John Richardson

[GBinOz]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well said Trevor. In modern times witness testimony is frequently overridden by video evidence. In this case, Mason's video is ignored or dismissed in favour of personal belief.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi George,

I agree that the object of his visit was the lock check, and the boot repair was a "one off" thing, probably thought of while he was there, perhaps because it was then he stuck his hands in his pockets and realized he had the knife with him? Who knows. Regardless, I think we need to remember that when we think of what he told Chandler originally - why he was there - to check the lock, boot repair wasn't his purpose but it was something he did while there to check the lock. That detail comes out later, as he's questioned as to the details of his activities. I don't see that as him "changing" his story, rather adding in the details of his entire time there. Changing his story might be something like, "Ok, I didn't check the lock, I went there to fix my boot" ... that is a change in his reason for being present, and something to worry about. However, his overall story doesn't really change, I went to check the lock, I happened to fix my boot while there, etc. We just get more details of his activities.

Also, as I think you've said too, given both he and his mother say you can see the lock from the back steps, I do think the most reasonable interpretation is that this was possible, canopy or not. The drawings may show a "roof" in far better repair than it was, for example. Anyway, most reasonable interpretation doesn't mean other interpretations aren't possible, of course, and we should consider them. But I'm still not convinced his testimony is really all that sketchy - it looks like pretty typical eye witness accounts, a bit vague in places, a bit unclear and ambiguous at times, wording changes here and there in some details, but on the whole pretty consistent even when more information gets extracted through questions (note, the fixing of the boot at work was in response to a question, doesn't mean he didn't remember doing it before, it just wasn't relevant to what he did while on the steps.) Contrived testimony tends to come across as rehearsed, so the same words/phrases are used in each telling, which occurs in the exact same order, and so forth. That is not how people recall memories, so if a witness starts talking that way, they're probably recalling a script, not an event, which is dodgy behavior.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,
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.- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Just to add to Jon and Trevor's remarks about differing reports by journalists, this is from the Daily News report of the inquest 14 Sep, the coroner questioning Chandler:

The Coroner: Did you find anything else in the yard? - There was a leather apron saturated with wet about two feet from the water tap. I have shown it to the doctor.

Anything else? - A box commonly used by case makers for holding their nails. It contained no nails. There was also a piece of flat steel which has since been identified as the spring of a perambulator.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

And some more:

Times 14 Sep:
He also found a leather apron lying in the yard saturated with wet and it was about 2ft. from the water tap. A box, commonly used by packing-case makers, a piece of flat steel that had a since been identified by Mrs. Richardson, and also a spring were found lying close to where the body was found.

Star 8 Sep:
THE LEATHER APRON AND KNIFE.
John Richardson, of 2, John-street, E.C., said to a Star reporter: - I am a porter in Spitalfields Market. I always go round to mother's (Mrs. Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street) on market mornings just to see that everything is right in the back-yard, where her underground packing-case workshops are. The place was burgled a short time back. This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure. I heard in the market at 6.20 a woman had been found murdered at mother's, and went round and saw the body. The police, by the doctor's order, took possession on my leather apron and knife that were on the premises, and also a box of nails, as well as three pills found near the body.
Richardson told the coroner the police hadn't seen his knife.

BARBER'S SLAUGHTERHOUSE.
It is a singular fact that only a few steps from the house where the woman was found is - as in the Buck's-row case - one of Barber's slaughterhouses.

Daily News 10 Sep:
The following is the official telegram sent to each station throughout the metropolis:

"Commercial street 8.20 p.m. Description of a man wanted who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed of a prostitute at 2 a.m. the 8th. Age 37; height 5ft 7in; rather dark beard and moustache. dress: Shirt, dark jacket, bark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat. Spoke with a foreign accent."

The inquest will be opened today at 10 o'clock at the Lard's Industrial Institute.

