John Richardson

[The Macdonald Triad]

because she washes his clothes and stuff. like his apron.

A spring is a spring is a spring. Did she write his name on the spring like my mom used to do my skivvies? Why couldn't it have been anyone's spring? Was she given access to the spring in a spring lineup?

[Wickerman]

My questions aren't anything like so complicated, I just want to know what it looked like, how was it worn, what was it's purpose? - simple stuff like that

I know what a bicycle clip looks like, my Dad wore them for a while, it doesn't appear to be one of them.

[The Macdonald Triad]

My questions aren't anything like so complicated, I just want to know what it looked like, how was it worn, what was it's purpose? - simple stuff like that

I know what a bicycle clip looks like, my Dad wore them for a while, it doesn't appear to be one of them.

To be completely honest I have no idea how the spring is used or where. Is it like a military boot blosser? That's like a cloth rubber band basically and it goes around the boot and then you tuck the bottoms of your pants into them to give a better look.

[harry]

I am not an expert on law Herlock,never claimed to be,but I will claim i know more about it than you.While Wickerman writes about 'presumption of truth',you keep jabering on about lies.You are in fact aiding my arguement,rather than detracting from it.
I have told you why,on the question of law, you cannot generalise.Only you it seems is unable to understand.No one else is questioning my explanation.
I gave an example,industrial law,and criminal law.One requires evidence be given under oath,the other does not.Where it does not require the oath to be taken,there can be no charge of perjury,no direction to answer questions,therefor no contempt of court.The two courts /laws are worlds apart,as the saying goes,you simply cannot generalise.
I will not repeat nor answer anymore nonsense from you.Whatever you write,you can refer to this post as your answer.Are you capable of understanding that?

[harry]

Macdonald,
Your description of blosser makes me believe you may be ex military.Sometimes lead weights were included.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Macdonald,
Your description of blosser makes me believe you may be ex military.Sometimes lead weights were included.

Yes I was. And lead weights were included with what? You're being vague.

[Wickerman]

To be completely honest I have no idea how the spring is used or where. Is it like a military boot blosser? That's like a cloth rubber band basically and it goes around the boot and then you tuck the bottoms of your pants into them to give a better look.

Ah, a blouser? gotcha.
So it may be a bicycle clip then, that did the same job.



It's about 3 - 4 inch dia. fit around your ankle, to stop bottom of your pants getting oil from the bicycle chain.
If that is what Richardson wore, why would anyone think it was a spring from a pram?

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,
The flat piece of metal and the spring were one and the same thing, as Chandler explained (Telegraph 14 Sept);

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

Ah, that's what I got wrong, I knew both were in the same report, forgot it was equating the two as the same item. Thanks for that.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

Then he would have said the evening and not the day before, and besides as I stated he had the chance to repair them the previous day after initially working on them, and the previous night, and the following morning before he went to Hanbury Street or perhaps he was to busy listening to Nancy Sinatra singing "These boots are made for wallking"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

No, he could have said the evening before, but the day before isn't an odd way to put it either. And he only had a reason to repair them further if the fault that required repair was still bothering him at that time. If he didn't put his boots on until he left for work that morning, he wouldn't know it was still faulty, particularly if the bit that was bothering him didn't work itself out of place until during his walk to Hanbury Street, making it the first time he was aware that his repair was not complete. Given he doesn't state why that was the point he chose to repair his boot, we can't say he knew it was still faulty when he put his boots on, all we can say for sure is that he knew they were still faulty while he was at Hanbury Street. The most logical reason for him to repair them at that time is therefore because that was the first opportunity for him to work on it since he realised it was still bothering him, which in turn suggests the fault didn't become apparent until he was on his way that morning.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

No, he could have said the evening before, but the day before isn't an odd way to put it either. And he only had a reason to repair them further if the fault that required repair was still bothering him at that time. If he didn't put his boots on until he left for work that morning, he wouldn't know it was still faulty, particularly if the bit that was bothering him didn't work itself out of place until during his walk to Hanbury Street, making it the first time he was aware that his repair was not complete. Given he doesn't state why that was the point he chose to repair his boot, we can't say he knew it was still faulty when he put his boots on, all we can say for sure is that he knew they were still faulty while he was at Hanbury Street. The most logical reason for him to repair them at that time is therefore because that was the first opportunity for him to work on it since he realised it was still bothering him, which in turn suggests the fault didn't become apparent until he was on his way that morning.

- Jeff

I am sorry Jeff I dont buy it, if you have a pair of boots that need an ajustment by removing a piece you do it asap. and you make the alteration/repair so as to make the boots comfortable, when you think you have made the repair you put the boots back on to see if you have rectified the problem, If you havent then you take them off and try again to make the repair. You dont put them back on and walk around in them for how ever many hours, and if you do then when you take them off last thing at night you make the repair and try them again. If you are to tired to do that, you do it first thing the next morning before you put them on and go out in them.

