John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

Not necessarily, because it might have been the case that Chandler simply misheard or misunderstood him. And I’ll say it again, even if Richardson hadn’t mentioned repairing his boot to Chandler that morning there still wouldn’t have been anything suspicious in that. So we should pay greater attention to what he said at the inquest….which was what actually happened. Add the fact that he had no reason to lie and add the fact that even if he had felt the need to lie he’d have been a colossal idiot to have ignored the 8 simple, more effective lies in favour of placing himself at the scene with a knife if that hadn’t actually been the case, and we can’t really fail to arrive at the conclusion that it’s overwhelmingly more likely that he’d sat on those steps. And as we have no way of knowing the exact details of any previous repair and how unsuccessful they were the exact point at which his boot began to hurt again there’s no point in speculating non-existent mysteries.

i am not talking about placing him at the scene of that there is no doubt. I am refferring to what he said about repairing his boot and merely pointing out that his account may not be reliable for the reasons I have posted.

The Telegraph report of the inquest on Richardson and the boot and a question from the coroner to which he responded

"He cut the piece of leather off his boot because it hurt him, he took a piece out the previous day but that was not sufficient!"

So he had all the previous day to make the repair, all of that evening, and the following morning before he left to go to Hanbury St, so all that time he was walking around with a boot that was hurting and made no attempt to make the repair and waited till he go to Hanbury Street and tried to use a knife that wasnt up to the job.

If you are going to belive what he said without question, you might as well start believing in fairies at the bottom of your garden

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

i am not talking about placing him at the scene of that there is no doubt. I am refferring to what he said about repairing his boot and merely pointing out that his account may not be reliable for the reasons I have posted.

The Telegraph report of the inquest on Richardson and the boot and a question from the coroner to which he responded

"He cut the piece of leather off his boot because it hurt him, he took a piece out the previous day but that was not sufficient!"

So he had all the previous day to make the repair, all of that evening, and the following morning before he left to go to Hanbury St, so all that time he was walking around with a boot that was hurting and made no attempt to make the repair and waited till he go to Hanbury Street and tried to use a knife that wasnt up to the job.

If you are going to belive that without question, you might as well start believing in fairies at the bottom of your garden

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor, your reading too much into this. When he said that he removed a piece the previous day but that it wasn’t sufficient, obviously that doesn’t mean that he removed a piece but it still hurt and he just endured it. That would make little sense. But as I’ve said a few times now (but you’ve ignored this likely if inconvenient explanation) He could have removed the peace of leather and it had seemed ok at that time. But when he put the boot on the next morning and walked briskly along it could have begun to hurt again, so it required further repair. It’s also entirely understandable that he might have been a touch over-cautious when cutting pieces from his boot as he would have been extremely wary of ruining it beyond repair incurring the unwanted expense of buying a new pair. Jeff has also mentioned this glaringly obvious explanation. So why are you still insisting on your less believable version? You are deliberately seeking to create doubt where none exists. Nothing that he said is suspicious, the only things that are suspicious are the works of imagination being employed to cast doubt on anything connected to Richardson.

[Wickerman]

They’re boots without laces but with an elasticated section to make them easier to put on. I have a couple of pairs of such Chelsea boots myself.

Them?
Jeez.... I wore them all through the 60's, but with cuban heels (like a cowboy boot).

Ok, so a spring-side boot in the late victorian era would be a boot with elastic instead of buttons or laces? - thankyou.

[Wickerman]

Yep.
Hiding the buttons of any button up boots.

Yep, lets invent a button-up spat to keep a button-up boot clean - how clever.

It was written somewhere that the spat prevented the spattering of horse dung dirtying a wealthy mans smart shoes while walking in the street.
You'd still get your fingers shitty taking them off.

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor, your reading too much into this. When he said that he removed a piece the previous day but that it wasn’t sufficient, obviously that doesn’t mean that he removed a piece but it still hurt and he just endured it. That would make little sense. But as I’ve said a few times now (but you’ve ignored this likely if inconvenient explanation) He could have removed the peace of leather and it had seemed ok at that time. But when he put the boot on the next morning and walked briskly along it could have begun to hurt again, so it required further repair. It’s also entirely understandable that he might have been a touch over-cautious when cutting pieces from his boot as he would have been extremely wary of ruining it beyond repair incurring the unwanted expense of buying a new pair. Jeff has also mentioned this glaringly obvious explanation. So why are you still insisting on your less believable version? You are deliberately seeking to create doubt where none exists. Nothing that he said is suspicious, the only things that are suspicious are the works of imagination being employed to cast doubt on anything connected to Richardson.