Times 14 Sep:
Witness saw young John Richardson a little before 7 o'clock in the passage of the house. He told witness he had been to the house about a quarter to 5 that morning, that he went to the back door and looked down at the cellar to see that all was right. He then went away to his work in the market. He did not say anything to witness about cutting his boot, but said he was sure the woman was not there at the time.
By the Foreman. -The back door opened outwards into the yard, on the left-hand side. That was the side on which the body was lying. Richardson might not have seen the body if he did not go into the yard. If he went down the steps and the body was there at the time he was bound to see it. Richardson told witness he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boots.
The foreman, who heard Richardson's testimony first hand, seems to have had a similar opinion to mine.

Daily News 13 Sep:
Assuming, therefore, that the various witnesses have spoken the truth, which there is not the slightest reason to doubt, the murder must have been committed between half-past five and six o'clock, and the murderer must have walked through the streets in almost broad daylight without attracting attention, although he must have been at the time more or less stained with blood. This seems incredible, and it has certainly strengthened the belief of many of those engaged in the case that the murderer had not far to go to reach his lodgings in a private house.

Rob Hills suspect, James Hardiman, would seem to fit this bill. He could have disappeared into his mother's shop, or into Barber's Slaughterhouse.

Best regards, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff,

And some more:

Times 14 Sep:
He also found a leather apron lying in the yard saturated with wet and it was about 2ft. from the water tap. A box, commonly used by packing-case makers, a piece of flat steel that had a since been identified by Mrs. Richardson, and also a spring were found lying close to where the body was found.

Star 8 Sep:
THE LEATHER APRON AND KNIFE.
John Richardson, of 2, John-street, E.C., said to a Star reporter: - I am a porter in Spitalfields Market. I always go round to mother's (Mrs. Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street) on market mornings just to see that everything is right in the back-yard, where her underground packing-case workshops are. The place was burgled a short time back. This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure. I heard in the market at 6.20 a woman had been found murdered at mother's, and went round and saw the body. The police, by the doctor's order, took possession on my leather apron and knife that were on the premises, and also a box of nails, as well as three pills found near the body.
Richardson told the coroner the police hadn't seen his knife.

BARBER'S SLAUGHTERHOUSE.
It is a singular fact that only a few steps from the house where the woman was found is - as in the Buck's-row case - one of Barber's slaughterhouses.

Daily News 10 Sep:
The following is the official telegram sent to each station throughout the metropolis:

"Commercial street 8.20 p.m. Description of a man wanted who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed of a prostitute at 2 a.m. the 8th. Age 37; height 5ft 7in; rather dark beard and moustache. dress: Shirt, dark jacket, bark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat. Spoke with a foreign accent."

The inquest will be opened today at 10 o'clock at the Lard's Industrial Institute.

Times 14 Sep:
Witness saw young John Richardson a little before 7 o'clock in the passage of the house. He told witness he had been to the house about a quarter to 5 that morning, that he went to the back door and looked down at the cellar to see that all was right. He then went away to his work in the market. He did not say anything to witness about cutting his boot, but said he was sure the woman was not there at the time.
By the Foreman. -The back door opened outwards into the yard, on the left-hand side. That was the side on which the body was lying. Richardson might not have seen the body if he did not go into the yard. If he went down the steps and the body was there at the time he was bound to see it. Richardson told witness he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boots.
The foreman, who heard Richardson's testimony first hand, seems to have had a similar opinion to mine.

Daily News 13 Sep:
Assuming, therefore, that the various witnesses have spoken the truth, which there is not the slightest reason to doubt, the murder must have been committed between half-past five and six o'clock, and the murderer must have walked through the streets in almost broad daylight without attracting attention, although he must have been at the time more or less stained with blood. This seems incredible, and it has certainly strengthened the belief of many of those engaged in the case that the murderer had not far to go to reach his lodgings in a private house.

Rob Hills suspect, James Hardiman, would seem to fit this bill. He could have disappeared into his mother's shop, or into Barber's Slaughterhouse.

Best regards, George

George
What concerns me about Richardson and his boot cutting is that he stated he had cut some leather from it the day before and it was still giving him problems. That being said I have to ask why did he not make a second repair that day, or why did he not make the repair that morning before he left his home address. On both occassions he would have had access to the right knives available to him to make the second repair.

