John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, I don't think it's wise to discredit witness testimony across the board, but rather to work out with a reasonable mind which ones are more likely to be straight down the line.

Well said FM.

[Wickerman]

This canopy issue is becoming nonsensical if the canopy was there in 1888 I have to ask based on Richardsons testimony where he says he checked the lock on the cellar on a daily basis, is how could he see the lock by just standing on the steps? and in one report he says he simply stood on the step.

The whole witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then why have witness testimony at all?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly. We can’t just jettison everything just because we don’t have cctv footage of witnesses or signed witness statements or everything confirmed in triplicate. We’re left to weigh up and assess and decide what is likeliest to be true. Or why bother discussing the case?

Trevor regularly confuses two things. 1) Assessing x and y and favouring that x is the likeliest, and 2) relying on x to prove something. Whenever someone says “I’ve assessed the evidence and my opinion is that x is likelier than y,” he automatically assumes that you’re saying “x must be true therefore I’m right” so you constantly get accused of ‘relying’ on something. Thread after thread of it.

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

With Richardson's viewing of the lock, most reports have him indicating he stood on the steps and looked at it. If the canopy was there, that seems difficult to figure out how he could have seen it from the steps leading to the house.

However, as Joshua posted here. We have the Daily News reporting things as :

"Witness (Richardson) told him (Chandler) that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

So, while it's one report, it may be the one that clarifies which steps he's referring to standing at the top of when he checked the lock. That would mean Richardson stepped over to the cellar steps, stood at the top of those steps, and viewed the lock from there. Then, he would have sat on the middle steps, did some work on his boot, and then left. However, in the Daily Telegraph it reads "When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.", which sounds more like he's standing on the steps to the house rather than the to the cellar. What exactly constitutes the "doorstep", though, might include the flagstone at the bottom of the actual steps I suppose, which could fit with the wording found in the Daily News.

While there's lots of to and fro over whether he did work on his boot or not, we also have Joshua's post on that issue here. Where we see this item found at the scene:

"There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.

Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been."

And that exchange shows converging evidence with regards to Richardson having done what he said boot-wise. We have his testimony that he repaired his boot, and we have the spring from his leggings found at that location, which is something he could have easily dropped during the repair. And of course means the door is closed when he did the repair, etc.

Of course, if the above is what happened, there's no way he could have missed Annie, and he's sure she wasn't there. Not that confidence equates to accuracy (we can be confident about things we're wrong about), but he doesn't hedge at all and we need to take that into account all the same.

The only bit of his testimony that seems to conflict is his statement that he didn't go into the yard but of course, he also says he stood on the steps (possibly the cellar steps even), then sat on the middle one with his feet on the flagstones. Those actions could be literally interpreted as being "in the yard", if you take "in the yard" to be the equivalent of "outside the house." As has been discussed at times, while some of us do make that equivalence, not all of us do.

To be clear, I do not take that phrase to mean simply outside the house because that's not how I would have used it in Richardson's case if it was me - if I said I went into the yard I would mean out into the grassed area, or with respect to Hanbury Street, out into the area where the wood/privy is shown in the photos - basically away from the step area. So if I remained on the steps, or very close to them, I still might say I didn't go out into the yard. If after having said I checked the lock, even if I said I stood at the top of the cellar steps to check the lock, and then sat on the steps I was asked if I went into the yard, I would say "no", as I would take the question to mean "Did you go out further into the backyard".

Of course what is important is not how I would have responded, or how someone else would have responded, but what Richardson intended by his answers. It would be great if we could ask him more details about his movements and clarification about his use of certain words and phrases, but then some might think he's changing his story when he clarifies his intentions, so maybe that wouldn't be helpful?

