John Richardson

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Jon,

He told the coroner twice that he had cut leather from his boot while sitting on the steps. But no-one noticed any shavings when the yard was searched.

Best regards, George

But what they did notice by the body was a piece of metal which was initially taken to be a knife, but was later identified as a spring from one of his leggings. How do you suppose that got there, if it wasn't lost when he removed his boot to cut some leather off?

[Wickerman]

Now let's move on the the actual claims around the cobblery. He told the coroner he was on the premises two minutes at most. So he comes through the front door, swings the back door open, looking to his right and checks the lock. He then sits on the middle step with the door resting on his left shoulder and removes the legging from the foot wearing the offending boot. He unlaces the boot and takes it off. The boot is hurting his toe so the errant leather must be inside the boot at the toe end. Looking inside his boot in the dark he manages to locate the culprit piece of leather and, he says, cuts it off. He puts the piece of leather in his pocket, puts his boot back on, laces up his boot, puts the legging back on and discovers he has lost the spring clip, so maybe he takes it off to carry it. He gets up and turns clockwise, up the steps and away. All in no more than two minutes. Remarkable.

Ok, so he underestimated, he wasn't wearing a watch, it might have taken 5 minutes, how does that make any difference?

Hope we can continue this line of investigation....

Happily, though I'm not seeing where it is supposed to lead.
Perhaps you can choose a time you are comfortable with (3, 5, 10 mins?) for him being at the house, then describe why it matters?

[Wickerman]

Well i dont think its as simple as all that Herlock.

You seem to like to put less importants on Chandlers words at the inquest . Sure ,when asked whether Richardson mentioned the boot incident he simply replied. ''No'' . Wick takes this to mean that it [the ''No'' ] should not be considered evidence just because he failed to mention it to Chandler . However he and others fail to mention this part of Chandlers testimony.

Joseph Chandler, ''He ''told me'' he did not go down the steps''.

And this part


Coroner , Did you see John Richardson .?

Chandler, ''I saw him about quarter to seven, ''he told me'' he had been to the house that morning about quarter to five .He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar to see if it was alright ,and then went away to his work''....

You write Chandler said: "he told me he did not go down the steps"
Which paper did you get that from?

As ive stated before and continue to do so , because of this testimony alone ,we cant judge Richardsons testimony that he sat on the step to cut his boot leather as being a better option, or more likely option , or even correct one , More than what Chandler has suggested. Its just not right to do so in my opinion.


Right here [see a bove] we have a Richardson contradiction that is plain to see, and how complicated it becomes when trying to support one theory over another .For him to sit on the step he must first go down them or at least them or one

NOW i know you like to used the confusion card that on the morning of the murder when Richardson and Chandler spoke. That somehow this wasnt an important part of Richardsons story, and that he waited till the inquest to tell about the step and boot . But seriously, ? He did have a chance to tell it to the reporter later on that day did he not ?. But he basically said the same thing to the reporter as he did to Chander hours befor. So im going to have to disagree with the ''confusion'' excuse there im afaide.

He didn't save it for the inquest though, it is right there in the Echo & Star, Saturday evening papers 8th Sept, he told a reporter he sat down to trim his boot. He wasn't keeping it a secret.

[Wickerman]

But what they did notice by the body was a piece of metal which was initially taken to be a knife, but was later identified as a spring from one of his leggings. How do you suppose that got there, if it wasn't lost when he removed his boot to cut some leather off?

Thankyou Joshua, that spring clip has been mentioned earlier but it's presence has still not sunk in, lets see if you have any luck.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thankyou Joshua, that spring clip has been mentioned earlier but it's presence has still not sunk in, lets see if you have any luck.

Sorry Jon, I can't keep up with the pace on some threads.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I pointed it out because Phillips mentions it as an important factor in his estimated time of death "Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And with know that Rigor is an unreliable method Trevor. We also know from evidence that under some circumstances rigor can commence in under an hour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I got no response earlier so I’ll mention it again.

Point One - John Richardson said that he’d sat on the middle step with his feet on the flags (the floor of the yard)

Point Two - The bottom of the door was at least 3 feet from the flags.

Point Three - My knees are 22 inches from the ground and I’m 6’2” tall

Point Four - I don’t think we know Richardson’s height but obviously men in general were shorter at that time, so there’s a very reasonable chance that he was 4-6 inches shorter than I am (possibly slightly more) Therefore we can approximate with reasonable accuracy that John Richardson’s knees would have been around 19 or 20 inches above the flags.

