John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

There wasn't really very much Richardson/Chandler interaction. Chandler was managing a crime scene, he wasn't interviewing witnesses, and he seems to have spoken briefly to Richardson in the passage. He probably just collected enough information to establish that Richardson would be an important witness. If we read what Chandler said, we realise that his report and understanding of events is obviously incomplete. He said that Richardson told him that he called to check the cellar lock and then left for work. That is clear, but he also reported that Richardson said "he was sure that the woman wasn't there". Richardson said he was sure, and he could only be sure if he had done something more than just check the cellar lock. Chandler just didn't ask him how he could be sure, and therefore he wasn't told anything else.

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''.

How is it when Richardson claims something under oath then it must be accepted , but when Chandler does the same, we seem to wanted make up all the reasons why it should be discredited ?

Im not sure we can judge as to what the circumstances of their interaction was that morning, i guess its futile to try and put context into such an event when its impossible to know what took place between them. All we can say for sure is what each one claimed to have said happened that morning.

My post #450 explains why its well within the boundaries that one person should not be judged as right or wrong .

[FISHY1118]

Im not ridiculing anyone. No, I don’t think that Richardson’s evidence is open to interpretation. It’s black and white. He said at the inquest (and in newspaper articles before the inquest) that he’d sat on the steps and couldn’t possibly have missed a body. We have no reason for doubting that. Anyone is free to claim that we have reason for doubt but I’m not going to agree with them just for the sake of it.

And no, I’m not going to simply ‘accept’ that it’s some kind of close run thing because it’s not. The evidence is massively in favour of a later TOD.

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''.

If its so simple as black and white then inspector Chandler must of been Colorblind .

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

Hi George,

We cannot know the exact truth, but imagine for a few moments that you are Richardson, and his attempted boot repair is the truth ....

You check the cellar door lock is secure, and then you think that your damned boot is still really uncomfortable, and maybe you should fix it now. You sit down on the middle step, but the door, which closes itself, bangs against your left arm. Do you carry on regardless, or close the door? I suspect that it is the latter. Maybe that means standing on the bottom step, or maybe you put one foot into the yard for two seconds whilst closing the door. Does this mean that in your mind you have just gone into the yard for example? Or does going into the yard mean going to the outside loo, or something similar? Surely, in your mind you have just done what anyone would do in the circumstances, you sat on the step to check your boot. You don't feel the need to tell everyone each tiny piece of activity that was involved like closing or not closing a door.

Chandler did not interview Richardson, as he was busy managing a crime scene, and he really was just making a note about a potentially useful witness. The interview with all the relevant details would come later. But Richardson did tell Chandler when they first spoke briefly in the passage that he was sure that the body was not in the yard at that time. He did not say just that he didn't notice it, but he was sure that it wasn't there. On that basis, there was no doubt in his mind, and he is clearly saying that he had been able to see the area in question.

[FISHY1118]

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




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.

Day 3, Thursday, September 13, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, September 14, 1888, Page 3)



Yes, but he also gave a interview to a reporter [i think george posted it ] where he said the same thing as he did to Chandler on the morning of the murder that didnt involve the boot cutting.

ALL my point being was that he didnt say it at 6.45 to Chandler on the morning, or later in the day later when interviewed . Why the delay ? A bit strange i should think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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''.

If its so simple as black and white then inspector Chandler must of been Colorblind .

Of course it’s possible that Chandler was correct but as Richardson didn’t get the opportunity to respond we have no way of knowing what he would have said. He might have said that he had mentioned the boot or he might have confirmed what Chandler had said. But even if he hadn’t mentioned the boot then this still doesn’t mean that he hadn’t sat on the steps; only that he hadn’t mentioned his reason for sitting. The reason wouldn’t have been relevant at the time. Chandler wasn’t really interested in ‘why.’ He was focused on whether Richardson could have missed the body or not and he could see that Richardson was 100% confident that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there.

The scenario of Richardson sitting on the step is mentioned numerous times in the Press (posted by Joshua) so they clearly got this from somewhere. Some of course just mention standing on the steps. But as I showed a few posts ago the Press can often garble various accounts. The important fact though is that the suggestion that Richardson had sat on the steps was clearly out thee before the inquest and must have originated from Richardson himself.