The police found no evidence of a piece of cut leather

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Apologies if I wasn't clear in my description,Macdonald.I was referring to the British army of 70 years ago.Uniforms may have changed.I will attempt to find an old photograph I know is in my possession.A picture speaks a thousand words.

[Herlock Sholmes]

another knife?

It came from this quote Abby (George posted it originally):

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.

It looks like they took a knife probably from inside the house although I’m unsure if this is mentioned anywhere else (like you Abby I hadn’t heard of this point previously). As he said “…by the Doctor’s order…” I’m assuming that they found a fairly large knife and after showing it to Phillips he told them that it was the kind of knife that might have been the murder weapon?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am sorry Jeff I dont buy it, if you have a pair of boots that need an ajustment by removing a piece you do it asap. and you make the alteration/repair so as to make the boots comfortable, when you think you have made the repair you put the boots back on to see if you have rectified the problem, If you havent then you take them off and try again to make the repair. You dont put them back on and walk around in them for how ever many hours, and if you do then when you take them off last thing at night you make the repair and try them again. If you are to tired to do that, you do it first thing the next morning before you put them on and go out in them.

The police found no evidence of a piece of cut leather

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re creating mysteries where none exist Trevor. Can’t you think of any other ways of trying to discredit Richardson?

[GBinOz]

Hi George.
I was only having a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor with you in that last post, I wasn't serious.
With Abby Pointing out I was a source of frustration for yourself and Herlock I did pause to consider, but was unconvinced.
That said... as regards him going into the yard (quote above), I don't take setting his feet on the flags of the yard as meaning he was "in the yard". I think it has been pointed out already that being "in the yard" would more likely mean walking a good distance away from the house towards the shed at the end of the yard. Don't ask me "how far, is 'in the yard'?"
It's just a matter of interpretation, he placed his feet on the flags but didn't walk away from the house-steps into the middle of the yard.

I see in some cases the wording may not be as clear as we would like. There are two sets of steps, we cannot be sure which set he is referring to in every case.
I do think he sat on the house steps, and from there he could see the padlock of the cellar door. However, there are instances where the wording may refer to the cellar steps, which he didn't need to go down.
It does come down to interpretation, but Australia has managed to retain a firm hold on British custom and language, and in Australia he would be considered to be "in the yard" when he put his foot on the backdoor steps.


Why do you add 'in the dark", when he clearly told us he could see all over the place?
Ah Ha. Gotcha. You didn't give the full quote! "It was getting light, but I could see all over the place."

He may have trimmed his boot on the steps, but the knife not being sharp enough to do a good job, he borrowed another at the market to finish the job.
We are talking about a knife that Richardson retrieved from his home and presented when demanded by the coroner. Regardless of any circumstance, I don't believe he would have retrieved and presented a very sharp knife with a thin, narrow blade about six to eight inches in length. He presented a knife that could inflict no damage to boot or person.

I accept your selection of quotes George. All is well.

I am pleased that we are good, Jon.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not an expert on law Herlock,never claimed to be,but I will claim i know more about it than you.While Wickerman writes about 'presumption of truth',you keep jabering on about lies.You are in fact aiding my arguement,rather than detracting from it.
I have told you why,on the question of law, you cannot generalise.Only you it seems is unable to understand.No one else is questioning my explanation.
I gave an example,industrial law,and criminal law.One requires evidence be given under oath,the other does not.Where it does not require the oath to be taken,there can be no charge of perjury,no direction to answer questions,therefor no contempt of court.The two courts /laws are worlds apart,as the saying goes,you simply cannot generalise.
I will not repeat nor answer anymore nonsense from you.Whatever you write,you can refer to this post as your answer.Are you capable of understanding that?

No one else is questioning it because they understandably can’t be bothered to Harry. I have a bad habit of persisting in the vain hope that you’ll see sense.

Clearly, self-evidently, staggeringly obviously, Wickerman wouldn’t have believed or suggested that a coroners inquest would be held under industrial law or tax law or immigration law or any other law you care to name. If someone mentions that an inquest is guided and run under a law it’s shouldn’t be necessary to be specify as to the exact name of that law - it’s the law that applies to coroners courts - that would be enough for anyone on the planet except for you Harry and no, I doubt that you’ll find a single person who will agree with you so don’t mistake silence for concurrence. To any reasonable person ‘the law’ would be sufficient but apparently not for an Olympian nit picker who constantly argues simply for the sake of it and will not concede an obvious point.

I curse myself for responding to your silliness Harry on this subject