I think most people faced with the same situation would make the right repair at the first attempt, after all if your boot is hurting you and you make a repair surely you would after making the first repair make sure that repair had fixed the problem with the boot.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

George
What concerns me about Richardson and his boot cutting is that he stated he had cut some leather from it the day before and it was still giving him problems. That being said I have to ask why did he not make a second repair that day, or why did he not make the repair that morning before he left his home address. On both occassions he would have had access to the right knives available to him to make the second repair.

I think most people faced with the same situation would make the right repair at the first attempt, after all if your boot is hurting you and you make a repair surely you would after making the first repair make sure that repair had fixed the problem with the boot.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree Trevor. And he would have been making his second attempt in the light rather than sitting on a damp step in the dark.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Ignore this. Computer gremlin. It wasn't my fault. I'm innocent I tell you.

[DJA]

My hovercraft is full of eels

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

It’s impossible to debate any subject of one person claim that they know what another is thinking; which is exactly what you are doing with Wickerman. Fabricated imaginings count for nothing. How many times in your life Harry have you heard someone simply say “that’s against the law?” Do they mention a specific law? What if we say “the law protects peoples rights.” Is there a specific law in mind? What about the well known quote: “the law is an ass.” Was a specific law indicated or the law in general?

One was to fool the majority,whose knowledge of law is minimal

So not only are you an expert in forensic medicine you’re Rumpole of the Bailey too?

Are you saying that a witness cannot be punished by perjury laws, Harry?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

It certainly is challengeable. This case and history in general is littered with Press error. The fact that he’d sat on the steps was in the papers prior to the inquest then he said so under oath. This attempt to discredit Richardson is pure desperation. Scraping the barrel.

And you believe that Chandler, like Phillips, to have been infallible. What a surprise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well said Trevor. In modern times witness testimony is frequently overridden by video evidence. In this case, Mason's video is ignored or dismissed in favour of personal belief.

Cheers, George

Video evidence is ‘dismissed’ in favour of a man who was actually there. Who actually saw the body in situ. Who actually knew how much floor space the body took up. Who actually stated that he’d sat on the steps a few inches from where the body would have been and couldn’t possibly have missed the body had it been there. This is what we should take heed of imo George.

He had absolutely zero reason for lying. Chandler’s statement is not evidence of lying - it’s evidence that he might not have mentioned his reason for sitting on the step, that’s all. Unless we assume that he was a halfwit who stupidly, and to no benefit, decided to make himself of greater interest to the police I can’t see a single, solitary reason for questioning his honest George. Not one.

I know that you’re not a conspiracy theorist George but I think that in this case, as in others, CT-type thinking is a trap that can easily be fallen into. A Press discrepancy (what’s new?), a statement which doesn’t 100% agree with another and off we go. Someone was ‘up to something.’ The majority of witnesses tell the truth although they can be mistaken of course. I see nothing to make me think that Richardson lied and no evidence that he wasn’t capable of realising that a door might obscure his view of a mutilated corpse.

We’ll disagree of course George but I don’t even think that this is a close run thing. In my opinion it’s pretty obvious that he’d sat on the steps and that he hadn’t seen the body because it wasn’t there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t see why it’s considered particularly strong evidence that Amelia Richardson said that her son could see the lock from the steps? She would very naturally have discussed events with her son immediately after the discovery of the body and would have known that he’d sat on the step and that he hadn’t actually needed to go into the yard to check the lock. He could see it from the doorway where he’d sat. She was simply confirming that he wouldn’t have needed to go into the yard to check the lock. I think that a bit of over complication is going on here.

[harry]

Herlock,it would not be neccessary to imagine what Wickerman was thinking,if he or you would describe what,'The law assumes the witness is telling the truth' means.If you know,or he knows,why not tell us? If someone tells me something,whether it applies to law or not,I disregard it,unless it is accompanied by a description.
Less of the sarcasm.It denotes a loser. It needs only a limited knowledge of the law to understand the subject under consideration.
You cannot generalise about law,it is too varied.Criminal law and Industrial law for example,are two distinct laws,and carries too many different components.Yes I am saying a witness cannot be punished by perjury laws.This would happen if under industrial law the proceedings were conducted without evidence being given under oath.You wish to contest that,I can refer you to such a case.I was a witness at the proceedings.
I do not believe anyone infallible,nor have I stated such.I know what both Phillips and Chandler attested to though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

George
What concerns me about Richardson and his boot cutting is that he stated he had cut some leather from it the day before and it was still giving him problems. That being said I have to ask why did he not make a second repair that day, or why did he not make the repair that morning before he left his home address. On both occassions he would have had access to the right knives available to him to make the second repair.

