John Richardson

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Doc,

Going down the steps to close the door behind him is totally different to what he told Chandler, or the coroner. The jury were concerned whether the door would have blocked his view, but he didn't clarify with this proposal in answer to their questions. If he had mentioned it at any time it would have removed all doubt, but he didn't, so it is only speculation.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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

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?

Hi Jon,

It seemed to matter to Richardson. He was trying to impress on the coroner how little time he was on the premises, but only he knows why.
I was referring to further examination of his view from the sitting position, not his cobblery.

Best regards, George

[Wickerman]

While it's not the best quality, there's nothing we have debated that contradicts how this was presented.
Even the scale of that second step being larger than the lowest one.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

It seemed to matter to Richardson. He was trying to impress on the coroner how little time he was on the premises, but only he knows why.
I was referring to further examination of his view from the sitting position, not his cobblery.

Best regards, George

Thankyou George, but you don't think the coroner would have thought him sitting to trim his boot will take several minutes?
The coroner is allowed to speculate, he could question Richardson's story if he thought it sounded suspicious, and Chandler was apparently convinced by the story.

[GBinOz]

While it's not the best quality, there's nothing we have debated that contradicts how this was presented.
Even the scale of that second step being larger than the lowest one.

Hi Jon,

Comparing this to your photo in Post #2, there is not enough height between the second and top steps - three bricks, about 10". If he is sitting at the centre of the middle step, the door would be further closed than is shown and over the top of his thighs, and interfering with his cobblery. To me, the perspective looks to have rotated the stair and Richardson anticlockwise so than they and he are directed towards the fence.

Looking at Mason at the 41 sec mark in the video, I would estimate than the middle step is about at his knee height and the bottom of the door at about mid thigh, about 20" and 30" I would guess. I would say the door would close about 3" over his thigh were the boot not there.

Best regards, George

[The Macdonald Triad]

Very hot thread, been reading it for days but forgot my login until now. I've always had a niggling feeling that the answer to everything was in the Chapman murder. I am highly suspicious of Richardson due to the obvious. Sitting on the steps with a knife making cutting motions at his feet. To a potential witness up and behind him to the left I feel this modification to his statement wouldn't work but to Cadosch it just might if he was panicked and thought Cadosch popped his head over (or if Richardson thought he may have after hearing Cadosch's statement in the press). Also when Richardson was hob nobbing with a reporter a crazy incident occurred when someone approached him and said something menacing. I feel like he tried to "flip the script" back onto the stranger and project. I believe Richardson to be the obvious Leather Apron and somehow it was put onto Pizer. So what would be Richardson's motive if he was JTR? If I remember right, his young son lived in the building at Richardson's Moms apartment. A father would stew at having his son exposed by that kind of behavior taking place in hallways, stairwells and back gardens. Also combined with the theft of tools needed for the packing crate business it's quite possible he just had enough. All victims quite possibly used this building for prostitution and after not being caught he felt invincible.

[GBinOz]

[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.

Cadosch must have known Richardson and his assistant weren't working in the yard at this time. Can anyone venture an opinion on what he was talking about in this statement?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Very hot thread, been reading it for days but forgot my login until now. I've always had a niggling feeling that the answer to everything was in the Chapman murder. I am highly suspicious of Richardson due to the obvious. Sitting on the steps with a knife making cutting motions at his feet. To a potential witness up and behind him to the left I feel this modification to his statement wouldn't work but to Cadosch it just might if he was panicked and thought Cadosch popped his head over (or if Richardson thought he may have after hearing Cadosch's statement in the press). Also when Richardson was hob nobbing with a reporter a crazy incident occurred when someone approached him and said something menacing. I feel like he tried to "flip the script" back onto the stranger and project. I believe Richardson to be the obvious Leather Apron and somehow it was put onto Pizer. So what would be Richardson's motive if he was JTR? If I remember right, his young son lived in the building at Richardson's Moms apartment. A father would stew at having his son exposed by that kind of behavior taking place in hallways, stairwells and back gardens. Also combined with the theft of tools needed for the packing crate business it's quite possible he just had enough. All victims quite possibly used this building for prostitution and after not being caught he felt invincible.

That interview by Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, published 16 Sept, was with both Amelia and John Richardson. Amelia said that "Dark Annie" visited regularly and that she had bought needlecraft from her on several occasions, and her neighbours had done the same. John Richardson said that, despite his mother's protests to the contrary, the premises and yard had been used for prostitution for years, with "Dark Annie" being a frequent visitor.

29 Hanbury St is associated with two potential suspects. John Richardson and James Hardiman, the son of Harriett Hardiman, the proprietor of the cat's meat shop at the front of the building.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

May.

Or may not.

As the experts say…..unreliable.

