comment on that comparison?).

I was commenting on your post where you said that witnesses often add details to their initial statement. I was meaning to point out that, IMO, Richardson wasn't adding detail, he was contradicting his initial statement. In his initial statements to Chandler and the press he was adamant that the body wasn't there. I am suggesting that he firmed up his claim that the body wasn't there by adding the step sitting. This did him no harm because he knew the police had already taken possession of his knife found on the premises. It made little difference to his story timewise, but greatly boosted the unlikelihood that he had simply missed seeing the body, and if the body wasn't there, he couldn't be suspected. Alternatively, did he just temporarily forget he sat on the step, and his memory improved over time? Could he have underestimated the confidence difference that would be drawn between sitting next to the body and a brief glance in the opposite direction, and considered it trivial and not worth mentioning to Chandler or the Press? Could he have merged events from different days as was suggested for Maxwell and Hutchinson?

As I said earlier, I have not closed my mind, but at this time I think the preponderance of evidence lies with the two professionals over what I consider to be unreliable witnesses. JMO, I might be wrong. I do recall thinking I was wrong once before, but I was mistaken.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Just a quick observation to consider. Found in the yard at 29 Hanbury St after Annie Chapman's murder were the following:

a piece of coarse muslin
a small tooth comb
a pocket hair comb in a case.
a portion of an envelope which contained two pills.
a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water
a box, such as is commonly used by casemakers for holding nails. It was empty.
a piece of steel, flat, which was identified as the spring of John Richardson's leggings.

Richardson at the inquest stated twice that he actually cut leather from his boot, but no leather shaving were found at the scene. Curiouser and curiouser.

Cheers, George

[Aethelwulf]

Just a quick observation to consider. Found in the yard at 29 Hanbury St after Annie Chapman's murder were the following:

a piece of coarse muslin
a small tooth comb
a pocket hair comb in a case.
a portion of an envelope which contained two pills.
a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water
a box, such as is commonly used by casemakers for holding nails. It was empty.
a piece of steel, flat, which was identified as the spring of John Richardson's leggings.

Richardson at the inquest stated twice that he actually cut leather from his boot, but no leather shaving were found at the scene. Curiouser and curiouser.

Cheers, George

i don't see any great mystery here. he could have taken the pieces away and put them in a bin, or more likely I think, the pieces were too small to be noticeable. after all, I can't imagine he was shaving great chunks from his sole!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Two of your "no brainers" involve him contradicting himself on whether he went into the yard. The coroner repeatedly asked him this question. The other question the coroner asked was if checking the lock was the only reason he had for being there. Then why was he looking around the yard, as in your third "no brainer", if he was only there to check the lock?

The police already knew he was there with a knife. The coroner wanted to know why he had a knife on him, and none of your "Three childishly simple, very, very obvious ways" provide that answer. Sitting on the steps cutting boot leather provides a reason for breaking his two month routine, a reason for him having a knife, and a situation where he could claim that he couldn't have failed see the body.

Cheers, George

But when you say that the Police already knew that he was there with a knife you are referring to the knife that was found ‘on the premises’ and not the one that he carried on his person so they didn’t know about his knife until he told them. So if Richardson had told the Police from the start that he’d gone to the outside loo or that he’d stepped into the yard to check the cellar lock, or that when he’d stood on the top step he’d pushed the door back to the fence then he would have shown that he couldn’t possibly have missed the body whilst avoiding mentioning the knife.

And when we think about it George, saying that he’d sat on the step hadn’t helped him at all because it was still being suggested that the body might have been hidden by the door against the left side of his body (as it’s still suggested by some today.) By using one of the 3 ‘no brained’ that I mention he would have shown that he couldn’t have missed the corpse; all doubt would have been removed (unless they’d have suspected him of lying of course but they really would have had no reason for doing so)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I didn't say he was lying. I observed the recorded examples of his story changing. Calling that "story evolution" or "story augmentation" would be more accurate. He was explaining that he heard things that morning that he had heard on other mornings, they were usual and he thought nothing of it. The coroner and jury seemed surprised at how little importance he seemed to attach to his evidence:

Cadosch: I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.

The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.

Voices at that time of morning and noises in a packing case yard were, according to Cadosch, nothing unusual, and were not necessarily related to the murder.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

The fact that no ‘alarm bells’ went off when he’d heard the ‘no’ and the ‘sound’ add the ring of truth to for me. There was nothing unusual about hearing sounds from that yard but as we know on that particular day he heard some noise against a fence that he was standing close too. And that noise came from a yard where a corpse was supposedly lying.

[harry]

Jon,
In answer to your request(post339) I will gladly explain when you produce,in written form,the law you allude to in your post (332).
'The law assumes the witness is telling the truth'.That is what you wrote. What law?
I can hardly be expected to reply,untill I know what law you are referring to,and what that law requires.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one Jon is ignoring what Phillips added.It means there was a possibility his 2 hour mean time could be wrong.
However,he states at LEAST 2 hours and PROBABLY more,as his first choice,and in this situation,the probability factor outweighs the posibilty one.
So it is quite in order to use 4.30 and even earlier,as a time the body of Chapman lay in the yard.
Sure the testimony of Richardson is evidence.It is a claim of his activity,and only the sitting on the step,is being challenged,and for a good reason.He failed to mention it when first questioned.Again, my comment that Richardson MIGHT have lied about sitting on the step,is in order,for the above reason.
The law doesn't assume evidence given under oath to be true.Not the common law.It allows a challenge to any evidence given,and it is then up to a judge or jury to decide on the truth.

Sorry Harry but you are simply wrong on this point. Phillips TOD estimation cannot and should not be relied upon so there is zero logical reason for favouring it. Why are you so resistant to this concept? Even Trevor, who favours an earlier TOD, accepts the unreliability of Victorian TOD estimates. He doubts the later TOD based on other criteria.

Chandler didn’t say that Richardson hadn't mentioned sitting on the step, he said that he hadn’t mentioned repairing his boot which is slightly but possibly importantly different. So I’d ask Harry, why should we assume that it was Richardson who was wrong and not Chandler? And why mightn’t Richardson have not mentioned the boot because the reason that he’d sat on the step was unimportant. The fact that he’d stat on the step, seen all over the yard, and seen no corpse was all that was important to him and to Chandler.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Witnesses rarely tell their whole story on first being questioned, that is a well known fact. It is not because they gradually add pieces to it, they naturally do not think of every detail, witnesses like Richardson are still in shock that a murder took place so close by.

A very valid point Wick and one that I hadn’t really considered.

[Trevor Marriott]

i don't see any great mystery here. he could have taken the pieces away and put them in a bin, or more likely I think, the pieces were too small to be noticeable. after all, I can't imagine he was shaving great chunks from his sole!

Why did he wait until he got to 29 Hanbury Street before deciding to cut this piece of leather, after all we can assume that it was the same pair of shoes he had been wearing the day before, and surely he would have been aware of the need for this repair when he put then on that morning, or even the day before, and at that time he had access to a knife when he first put them on so why wait until he got to Hanbury Street.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sweet ''F'' ALL . You think people actually care about whether just because they swore to tell the ''Truth ,the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth'', if they knew they might lie /or wanted to lie ? . Pleaseeeeeeee.

People can certainly lie under oath of course, no one would deny that, just as they can lie to the Press. The big difference is that there are possible repercussions to lying under oath. I think that it’s also worth pointing out that in a more deferential age like the LVP most average people were extremely nervous about anything to do with the law or bureaucracy. This doesn’t mean they couldn’t lie of course but lying in front of Coroner and a jury might have seemed a daunting prospect - especially when you had nothing to gain by doing it.