Regardless of where he stood to check the lock, I personally can't see him repairing the boot with the door leaning against him. If he sat on the steps to fix his boot, the most natural thing to do would be to close the door behind him and fix his boot then go. In which case he again could not have missed her, if she had been there. I know the idea is that some positions of the door might obscure his view during his repair, but I cannot take seriously the idea of him sitting there acting as a boot-repairing doorstop.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly. We can’t just jettison everything just because we don’t have cctv footage of witnesses or signed witness statements or everything confirmed in triplicate. We’re left to weigh up and assess and decide what is likeliest to be true. Or why bother discussing the case?

But what you decide as to be the likely truth may not be the truth because you are basing your opinion on nothing more than what you beleive to be the truth, despite the flaws in the witness testimony being repeatedly pointed out to you which you totally ignore. You keep saying the time of death could be early or it coulod be later, and in the next breath you are stamping your feet in favour of a later time of death.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Scott Nelson]

Was Richardson taken to the backyard to view the body? I think he was. Seeing it in-situ, he would have been even more certain it was not there when he had sat on the steps.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then why have witness testimony at all?

Well I have to say that the witness testimony in most of the murders is all over the place and contains major flaws

The witness testimony into the death of Chapman at the coroners inquest, was reported by the press those reports conflict with each other. As I have stated we dont have the original depositions so we have to rely on what the papers reported but researchers are seemingly making their own judgment based on which report suits their own personal belief.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But what you decide as to be the likely truth may not be the truth because you are basing your opinion on nothing more than what you beleive to be the truth, despite the flaws in the witness testimony being repeatedly pointed out to you which you totally ignore. You keep saying the time of death could be early or it coulod be later, and in the next breath you are stamping your feet in favour of a later time of death.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not claiming anything Trevor. I’m saying that Phillips could have got it right or Phillips could have got it wrong and because there is no way of evaluation the precise nature of the medical evidence we can draw no conclusion either way - I consider that a perfectly logical and reasonable way of looking at things.

On Richardson - of course we can’t be 100% certain on anything in this case we can only assess and not assume as you falsely claim. I’ve considered the points against him which amount to 2 things, Inspector Chandler, in an on-the-spot ‘interview in the passage way at a busy murder scene, saying that Richardson didn’t mention his reason for sitting on the step and some newspaper reports saying that he’d stood on the step. So we ASSESS not ASSUME.

The fact that in news reports before the inquest there was also mention of Richardson sitting on the step. I haven’t seen all of those reports so I don’t know what percentages we’re talking about. But, is it at all likely that the Press, out of thin air, would have come up with the suggestion that Richardson had sat on the step to fix his boot? If not, and I’m hoping that even you accept this, then it’s obvious that Richardson had mentioned sitting on the step to fix his boot before the inquest. Then of course we can’t dismiss the possibility that it was Chandler who misheard or misunderstood Richardson. And EVEN if Richardson hadn’t mentioned his reason for sitting on the step to Chandler there would have been nothing remotely amiss about this as the reason was irrelevant at that time. Then we have the layout of the yard and the canopy, and the evidence of the two holes which very strongly point to the location of it. This points extremely strongly to the suggestion that Richardson would have had to have been sitting down to have had any chance of seeing the lock. And finally Trevor, to claim that Richardson lied then we have to assume utter idiocy. That he would have ignored 5 childishly obvious and simply explanations which would have strengthened his case for the body not being there in favour of one that does no such thing but only places him at the crime scene in possession of a knife.

None of the above is ASSUMPTION Trevor, it’s a calm ASSESSMENT of the evidence that we have and it points clearly and obviously to one conclusion. That it is overwhelmingly likely that Richardson sat on the step to fix his boot and didn’t see the body.

Now, you can disagree of course, but you should use logic, reason, evidence and common sense to do it and not simply by trying to dismiss everything or by making spurious claims that I’m someone making assumptions when I’m clearly not. We don’t HAVE to consider witnesses honest or infallible but we shouldn’t resort to what you always resort to when you here opinions that don’t match up with your own - you try to discredit and dismiss. To foolishly accept something with assessment is just as stupid as simply dismissing the imperfect. The phrase is ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water.’ And in this case you’ve gotten rid of more ‘babies’ the Herod.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was Richardson taken to the backyard to view the body? I think he was. Seeing it in-situ, he would have been even more certain it was not there when he had sat on the steps.