More reliable than the witnesses

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Exactly Herlock,it is a quote by Wickerman.He is supposedly quoting a law.He and yourself have been challenged to show that law.You cannot becase such a law does not exist.The swearing in is a procedure.It's purpose is to give police the power to act against persons who lie after swearing to tell the truth.If the authorities presumed that only truth would be given there would be no need for such a procedure.
The presumtion of innocence and it's meaning,for instance,is well understood ,because there is much written work for guidance.'Presumption of Truth' however,has only Wickerman's quote as to it's existence,but I stand to be corrected if you can show a previous quote,or an origin previous to Wickerman,and it's meaning has not been explained.Wickerman didn't include a description.I wonder why? Truth is not an offence, why does it need a law?

Ingemar Thiblin.Never heard of the person.Was He/She directly referring to the Chapman killing? Was He/She directly referring to a time of death with a mean time of 2 hours? Did He/She specifically mention Phillips? What part of September was He/She describing? September in England,as a poster has explained,can be quite mild,and from experience I can say quite changeable.Did Thiblin take that into consideration?I do not know better than Phillips.You Herlock,apparantly do.
Two hours,probably more is what Phillips said.Had he said two hours probably less,would you dismiss the probability factor?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hello George,

The 3 foot estimation is certainly questionable but we would still have a very considerable gap between the bottom of the door and Richardson’s knees. He would undoubtedly have seen the body. Even more certainly, when he initially opened the door in order that he could have stepped down to the flags to sit on the middle steps he’d have had to have opened the door to around the 90 degree mark or greater. He’d have seen the body. Added to this, Richardson knew the exact location of the body and how much floor space it took up, and was absolutely certain that he couldn’t have missed the body. Richardson, as far as we are aware, wasn’t an idiot who didn’t know that a door can block a view of something.

And, as Richardson can’t be assumed to have been an idiot who would without reason would have bizarrely have placed himself unnecessarily at the crime scene, why we he have ignored 5 perfect obvious and perfect simple ways of strengthening his contention that there was no body there in favour of placing himself at the crime scene with a knife. It just makes no sense.

He sat on the steps for a smoke with the door pushed back.

He stood on the steps and pushed the door back to the fence.

He took a few steps to the cellar and the passage way door closed.

He went to the outside loo and the passage way door closed.

He looked around the yard checking fences, the outside loo etc, with the passage way door closed.

But no, he goes for….

He sat there with a knife.

…..

Everything for me points to the fact that the body just wasn’t there. I don’t even consider it close George. We will have to agree to disagree on this one I think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That interview by Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, published 16 Sept, was with both Amelia and John Richardson. Amelia said that "Dark Annie" visited regularly and that she had bought needlecraft from her on several occasions, and her neighbours had done the same. John Richardson said that, despite his mother's protests to the contrary, the premises and yard had been used for prostitution for years, with "Dark Annie" being a frequent visitor.

29 Hanbury St is associated with two potential suspects. John Richardson and James Hardiman, the son of Harriett Hardiman, the proprietor of the cat's meat shop at the front of the building.

Cheers, George

I think that Hardiman’s brother has also been mentioned George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

More reliable than the witnesses

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I disagree.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly Herlock,it is a quote by Wickerman.He is supposedly quoting a law.He and yourself have been challenged to show that law.You cannot becase such a law does not exist.The swearing in is a procedure.It's purpose is to give police the power to act against persons who lie after swearing to tell the truth.If the authorities presumed that only truth would be given there would be no need for such a procedure.
The presumtion of innocence and it's meaning,for instance,is well understood ,because there is much written work for guidance.'Presumption of Truth' however,has only Wickerman's quote as to it's existence,but I stand to be corrected if you can show a previous quote,or an origin previous to Wickerman,and it's meaning has not been explained.Wickerman didn't include a description.I wonder why? Truth is not an offence, why does it need a law?

He is NOT quoting a law Harry, how many times do I need to restate this, he was stating the law in general. Do you honestly believe that Wickerman believes that there is some kind law that guarantees the truth? No law can guarantee anything. I just can’t understand why you are even suggesting it? Witnesses are asked to swear; it is meant as a pledge to be truthful on the understanding that there can be legal punishment for lying.

Ingemar Thiblin.Never heard of the person.Was He/She directly referring to the Chapman killing? Was He/She directly referring to a time of death with a mean time of 2 hours? Did He/She specifically mention Phillips? What part of September was He/She describing? September in England,as a poster has explained,can be quite mild,and from experience I can say quite changeable.Did Thiblin take that into consideration?I do not know better than Phillips.You Herlock,apparantly do.
Two hours,probably more is what Phillips said.Had he said two hours probably less,would you dismiss the probability factor?

Honestly Harry, you would argue that black is white. He’s yet another modern day medical expert that lacks your in depth knowledge of forensic medicine! And YES, Fisherman discussed specifically THIS case with him. Perhaps he should have just consulted you first? Please consider what you’re saying Harry. Why do you believe to know better than all of the experts?

[Herlock Sholmes]

[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.

Cadosch must have known Richardson and his assistant weren't working in the yard at this time. Can anyone venture an opinion on what he was talking about in this statement?

Cheers, George

Why would he have known that they weren’t working though George? Who’s to say that they couldn’t have had a lot of work on and so were making an early start? When someone hears a sound from the next yard they don’t usually think “ bloody serial killers! No consideration.”