Point Five - Therefore, when John Richardson sat down on those steps his knees would have been half way from the floor to the bottom of the door. Putting it another way, between Richardson’s knees and the bottom of that door there would have been a huge gap of 16 or 17 inches. A foot and a half!

Imagine yourself sitting on that step with that kind of huge gap (a foot and a half!) between your knees and the bottom of the door and tell me that you could have missed seeing a mutilated corpse, the right shoulder of which (with intestines thrown over it and blood present) would have been just inches from your left foot.

My opinion - absolutely no chance.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I got no response earlier so I’ll mention it again.

Point One - John Richardson said that he’d sat on the middle step with his feet on the flags (the floor of the yard)

Point Two - The bottom of the door was at least 3 feet from the flags.

Point Three - My knees are 22 inches from the ground and I’m 6’2” tall

Point Four - I don’t think we know Richardson’s height but obviously men in general were shorter at that time, so there’s a very reasonable chance that he was 4-6 inches shorter than I am (possibly slightly more) Therefore we can approximate with reasonable accuracy that John Richardson’s knees would have been around 19 or 20 inches above the flags.

Point Five - Therefore, when John Richardson sat down on those steps his knees would have been half way from the floor to the bottom of the door. Putting it another way, between Richardson’s knees and the bottom of that door there would have been a huge gap of 16 or 17 inches. A foot and a half!

Imagine yourself sitting on that step with that kind of huge gap (a foot and a half!) between your knees and the bottom of the door and tell me that you could have missed seeing a mutilated corpse, the right shoulder of which (with intestines thrown over it and blood present) would have been just inches from your left foot.

My opinion - absolutely no chance.

And this is assuming that Richardson was stupid enough to fiddle with his boots, with the door banging against his arm, when with half a brain working he'd have closed the door. Either way he'd have seen the body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And this is assuming that Richardson was stupid enough to fiddle with his boots, with the door banging against his arm, when with half a brain working he'd have closed the door. Either way he'd have seen the body.

Exactly Doc. I reckon that’s exactly what he’d done…..pushed the door back. This was why he was so confident that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there.

[Wickerman]

Sorry Jon, I can't keep up with the pace on some threads.

No Joshua, thats not what I meant, it was not mentioned in the form of a direct question, but the very fact it was there should make objectors think twice.
As you say - how else did it get there?

[Trevor Marriott]

And with know that Rigor is an unreliable method Trevor. We also know from evidence that under some circumstances rigor can commence in under an hour.

But those circumstances didnt apply in this case

I refer to Dr Biggs who was asked to opinine on the murder of Chapman and I post the follpwing extract which relates to Chapman

"As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But those circumstances didnt apply in this case

I refer to Dr Biggs who was asked to opinine on the murder of Chapman and I post the follpwing extract which relates to Chapman

"As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

May.

Or may not.

As the experts say…..unreliable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a few quotes to remind us about the reliability of newspaper reporting-

From The Daily News, 10th September:

“At twenty minutes past five a lodger went into the yard and noticed nothing to excite his suspicion. At a few minutes to six another lodger went there, and saw a sight that sent him screaming through the house.”

“The landlady's son, who is engaged in Spitalfields Market, is said to have looked round the yard before going to his business at ten minutes to five…”

“In this recess John David, as he crossed the yard at five minutes to six o'clock, saw the body of a woman, horribly mutilated…”

The Star, 8th September:

“At a quarter to five the body was not in the yard, Mrs. Richardson's son John, a man of 33, having passed through the yard at that time to see if the cellar door was safe.”

[GBinOz]

I got no response earlier so I’ll mention it again.

Point Two - The bottom of the door was at least 3 feet from the flags.
.

Hi Herlock,

I often tell my wife that she is never so wrong as when she is absolutely sure that she is right.

Have a look at the Mason video at mark 40 seconds. If your contention were correct the bottom of the door would be at the level of his waist at least.

I notice you didn't respond to my assessment of the gap.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

But what they did notice by the body was a piece of metal which was initially taken to be a knife, but was later identified as a spring from one of his leggings. How do you suppose that got there, if it wasn't lost when he removed his boot to cut some leather off?

Hi Joshua,

That is a very good point. I suppose that those who have Richardson as a suspect will say it was dislodged while he was murdering Annie. Those who believe Richardson's account of his early morning cobblery will propose that it was lost as part of that procedure. While I accept that both of the above are possibilities, the yard was the man's workplace where he spent many hours of the day, so there is also the possibility that he could have lost it at any of that time. Everyone can choose their preferred answer. You might note that I did include it in my cobblery timeline earlier.

Cheers, George