Exactly Scott. He actually said that he’d seen the body from next doors yard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I have to say that the witness testimony in most of the murders is all over the place and contains major flaws

The witness testimony into the death of Chapman at the coroners inquest, was reported by the press those reports conflict with each other. As I have stated we dont have the original depositions so we have to rely on what the papers reported but researchers are seemingly making their own judgment based on which report suits their own personal belief.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have no ‘personal belief.’ I leave the bias to yourself. Are you so conceited that you don’t feel that anyone but yourself is capable of judgment? Past evidence points to the fact that this is exactly your view. Only you can be correct.

………

So would you abandon all investigations? Shut down the courts except for ‘bang to rights’ cases?

[Wickerman]

Well I have to say that the witness testimony in most of the murders is all over the place and contains major flaws

The witness testimony into the death of Chapman at the coroners inquest, was reported by the press those reports conflict with each other. As I have stated we dont have the original depositions so we have to rely on what the papers reported but researchers are seemingly making their own judgment based on which report suits their own personal belief.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Right, well there's no substitute for being there yourself, but seeing as that isn't going to happen, we should take the written words of all those who were there.
Meaning, as many press reports as we can find, and use our own judgement when comparing the different versions. It's not a case of preferring one newspaper over another. We have to collate all the available evidence, and only used the testimony of one person against another, not just arbitrarily decide one person is lying.
I take all the testimony as given in good faith, but journalistic editing unintentionally can distort what we read. It involves some work.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Hi,

With Richardson's viewing of the lock, most reports have him indicating he stood on the steps and looked at it. If the canopy was there, that seems difficult to figure out how he could have seen it from the steps leading to the house.

However, as Joshua posted here. We have the Daily News reporting things as :

"Witness (Richardson) told him (Chandler) that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

So, while it's one report, it may be the one that clarifies which steps he's referring to standing at the top of when he checked the lock. That would mean Richardson stepped over to the cellar steps, stood at the top of those steps, and viewed the lock from there. Then, he would have sat on the middle steps, did some work on his boot, and then left. However, in the Daily Telegraph it reads "When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.", which sounds more like he's standing on the steps to the house rather than the to the cellar. What exactly constitutes the "doorstep", though, might include the flagstone at the bottom of the actual steps I suppose, which could fit with the wording found in the Daily News.

While there's lots of to and fro over whether he did work on his boot or not, we also have Joshua's post on that issue here. Where we see this item found at the scene:

"There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.

Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been."

And that exchange shows converging evidence with regards to Richardson having done what he said boot-wise. We have his testimony that he repaired his boot, and we have the spring from his leggings found at that location, which is something he could have easily dropped during the repair. And of course means the door is closed when he did the repair, etc.

Of course, if the above is what happened, there's no way he could have missed Annie, and he's sure she wasn't there. Not that confidence equates to accuracy (we can be confident about things we're wrong about), but he doesn't hedge at all and we need to take that into account all the same.

The only bit of his testimony that seems to conflict is his statement that he didn't go into the yard but of course, he also says he stood on the steps (possibly the cellar steps even), then sat on the middle one with his feet on the flagstones. Those actions could be literally interpreted as being "in the yard", if you take "in the yard" to be the equivalent of "outside the house." As has been discussed at times, while some of us do make that equivalence, not all of us do.

