John Richardson

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Well, he does say he could see all over the place, so the light must have been good enough. We don't even know what the repair was, but it sort of sounds to me like some bit of leather inside the boot was sticking out/up somewhere and was irritating his foot. It might just have been a very small piece that had to be removed (a pin that has gone through the sole of your shoe is a large irritation even if only the tip of it is actually inside after all!) Upon realising he had the rabbit knife, he might have thought that would work, clearly it didn't, so he tries again later and 3rd time lucky. I suppose if the police questioned him, he could point them to someone at work who could verify his 3rd fixing attempt; but of course we don't know if that happened.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Richardson said that he first repaired his boot the day before. Under your scenario that would have been the evening before, as had he been the morning before, he would have surely attended to later in that day. So he leaves home and sometime in his two minute walk to Hanbury St he notices the problem still exists. He could sit on a door stoop under a street lamp on his way to Hanbury St, but decides he can wait to get to Hanbury St to sit in far poorer light conditions, but can not wait an extra 3-4 minutes until he gets to his market stall. When he showed the coroner the knife he allegedly used it was immediately judged as not suitable for purpose by all, including Richardson.

I think his second attempt at repair was the successful attempt at the market with the borrowed knife. I think he realised that someone would question whether he could have missed the body had he just carried out his normal routine, as did Chandler and the foreman of the jury. He needed an addition to put his persistent contention that he could not have missed the body beyond doubt. So he adjusted the time of repair at the market forward a little to being in the yard. When the coroner asked to see the knife could have produced any knife. No-one would know the difference except him, and we have only his word that it was the rabbit knife that he had on him that morning.

While I acknowledge the possibility that your scenario could be what happened, I am not persuaded that it was what actually happened. I think there were many far more favourable times and places for the repair, so why would he resort to the least favourable option? JMO.

Best regards, George

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Jeff,

Richardson said that he first repaired his boot the day before. Under your scenario that would have been the evening before, as had he been the morning before, he would have surely attended to later in that day. So he leaves home and sometime in his two minute walk to Hanbury St he notices the problem still exists. He could sit on a door stoop under a street lamp on his way to Hanbury St, but decides he can wait to get to Hanbury St to sit in far poorer light conditions, but can not wait an extra 3-4 minutes until he gets to his market stall. When he showed the coroner the knife he allegedly used it was immediately judged as not suitable for purpose by all, including Richardson.

I think his second attempt at repair was the successful attempt at the market with the borrowed knife. I think he realised that someone would question whether he could have missed the body had he just carried out his normal routine, as did Chandler and the foreman of the jury. He needed an addition to put his persistent contention that he could not have missed the body beyond doubt. So he adjusted the time of repair at the market forward a little to being in the yard. When the coroner asked to see the knife could have produced any knife. No-one would know the difference except him, and we have only his word that it was the rabbit knife that he had on him that morning.

While I acknowledge the possibility that your scenario could be what happened, I am not persuaded that it was what actually happened. I think there were many far more favourable times and places for the repair, so why would he resort to the least favourable option? JMO.

Best regards, George

I'll draw your attention to near the end of your second sentence sentence and the word 'surely'. The rest of your post is largely irrelevant as it is based entirely on this assumption. I can't see how anyone with common sense can't imagine that it could have bothered him on his walk to Hanbury street and he repairs it there.

[harry]

Caligo,
Who was talking about the Coroner court? You are another one who needs to read my posts properly.The laws and courts I described as not necessarily needing evidence under oath,was not the coroners court, but the Concilliation and Arbitration courts ,Now you Calico,explain the meaning of 'Presumption of Truth',as no one else seems to want to do so.For once,and perhaps the only time, you are correct Herlock,I do not accept it,whatever language it is written in.
If you need confirmation of my claim Calico,I will gladly provide it.I was a witness at such a court.

[Doctored Whatsit]

But the inquest testimony does not answer the question as to why he waited so long to make a second repair to his boot when he had more than enough time to do that long before he got to Hanbury Street

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

OK, I agree, he wasn't asked the questions at the inquest which would have enabled us to discover what he told the police in full at his interview. But they did establish all that they wanted to know, and they were satisfied. That is one of the few hard facts that we have, amongst the contradictory newspaper articles, and the masses of conjecture. It is disappointing to be unaware of the full details, of course, but there are always many things we cannot know. But let us grasp what we do know. The police claim to have investigated his story thoroughly, and we have little evidence that others involved had this treatment.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Richardson said that he first repaired his boot the day before. Under your scenario that would have been the evening before, as had he been the morning before, he would have surely attended to later in that day. So he leaves home and sometime in his two minute walk to Hanbury St he notices the problem still exists. He could sit on a door stoop under a street lamp on his way to Hanbury St, but decides he can wait to get to Hanbury St to sit in far poorer light conditions, but can not wait an extra 3-4 minutes until he gets to his market stall. When he showed the coroner the knife he allegedly used it was immediately judged as not suitable for purpose by all, including Richardson.

I think his second attempt at repair was the successful attempt at the market with the borrowed knife. I think he realised that someone would question whether he could have missed the body had he just carried out his normal routine, as did Chandler and the foreman of the jury. He needed an addition to put his persistent contention that he could not have missed the body beyond doubt. So he adjusted the time of repair at the market forward a little to being in the yard. When the coroner asked to see the knife could have produced any knife. No-one would know the difference except him, and we have only his word that it was the rabbit knife that he had on him that morning.

While I acknowledge the possibility that your scenario could be what happened, I am not persuaded that it was what actually happened. I think there were many far more favourable times and places for the repair, so why would he resort to the least favourable option? JMO.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

That's fine, but I see nothing that says his first repair had to be the morning of the day before, and given his actions, I would suggest the evening being the more likely time (after a day of wearing boots that were bothering him). The repair was deemed insufficient after a short walk, and when at Hanbury he notices the rabbit knife, gives it a go, fails, and does it again at work. That, to me, seems like a very normal set of events, only noted in history because of the later murder. I don't see any need to complicate it by suggesting he's lying about the boot repair. Rather, all he had to say was, he could see where the body was and she wasn't there, which he sort of does say when he indicates he couldn't have missed her. Making up a story about repairing his boot is unnecessary if all he wants to do is emphasize he knows she wasn't there.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Caligo,
Who was talking about the Coroner court? You are another one who needs to read my posts properly.The laws and courts I described as not necessarily needing evidence under oath,was not the coroners court, but the Concilliation and Arbitration courts ,Now you Calico,explain the meaning of 'Presumption of Truth',as no one else seems to want to do so.For once,and perhaps the only time, you are correct Herlock,I do not accept it,whatever language it is written in.
If you need confirmation of my claim Calico,I will gladly provide it.I was a witness at such a court.

Is somebody going to do something about this long running vendetta about the law and truth, in order to make it even remotely relevant to this thread, please? Should anyone think it is important, perhaps it could be continued somewhere else.

[harry]

It would take Richardson just a couple of minutes,certainly no more than five,to complete the two tasks he claims occured.Standing at the door,and sitting on the step,and less than that to explain to Chandler.Chandler testifies that only standing at the door was reported.We are now being asked to accept that Richardson forgot the sitting on the step when talking to Chandler,and only remembered it when giving evidence at the inquest.Incredible! Forgot the sitting on the step,when it was only one of two things he did,and those two things happened one immediately following the other,and both accomplished in minutes.Get real!.

[Trevor Marriott]

Obvious answer - because you are desperate to discredit John Richardson in an attempt to bolster or confirm your own opinion.

No one is seeking to discredit Richardson the conflicting facts surrounding his account highlight flaws in that account and the question that must be asked is on that basis can his testimony be totally relied on?

Just like you’re desperate to discredit Macnaghten to prove a point.

Macnaghtens first memo has proved to be unsafe to rely on by many resercherss not just me

And you’re desperate to discredit Hutt and Robinson to prove a point.

Hutt and Robinson discredt themsleves with the testimony they gave

In fact if I had the inclination I could come up with a fairly significant list of witnesses who you’ve bent over backwards more than Olga Korbutt to try and discredit just to support your own viewpoint Trevor. It’s simply a tactic that you employ in every single debate. If it was up to you it appears that we shouldn’t consider for a second that any witness might have been truthful or not mistaken. You just can’t see the difference between someone considering a possibility and someone assuming something as a fact. It’s why you’re always accusing people of ‘relying’ on things when all that they are actually doing is weighing up the pro’s and cons, assessing the possibilities and coming to their own conclusion which might differ from yours. To dismiss a witness on spurious grounds is just as worthy of criticism as blindly accepting the honest/reliability of a witness. There are others on here who doubt Richardson, that’s fair enough, I strongly disagree with them but it’s fair enough, but only you are going to ridiculous lengths like this fantasy about the boot repair. Frankly I’d be staggered if anyone agreed with you on this particular point that you’re trying to manufacture.

I simply point out the flaws in the witness testimony, flaws that is seems you have failed to recognise or acknowledge.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

And I’d suggest that it’s possible that he might not have removed enough leather first time if he was concerned about potentially ruining a pair of boots and having to buy a new pair. Erring on the side of caution and not doing a sufficient job first time.