I think most people faced with the same situation would make the right repair at the first attempt, after all if your boot is hurting you and you make a repair surely you would after making the first repair make sure that repair had fixed the problem with the boot.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A shoe can begin to be come uncomfortable over a period. If he’d done an initial repair then it would have seemed initially that he’d done a good job but the next morning they had become uncomfortable again. People often try and ‘walk in’ a pair of shoes thinking that they will become more comfortable with wear.

If you are going to imagine what Richardson ‘might’ actually have been thinking or ‘why’ would he have done…….;and how it would have affected his actions why don’t you do the same when faced with the suggested that he lied about repairing his boot on the step?

His aim in lying - to strengthen his claim that he couldn’t have missed the body. Agreed? So……

Why didn’t he simply say that he’d sat on the step for a smoke and couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that when he’d sat on the steps he’d pushed the door back to the fence and couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d stood on the steps and pushed the door back to the fence and couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he just say that he’d stepped into the yard and gone over to the cellar to check and the door had closed on the spring and so he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d gone over to the outside loo and the door had closed meaning that when he’d returned he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d closed the door behind him before he’d sat on the step meaning that he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t he say that he’d stood in the yard having a smoke and the door had closed so he couldn’t have missed the body?
Why didn’t the security conscious Richardson say that he’d walked around the yard to check the fences and the outside loo and the door closed behind him meaning that he couldn’t have missed the body?

I always wary of suggesting stupidity as an explanation. Can anyone claim that the above 8 options were anything but childishly obvious? Can anyone claim that his actual explanation didn’t leave more room for doubt? And most important of all can anyone doubt that, at the scene of an horrific murder/mutilation, a man would have been unfeasibly stupid to have lied and put a knife in his own hand at the scene when he had no one else with him to say that he’d done nothing wrong?

Whichever way you look at it, up, down, left, right, the suggestion that John Richardson lied just doesn’t hold water. He had no reason to - he had at least 8 other far simpler and more effective options had he been inclined to - and the option that he supposedly chose was about as dumb as it gets. Could it be clearer?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,it would not be neccessary to imagine what Wickerman was thinking,if he or you would describe what,'The law assumes the witness is telling the truth' means.If you know,or he knows,why not tell us? If someone tells me something,whether it applies to law or not,I disregard it,unless it is accompanied by a description.
Less of the sarcasm.It denotes a loser. It needs only a limited knowledge of the law to understand the subject under consideration.
You cannot generalise about law,it is too varied.Criminal law and Industrial law for example,are two distinct laws,and carries too many different components.Yes I am saying a witness cannot be punished by perjury laws.This would happen if under industrial law the proceedings were conducted without evidence being given under oath.You wish to contest that,I can refer you to such a case.I was a witness at the proceedings.
I do not believe anyone infallible,nor have I stated such.I know what both Phillips and Chandler attested to though.

Sarcasm denotes a man being battered into submission by the complete absence of reason by someone who is clearly arguing for the sake of it. Why can’t you ‘generalise’ about the law Harry? People do it every single day. How can you deny that people use the phrase ‘against the law’ without specifying which particular law. It’s just a fact. It happens.

Wickerman wasn’t claiming that any kind of law eliminated the possibility of a witness lying because that would be impossible. He just said that they took an oath and, after taking that oath, they could potentially be punished under law for lying which is the way that the law tries, in the best way possible, to insure that people don’t lie in court. Of course people still do lie but it doesn’t change the fact that the law tries to prevent or at least reduce the possibility of it. Why is this difficult Harry? Do you accept that people can be prosecuted for perjury?