To be clear, I do not take that phrase to mean simply outside the house because that's not how I would have used it in Richardson's case if it was me - if I said I went into the yard I would mean out into the grassed area, or with respect to Hanbury Street, out into the area where the wood/privy is shown in the photos - basically away from the step area. So if I remained on the steps, or very close to them, I still might say I didn't go out into the yard. If after having said I checked the lock, even if I said I stood at the top of the cellar steps to check the lock, and then sat on the steps I was asked if I went into the yard, I would say "no", as I would take the question to mean "Did you go out further into the backyard".

Of course what is important is not how I would have responded, or how someone else would have responded, but what Richardson intended by his answers. It would be great if we could ask him more details about his movements and clarification about his use of certain words and phrases, but then some might think he's changing his story when he clarifies his intentions, so maybe that wouldn't be helpful?

Regardless of where he stood to check the lock, I personally can't see him repairing the boot with the door leaning against him. If he sat on the steps to fix his boot, the most natural thing to do would be to close the door behind him and fix his boot then go. In which case he again could not have missed her, if she had been there. I know the idea is that some positions of the door might obscure his view during his repair, but I cannot take seriously the idea of him sitting there acting as a boot-repairing doorstop.

- Jeff

Great post and it addresses just what I was saying a few pages ago in sarcasm. Which top of the stairs? Into the backyard or the cellar?

[GBinOz]

Hi,

With Richardson's viewing of the lock, most reports have him indicating he stood on the steps and looked at it. If the canopy was there, that seems difficult to figure out how he could have seen it from the steps leading to the house.

However, as Joshua posted here. We have the Daily News reporting things as :

"Witness (Richardson) told him (Chandler) that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

So, while it's one report, it may be the one that clarifies which steps he's referring to standing at the top of when he checked the lock. That would mean Richardson stepped over to the cellar steps, stood at the top of those steps, and viewed the lock from there. Then, he would have sat on the middle steps, did some work on his boot, and then left. However, in the Daily Telegraph it reads "When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.", which sounds more like he's standing on the steps to the house rather than the to the cellar. What exactly constitutes the "doorstep", though, might include the flagstone at the bottom of the actual steps I suppose, which could fit with the wording found in the Daily News.

While there's lots of to and fro over whether he did work on his boot or not, we also have Joshua's post on that issue here. Where we see this item found at the scene:

"There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.

Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been."

And that exchange shows converging evidence with regards to Richardson having done what he said boot-wise. We have his testimony that he repaired his boot, and we have the spring from his leggings found at that location, which is something he could have easily dropped during the repair. And of course means the door is closed when he did the repair, etc.

Of course, if the above is what happened, there's no way he could have missed Annie, and he's sure she wasn't there. Not that confidence equates to accuracy (we can be confident about things we're wrong about), but he doesn't hedge at all and we need to take that into account all the same.

The only bit of his testimony that seems to conflict is his statement that he didn't go into the yard but of course, he also says he stood on the steps (possibly the cellar steps even), then sat on the middle one with his feet on the flagstones. Those actions could be literally interpreted as being "in the yard", if you take "in the yard" to be the equivalent of "outside the house." As has been discussed at times, while some of us do make that equivalence, not all of us do.

To be clear, I do not take that phrase to mean simply outside the house because that's not how I would have used it in Richardson's case if it was me - if I said I went into the yard I would mean out into the grassed area, or with respect to Hanbury Street, out into the area where the wood/privy is shown in the photos - basically away from the step area. So if I remained on the steps, or very close to them, I still might say I didn't go out into the yard. If after having said I checked the lock, even if I said I stood at the top of the cellar steps to check the lock, and then sat on the steps I was asked if I went into the yard, I would say "no", as I would take the question to mean "Did you go out further into the backyard".

Of course what is important is not how I would have responded, or how someone else would have responded, but what Richardson intended by his answers. It would be great if we could ask him more details about his movements and clarification about his use of certain words and phrases, but then some might think he's changing his story when he clarifies his intentions, so maybe that wouldn't be helpful?