You are still ducking and diving.and hell bent on protecting Richardson and his account at all costs. All you are doing is coming up with explantions of your own trying to negate what I have posted, which you cant prove. I am not trying to prove anything all I am doing is highlighting potential flaws in his account which in my opinon should have been expanded on either by the police or at the inquest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Spring-sided boots used elastic as the "spring", as Mr Barnett says.

The spring described by Chandler was metal and flat, so I doubt it was a bicycle clip. Along with the leather apron, it was also reported that a knife was found in the yard. These go from a knife (sometimes described as bloody) initially, then denials (sometimes in the same issue), to a piece of metal shaped like a knife, then finally to Chandler's flat metal spring. I suspect these are all one and the same object.

Thankyou Joshua.

So, the mystery continues?
What flat piece of metal could be used for any purpose with leggings, at the ankle end presumably?

And, whatever it was, why would anyone think it came off a pram?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are still ducking and diving.and hell bent on protecting Richardson and his account at all costs. All you are doing is coming up with explantions of your own trying to negate what I have posted, which you cant prove. I am not trying to prove anything all I am doing is highlighting potential flaws in his account which in my opinon should have been expanded on either by the police or at the inquest

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We don’t know the exact detail of the issue with his boot. We don’t know what the extent of the repair that he did the previous day was. We don’t know when his boot began to hurt after the first repair. These are unknowns. You can’t say “if x then he should have done y” if we have no way of knowing if x was the case. How bloody obvious can this be to all but you!

So how can we make points with these unknowns? The answer is that we can’t. Yet you are making positive statements like this

. So he had all the previous day to make the repair, all of that evening

Why are you stating that he should have done his repairs the previous day/evening when we don’t know when his boot began to hurt again?

Im utterly sick of wasting time with complete drivel like this! You are very clearly and very obviously bending over backwards to invent issues that simple don’t exist purely to discredit a witness (something that you have form for doing) This is a non-issue. Anyone can see this.

[Wickerman]

PC Marriott, is it really necessary to take you by the hand through this?

So he had all the previous day to make the repair, all of that evening, and the following morning before he left to go to Hanbury St, so all that time he was walking around with a boot that was hurting and made no attempt to make the repair and waited till he go to Hanbury Street and tried to use a knife that wasnt up to the job.

[Wickerman]

Sorry Trevor, I just came across that, I couldn't resist

[Abby Normal]

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?

thanks herlock.just one report and its obviously wrong. probably a knife from tje house or more than likely the infamous spring.
no knife was found in the yard of that we can be sure.

[Abby Normal]

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?

If you ever spring in a spring in spring, you may spring a spring! : )

[DJA]

Hi Jon,

I may be wrong but I thought leggings for a working man looked something like this:



Can't imagine where the spring clip may be....perhaps instead of buttons, or involved with the strap that goes under the shoe.

Best regards, George

They are gaiters.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Thankyou George, yes those are spats, Astrachan wore some of them.

I've searched the net for spring-side boots, or side-spring boots. It's like Google hasn't a clue what I'm asking.
I think Google has dumbed down over the past few years. There was a time when it would find anything no matter how obscure, but these days all I get is add's for spring fashions!!

Some of the victims wore side-spring boots, I thought if I find them it might give a clue to what this object of Richardson's was. Or, maybe that is something altogether different.
So, I finally settled on some kind of early version of a bicycle clip.
No-one on here seems to have any better ideas.

I would call those gaiter's. Spats wouldn't go all the way up but cover just the shoes.

[DJA]

Unless one is a Highlander.

[Trevor Marriott]

We don’t know the exact detail of the issue with his boot. We don’t know what the extent of the repair that he did the previous day was. We don’t know when his boot began to hurt after the first repair. These are unknowns. You can’t say “if x then he should have done y” if we have no way of knowing if x was the case. How bloody obvious can this be to all but you!

So how can we make points with these unknowns? The answer is that we can’t. Yet you are making positive statements like this



Why are you stating that he should have done his repairs the previous day/evening when we don’t know when his boot began to hurt again?

Im utterly sick of wasting time with complete drivel like this! You are very clearly and very obviously bending over backwards to invent issues that simple don’t exist purely to discredit a witness (something that you have form for doing) This is a non-issue. Anyone can see this.

and I am sick of having to try to explain logical reasonsing to a numpty like you. If you cant stand the heat as they say stay out of the kitchen. I am not going to waste anymore time on you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk