John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

Quite clearly we do not have all of the source information at our disposal, such information could well fill in a few gaps and explain what appear to be glaring contradictions to the modern eye.

I think it's quite possible that some of the witness statements appear to be odd but in actual fact are more or less an accurate version of events. Take John Richardson: it is not much of a leap of faith to suggest that he simply kept his initial discussion with Inspector Chandler to the bare essentials for whatever reason he felt it to be expedient. It does not follow that there is an undoubted flaw in his series of statements. My personal view is that I'm more inclined to go with the estimated TOD by medical experts, particularly as Dr Phillips was on the scene only one hour after Annie's body was found, but I've read both sides of the debate on here and as a result I believe the argument that John Richardson was on the steps is as good an argument as the one suggesting he simply had a quick glance at the cellar and embellished the rest.

I think it's a given that some of the witness statements will be unsafe, for various reasons, just as they would be today; but I reckon a decent chunk of them will be straight down the line and that it's a safe bet at least one important witness statement is generally being discounted but in actual fact is an accurate and important version of events. ''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''.



I think you're making assumptions here in terms of what he considered a risk worth taking, and when you consider this is an individual who really did take significant risks I wouldn't discount him being prepared to kill at that time of day. I was under the impression that Mary's TOD was very much open to debate also, with Dr Phillips suggesting between 2am and 8am but more likely 5am/6am.



I've always felt that the time gap between Kate and Mary may well tell a story. It could be any one of a number of stories mind you, but something as simple as he bought his victims beer and food as part of his routine and was out of work during that period/didn't have the money - or one of many other possibilities. But, that time gap may well say a lot about him and who he was.

Good point , Who would say Inspector Chandler was less ''straight down the line'' than Richardson ?

[Wickerman]

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.

There's more though, isn't there George?
What about the very next question?

Did you sit on the top step? -No, the second step.

Where were your feet? -On the flags of the yard.

You must have been quite close to where the body was found? -Quite right, sir. If she had been there at the time I must have seen her.

Isn't that acceptable testimony too?
He gave the reason why he could see the padlock, yet you don't post that?

Dare we ask why?

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

Seems like he hadn't worked there recently, according to his mother's testimony, Daily News 13 Sept;

"Have you said something about a leather apron?-Yes, my son always wears a leather apron at his work in the cellar.
It is rather a dangerous thing for anybody to wear a leather apron at present. Have you ever washed your son's apron?
Yes, sir; I washed it last Thursday, because I found it in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. We are so slack. "

[Wickerman]

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.

But George, we can only make an informed judgement if we are given entire testimony, as opposed to edited lines, as we have in your post above.

[The Macdonald Triad]

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

Everything can be dissected and aspirations cast but I believe each individual has to use a "preponderance of the evidence" to arrive to their own conclusion. Reasonable doubt is in everything.

"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."
I noticed you pithily dropped Herlock into that so I'm hoping that was sarcasm. Considering how at odds John and Amelia were regarding prostitute activity in the building and Amelia's rightous indignation neither one of them should be trusted no matter how many Bibles Amelia kisses.

[The Macdonald Triad]

There's more though, isn't there George?
What about the very next question?

Did you sit on the top step? -No, the second step.

Where were your feet? -On the flags of the yard.

You must have been quite close to where the body was found? -Quite right, sir. If she had been there at the time I must have seen her.

Isn't that acceptable testimony too?
He gave the reason why he could see the padlock, yet you don't post that?

Dare we ask why?

"I must have seen her." He just admitted seeing her in a left handed way. I used to pull that kind of stuff on my parents when confronted with questions.

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi George,

Yes, there are various ways to interpret this, but that is almost always the case with people's statements. Language isn't the specific tool we think it is sometimes, and what may appear clear in the mind of the speaker is often not the case in the receiver - as we're dealing with today.

For example, being able to see the padlock from the steps, and the conflicting reports as to which steps we're talking about (to the house or to the cellar), could reflect in part to something like, you could see them from the steps to the house when you stood on the flagstones, which is pretty close to the top of the cellar steps, and given he's just gone to look at the cellar door, he's not "gone into the yard" in his mind (despite the literal interpretation would allow one to say they were "in the yard already" - there's a different meaning associated with "going into the yard" and being technically "in the yard" - at least where I grew up there would be in terms of how people might describe their movements; I accept that difference doesn't exist in your experience though, which I recognize makes what I'm saying harder to grasp as it's so built in to the words and meanings we have for them). In the end, language is pretty vague, and there's a lot of differences between the "words said" and the "intended meaning", particularly when the words said are interpreted extremely literally. People don't speak that way, except in very formal writing and technical documents. Eye-witnesses, while in a formal setting, will still use language as they use it.

Anyway, if he's standing at the flags, close to the top of the cellar steps, and then sits down to fix his boot (hence the position of his feet and sitting on the middle step, etc), the door would have closed and the body would be entirely revealed.

I can't say for sure that's how things happened, of course, and I'm not trying to. Rather, I'm trying to envision a scenario that makes reasonable sense of the descriptions given in testimony, and also for the variations given in the news reports. Basically, looking for some set of events that could have resulted in the distortions we're dealing with without resorting to "X lied" type arguments (I really don't like playing that card unless there is other independent evidence to suggest it or if there is no way things can be distortions of the same event.)

While I suppose his legging spring could have been dropped at any other time, it seems a bit of a coincidence that they found something that could have been lost due to his removal of his boot, and he just happened to "lie" about fixing his boot in that location. Sure, not physically impossible, but in the end it looks more like physical evidence that corroborates that part of his story. It also seems a simple thing to check by the police (if the lock can be seen from the steps), and they could get more exact details about where he stood at the time. Those seem like the types of things they might check if they had any doubts, but of course we have no record on that.

Anyway, in the end, I don't see any real problem with his boot repair story, and I do think it highly improbable that he would have left the door against himself while doing that. Where he stood when checking the lock, while interesting to discuss the possibilities, doesn't seem to have been viewed as problematic by the police (who were not idiots of course), so if it didn't raise flags with them then I think we're being a bit precious to raise them all that high ourselves.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

....
Anyway, in the end, I don't see any real problem with his boot repair story, and I do think it highly improbable that he would have left the door against himself while doing that. Where he stood when checking the lock, while interesting to discuss the possibilities, doesn't seem to have been viewed as problematic by the police (who were not idiots of course), so if it didn't raise flags with them then I think we're being a bit precious to raise them all that high ourselves.

- Jeff

Yes Jeff.

I can't imagine many sitting down trying to wrestle with their boot while the door is bouncing off every movement of their arm.
Most of us, if not all would simply step forward and let the door bang close, then sit down and fix his boot.
Of course, theres nothing in the testimony that suggests he didn't do just that either.

[Wickerman]

Come to think of it, maybe that is why he sat on the second step, if he let the door close there isn't enough step on top to sit on.

[harry]

Not silly at all Herlock.Wickerman IS referring to a particular law,albeit an imaginery law.His words,'The law assumes the witness is telling the truth' Which Law?.He does not state laws,he states law. It is you that needs to read and understand. It is an ambiguous statement.
If I refer to the presumption of innocence,the only law I know of that presume something,we are aware of what that means .It is in written form.All laws are.
Wickerman and Herlock refuses to supply a writen copy of this law of truth,which they claim exists.They cannot.Such a law does not exist.
It was introduced by Wickerman,on this thread,for two purposes .One was to fool the majority,whose knowledge of law is minimal,the other to fool posters into believing we should assume,without question,that Richardson was telling the truth.It also implies that Trevor,George,Fishy and myself,are out of order in having a belief that Richardson might have lied.

[harry]

The question is ,did Richardson lie.If he did all his stated actions come into question.He changed his story,that is unchallengeable.Did he have an opportunity to tell Chandler all he did.Yes,and it could have been stated in a couple of minutes.To argue Chandler didn't have two minutes of time to interview Richardson beggars belief,and to suggest Chandler didn't ask,'Is that all',more incredulous.
It is Chandler's version I believe the more reliable.

[FISHY1118]

The question is ,did Richardson lie.If he did all his stated actions come into question.He changed his story,that is unchallengeable.Did he have an opportunity to tell Chandler all he did.Yes,and it could have been stated in a couple of minutes.To argue Chandler didn't have two minutes of time to interview Richardson beggars belief,and to suggest Chandler didn't ask,'Is that all',more incredulous.
It is Chandler's version I believe the more reliable.

Good and interesting point Harry , given the ambiguity of the evidence, its pretty easy to see how one version of events differs from the other and how they are interpreted by different opinions.

[GBinOz]

There's more though, isn't there George?
What about the very next question?

Did you sit on the top step? -No, the second step.

Where were your feet? -On the flags of the yard.