Regardless of where he stood to check the lock, I personally can't see him repairing the boot with the door leaning against him. If he sat on the steps to fix his boot, the most natural thing to do would be to close the door behind him and fix his boot then go. In which case he again could not have missed her, if she had been there. I know the idea is that some positions of the door might obscure his view during his repair, but I cannot take seriously the idea of him sitting there acting as a boot-repairing doorstop.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

"Witness (Richardson) told him (Chandler) that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

So, while it's one report, it may be the one that clarifies which steps he's referring to standing at the top of when he checked the lock.I thought about this possibility when Joshua posted it. But it would be true to say that the back door steps also lead to the cellar. The coroner was very interested in this point and I think the question is resolved by this exchange from the Daily News 13 Sept:
Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-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.

And that was the sole object you had in going there?-Yes, sir.

The question of the canopy is largely irrelevant as both John and Amelia Richardson testified at the inquest that the lock could be seen from the steps. As Herlock keeps saying, why would they lie. And it can be done without going in the yard, which he also repeated testified to not doing. Perhaps it can be argued that the back door steps are part of the house, but once you walk to the top of the cellar steps you are indisputably in the yard.

The spring clip from his leggings could have been left as a result of his cobblery, but the yard was his workplace and he could have lost it at any time while working there.

Richardson had been going to the yard for months to check the lock "from the back door steps". The step sitting was on one occasion only. The Mason video shows that he wouldn't have seen the body using his daily routine method of checking the lock. If the step setting story in accepted, how he sat on the steps in relation to the door becomes pure speculation.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Right, well there's no substitute for being there yourself, but seeing as that isn't going to happen, we should take the written words of all those who were there.
Meaning, as many press reports as we can find, and use our own judgement when comparing the different versions. It's not a case of preferring one newspaper over another. We have to collate all the available evidence, and only used the testimony of one person against another, not just arbitrarily decide one person is lying.
I take all the testimony as given in good faith, but journalistic editing unintentionally can distort what we read. It involves some work.

I agree Jon. It is somewhat understandable that journalists may acquire different aspects of a story from different interviews, but when at the inquest they are hearing the same thing, so we would hope for a higher standard. But after we have examined the different versions from the different publications, there needs to be assessment of believability of the witness testimony when the witness testimonies point in different directions. One method of assessment is to examine the self contradictions made by the witness over the course of his interviews and within his inquest testimony itself.

After that, each person will make up his own mind as to the preponderance of evidence.

Best regards, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Jeff,

"Witness (Richardson) told him (Chandler) that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

So, while it's one report, it may be the one that clarifies which steps he's referring to standing at the top of when he checked the lock.I thought about this possibility when Joshua posted it. But it would be true to say that the back door steps also lead to the cellar. The coroner was very interested in this point and I think the question is resolved by this exchange from the Daily News 13 Sept:
Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-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.

And that was the sole object you had in going there?-Yes, sir.

The question of the canopy is largely irrelevant as both John and Amelia Richardson testified at the inquest that the lock could be seen from the steps. As Herlock keeps saying, why would they lie. And it can be done without going in the yard, which he also repeated testified to not doing. Perhaps it can be argued that the back door steps are part of the house, but once you walk to the top of the cellar steps you are indisputably in the yard.

The spring clip from his leggings could have been left as a result of his cobblery, but the yard was his workplace and he could have lost it at any time while working there.

Richardson had been going to the yard for months to check the lock "from the back door steps". The step sitting was on one occasion only. The Mason video shows that he wouldn't have seen the body using his daily routine method of checking the lock. If the step setting story in accepted, how he sat on the steps in relation to the door becomes pure speculation.

Best regards, George

Well said George , Cant be anymore clearer than that , as ive said all along witness testimomy and evidence in this incident from the Richardsons and Chandler , in no way can be judged one was more likely or proves the other wrong . Some dont like it , some dont agree , some go to extrodinary lenths to try and disrespect other right to an opinion on the matter . But in the end it is what it is , open to interpretation on both sides .