And as Wickerman has said, it’s a well known fact that witnesses don’t always give a full account on there first interview. This might of course be down to the fact of more probing questions. If Richardson had said “I sat on the back steps and saw….” why would Chandler have bothered asking “but why did you sit on the steps.”

If I said “I was in the High Street on Thursday and I saw Fishy going into the butchers shop,” and then a day or so later someone said “I doubt that because he usually goes to the butchers on a Monday,” and I replied “but I know it was Thursday because I was going to collect a suit from the dry cleaners and I didn’t go to the High Street on any other day.”

Would anyone be saying, “well you’re just inventing that detail to back up your claim.” So why would Richardson simply have made this false claim.

To add to the unlikeliness, in post #506 I gave 5 very obvious, childishly simple things that Richardson could have said that would have definitely strengthened his suggestion that there was no body there but he ignored them all to make the worst suggestion possible. That he’d sat on the step with a knife.

……

We can’t 100% prove anything as you’ve said Fishy but overall the evidence absolutely favours Richardson telling the truth. This is why I’m as cond Fife to as I can be (without claiming anything 100%) that Richardson told the truth and was correct when he said that he couldn’t possibly have missed a corpse. And yes, I do find it difficult to see why so much effort is expended to try and prove otherwise. But that’s just my opinion on the matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Day 3, Thursday, September 13, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, September 14, 1888, Page 3)



Yes, but he also gave a interview to a reporter [i think george posted it ] where he said the same thing as he did to Chandler on the morning of the murder that didnt involve the boot cutting.

ALL my point being was that he didnt say it at 6.45 to Chandler on the morning, or later in the day later when interviewed . Why the delay ? A bit strange i should think.

But Joshua posted more than one quote from newspapers, before the inquest, where he did say that he’d stood on the step. So that’s not a change of story, it’s a Press error of reporting.

[harry]

I was not arguing in my last post Herlock,I was stating facts and asking questions.Sarcasm will get you nowhere,but true to form,it's all you have to offer.
I do not profess to know better than the experts.I have made it clear I accept the expert opinion of Phillips.
As to arguementative,refer to the disparity in the number of posts we have both made over the years.You far exceed me.
Wickerman was quoting law ,he used the word.We can not look at it in a general way.We are discussing criminal law.Not all laws and courts demand that evidence be given under oath.
Your ignorance is your undoing.

[Trevor Marriott]

I disagree.

well how unusual for you to do that

You have to remember that we do not have access to the original signed witness depositions so we are left to rely on the various newspaper reports which conflict with each other so we have no realistic chance of conclusivley proving where the truth lies, and if we were to find the truth where does it take us in the grand scheme of things, It is a fact that Chapman was killed by the same killer who killed the other victims. So why continue to argue about the time of death?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

When all else fails, just accuse the witness of lying.....

Didn't Richardson provide a statement along the lines of: ".....I could not have failed to have noticed the deceased, had she been there then......"

That suggests to me he certainly could see into that part of the yard, from wherever he was sat/standing.

[FISHY1118]

Didn't Richardson provide a statement along the lines of: ".....I could not have failed to have noticed the deceased, had she been there then......"

That suggests to me he certainly could see into that part of the yard, from wherever he was sat/standing.

That part of his Inquest testimony was after his claim that he sat on the step to cut the leather from his boot , which if tru then yes he certainly would not have missed the body . However , we have to also take into account Insp Chandlers inquest testimony where he said this.

[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - [Chandler] 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.

[Chandler] He told me he did not go down the steps.

Its seems pretty obvious Richardsons doing a lot of telling what he did that morning .

Its not possible to see the body when the door is opened on a 40 degree angle while standing on the first step to checking the lock on the right hand side .