You must have been quite close to where the body was found? -Quite right, sir. If she had been there at the time I must have seen her.

Isn't that acceptable testimony too?
He gave the reason why he could see the padlock, yet you don't post that?

Dare we ask why?

Hi Jon,

You may certainly dare to ask why. I'll even add that there was a little more before my quoted statements.

The Coroner-Do you go every morning to see if the cellar is secure?-No; only on market mornings, when I am out early and there's a good lot of people about. I have done so for some months. Is that all you went for?-Yes, sir.

A Juror-His mother said there had been no robberies.

The Witness-She forgot. If you will ask her, you see that it is right.

The Coroner-On other than market mornings do you leave the cellar to take care of itself?-Yes, sir.

Was the front door open on Saturday morning.

The Witness-No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot.

What sort of a knife did you use?-One four or five inches long.

What do you usually use that knife for?-I had been using it to cut up a piece of carrot for the rabbit, and I afterwards put it in my pocket.

Do you generally keep it in your pocket?-No.

Why did you put it there on this occasion?-I suppose it was a mistake on my part.

When you had cut the piece of leather off your boot did you leave the house?-Yes. I tied my boot up and went out. I did not close the back door. It closes itself. I shut the front door. I was not in the house more than two minutes at the most. It was not quite light, but enough for me to see.

Did you notice any object in the yard?-No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.

You have heard where she was found?-Yes, I saw the body.

How came you to see it?-A man in the market told me there had been a murder in Hanbury-street. He did not know at which house. I saw the body from the adjoining yard.

When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.

Then all you did at Hanbury-street was to cut your boot?-That's all, sir.

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.

Jeff has pointed out that statements can be interpreted differently by different people. I am interpreting based on grammatical construction. Baxter already knew he sat on the second step to cut his boot and may have been trying to trap Richardson by asking, if all he did was cut his boot, and he didn't go in the yard, how come he said he was there to check the lock?
He is referring to Richardson's contention that his purpose in being there was to view the lock, as he had done for two months, and how could he do that if he did not go into the yard. Richard's reply has its subject in his regular checking of the lock, not in his once only sitting on the steps. The object was the lock check. Although Richardson says he started repairs the day before, he doesn't say where, at home, at work, or on the steps?. He testifies he continued repairs that morning sitting on the steps, with a knife he had put in his pocket by mistake, but fails to mention the knife was inadequate for the task until he is required to show it to the coroner. He that remembers that he finished the job with a borrowed knife when he got to the markets.

Jon, are you really suggesting that he was telling the coroner that he could only see the lock when he was sitting on the step? That the step sitting was part of the two month lock checking procedure? The coroner obviously had doubts about his story because he chose to double check with John's mother in John's absence.
My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.
Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

Richardson decided to attempt a second repair in the dark on the steps instead of a few minutes later at the market where he eventually succeeded. When do you suppose that he remembered that he had a knife in his pocket that he had mistakenly put there?

You were asking if I was contriving to present only evidence that supported, and did not contradict, my opinions. I didn't include the inquest extracts before or after because I didn't want to expand the post with what I considered irrelevancies. I hope I have alleviated your suspicion with my explanations.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Everything can be dissected and aspirations cast but I believe each individual has to use a "preponderance of the evidence" to arrive to their own conclusion. Reasonable doubt is in everything.

"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."
I noticed you pithily dropped Herlock into that so I'm hoping that was sarcasm. Considering how at odds John and Amelia were regarding prostitute activity in the building and Amelia's rightous indignation neither one of them should be trusted no matter how many Bibles Amelia kisses.

Herlock and I have been sparring for a while now, and I'm sure he will take it as a friendly dig as was intended. He's a big boy and gives as good as he gets.

[GBinOz]

Seems like he hadn't worked there recently, according to his mother's testimony, Daily News 13 Sept;

"Have you said something about a leather apron?-Yes, my son always wears a leather apron at his work in the cellar.
It is rather a dangerous thing for anybody to wear a leather apron at present. Have you ever washed your son's apron?
Yes, sir; I washed it last Thursday, because I found it in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. We are so slack. "

Hi Joshua,

That is a point worth noting. She did say the he wore the apron in the cellar. Cadosch seemed to think that there were crates being moved in the yard more recently. It would be only speculation to wonder if the work done in the cellar was slack but the packing case work in the yard not so much. Against that idea is the coroner's question about the padlock taking care of itself on non market days (Jon please note - opposing arguments presented )

Cheers, George