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

I fully expected that you would acknowledge your mistake and concede that the gap was only about 3". But you have not even detailed why it would be more than that. As well as the gap there is also the angle of view with the door closing. There is no certainty as to how far he opened the door. That is your conjecture. You offer 5 ways that he could have strengthened his contention, but he didn't. He gave his story and that is what we have to assess. You have previously said that that when you are wrong you admit it, and that was my expectation. But you have only offered speculative denial. I did expect better.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

well how unusual for you to do that

You have to remember that we do not have access to the original signed witness depositions so we are left to rely on the various newspaper reports which conflict with each other so we have no realistic chance of conclusivley proving where the truth lies, and if we were to find the truth where does it take us in the grand scheme of things, It is a fact that Chapman was killed by the same killer who killed the other victims. So why continue to argue about the time of death?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not really bothered about the TOD death because I have no theory that might rely on it but I’m just looking at it from a logical point of view and to see why people feel the need to try and prove something which to me seems massively less likely to have been true. Mentioning Phillips is one example. The logic for me should be - he could have been right, he could have been wrong, therefore we can gain nothing useful from him and at 134 years distance we can’t properly assess the condition of the body, therefore Phillips is of no use. The evidence also for me overwhelmingly points to Richardson sitting on the step and if that was the case I think it almost impossible that Richardson could have missed the body. Therefore it’s overwhelmingly likely that Chapman was still alive when Richardson went into the yard.

Out of curiosity I wonder what the odds are of the three main witnesses connected to the issue all being mistaken or lying? Was there a convention of dodgy witnesses going on in the neighbourhood?

[GBinOz]

Reading some of the posts here I am put in mind of Ricky Gervais's contention that lying was invented in 2007, or Dick Solomon's wondering why no-one had ever before thought of lying on their taxes. These are presented as comedies. In the real world it is different.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I fully expected that you would acknowledge your mistake and concede that the gap was only about 3". But you have not even detailed why it would be more than that. As well as the gap there is also the angle of view with the door closing. There is no certainty as to how far he opened the door. That is your conjecture. You offer 5 ways that he could have strengthened his contention, but he didn't. He gave his story and that is what we have to assess. You have previously said that that when you are wrong you admit it, and that was my expectation. But you have only offered speculative denial. I did expect better.

Cheers, George

George, it was stated that the gap between the bottom of the door and the flags was 3 feet (by people who were actually there) It looks slightly less to me though. Neither of us can know for certain and camera angles can make things like this difficult to access accurately.

Richardson’s knees would have been less that 22 inches above the flags though (as he was shorter than myself) If the door was only 2½ feet from the flags and his knees were 20 inches from the floor that gives a gap of 6 inches. I consider this a minimum. The door could have been a little higher and Richardson’s knees might have been say 18 inches high. So the gap could easily have been 10 inches. Richardson was there and knew that he couldn’t have missed the body.

Its my opinion that we have a pretty good level of certainty of how far he would have had to have opened the door (unless you go for the Fisherman method of him going down edged to the right and only facing right) To step down onto the flags would mean that the usual way of opening the door would have been to have opened it to close to 90 degrees.

Im afraid that you’ve glossed over the 5 reasons. It’s you that is claiming stupidity on Richardson’s part. You have him being so ridiculously stupid, so careless of any risks of police interest, that he goes for the worst possible explanation and ignores 5 that even a child couldn’t have failed to have come up with. This makes the idea that he invented the story of sitting on the step unbelievable. We also have the story of him sitting on the step in the Press pre-dating the inquest. So where did that come from if not Richardson.

Taken as a whole, everything favours the man who said that he couldn’t possibly have missed the body. He had absolutely no reason to lie and he certainly wouldn’t have avoided 5 obvious ones in favour of one that put him at the crime scene with a knife.

Genuinely George, I’m little short of amazed that anyone viewing this issue can’t see that it’s overwhelmingly likely (and I really do mean overwhelmingly) that Richardson was correct.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reading some of the posts here I am put in mind of Ricky Gervais's contention that lying was invented in 2007, or Dick Solomon's wondering why no-one had ever before thought of lying on their taxes. These are presented as comedies. In the real world it is different.

Cheers, George

And in the real world George, especially the LVP in crime ridden Whitechapel, how likely is it that a witness would have lied to a Police Inspector and said “oh yeah and by the way, I was in that yard alone and I had a knife in my hand.”