Sure, that is plausible and could explain the need for the extra work.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

It would take Richardson just a couple of minutes,certainly no more than five,to complete the two tasks he claims occured.Standing at the door,and sitting on the step,and less than that to explain to Chandler.Chandler testifies that only standing at the door was reported.We are now being asked to accept that Richardson forgot the sitting on the step when talking to Chandler,and only remembered it when giving evidence at the inquest.Incredible! Forgot the sitting on the step,when it was only one of two things he did,and those two things happened one immediately following the other,and both accomplished in minutes.Get real!.

I don't think anybody is suggesting he forgot that he sat on the steps. Rather, during his first talking with Chandler he would be indicating that he was there around 5 ish (I forget the time he says), and no doubt was asked why he was there. His purpose for going to Hanbury was to check the lock, so he would have said that. The boot repair was an incidental, and in his (Richardson's) view probably irrelevant - he was there and the body was not. He mentions to the press before the inquest that he repaired his boot, so it's not something that just appears at the inquest. When witnesses are interviewed over multiple sessions, more details emerge. it doesn't always mean they "forgot" them, it often just means they didn't mention them at the time. More things emerge, which is different from "changing their story" (i.e. ok, I didn't check the lock, I did this other thing instead ...; he doesn't say that, though, he says "I did this other thing (boot repair) as well, although my purpose for being there was to check the lock" - though of course, not in those exact words.

If witnesses didn't add more details through multiple sessions of interviews, what would be the point? People add details and fill out the story, doesn't mean they were intentionally hiding anything the first time.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I simply point out the flaws in the witness testimony, flaws that is seems you have failed to recognise or acknowledge.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We have this every time Trevor so I’ll let it go or we’ll be going round in circles for ages. You just don’t get it. I and others HAVE recognised the so-called flaws. We’ve recognised them, assessed them and have come to the conclusion that they amount to nothing; especially when compared to the evidence as a whole. But if you want to ‘rely’ on an invented scenario where you don’t know the nature or extent of the repairs or when his boot started to hurt again then of course no one can prevent you. We’ve pointed out the very obvious and very crucial flaws in your point but you persist with it by repeating your mantra.

The only ‘flaw’ in his testimony comes from someone else, Chandler and we can’t be anything like certain that it wasn’t Chandler himself that was mistaken and even if Chandler was right then it still isn’t any real issue unless we accuse Richardson of lying. And again as we’ve shown, the chances of that are slim to non-existent. Obvious conclusion….. it’s close to a certainty that Richardson was being truthful.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Caligo,

Calico will no doubt respond himself but…

Who was talking about the Coroner court? You are another one who needs to read my posts properly.

A Coroner’s inquest is what we’ve been talking about?

The laws and courts I described as not necessarily needing evidence under oath,was not the coroners court, but the Concilliation and Arbitration courts ,

Yes, and they are irrelevant to our discussion.

Now you Calico,explain the meaning of 'Presumption of Truth',as no one else seems to want to do so.

You’re ignoring all previous explanations. No one has said that that a witness must have been telling the truth just because he sworn an oath.

For once,and perhaps the only time, you are correct Herlock,I do not accept it,whatever language it is written in.

No surprise at all Harry. You never admit to being wrong.

If you need confirmation of my claim Calico,I will gladly provide it.I was a witness at such a court.

I wonder if Calico will get what claim you are making Harry because I certainly can’t. Why do you never, ever simply ‘spit it out’ Harry? Just make your point clearly so that we can respond.

[harry]

Then let Calico respond Herlock.

[harry]

But they have been suggesting a memory lapse Jeff.Richardson had the same opportunity,when facing Chandler, to declare he sat on the step,as he did to standing by the door.If that is what happened.He only had one talk with Chandler before appearing at the inquest.Posters can argue as long as they wish.the fact is Richardson altered his testimony by adding to it.There had to be a reason,and I do not accept loss of memory as the reason.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Hi Jeff,

Richardson said that he first repaired his boot the day before. Under your scenario that would have been the evening before, as had he been the morning before, he would have surely attended to later in that day. So he leaves home and sometime in his two minute walk to Hanbury St he notices the problem still exists. He could sit on a door stoop under a street lamp on his way to Hanbury St, but decides he can wait to get to Hanbury St to sit in far poorer light conditions, but can not wait an extra 3-4 minutes until he gets to his market stall. When he showed the coroner the knife he allegedly used it was immediately judged as not suitable for purpose by all, including Richardson.

I think his second attempt at repair was the successful attempt at the market with the borrowed knife. I think he realised that someone would question whether he could have missed the body had he just carried out his normal routine, as did Chandler and the foreman of the jury. He needed an addition to put his persistent contention that he could not have missed the body beyond doubt. So he adjusted the time of repair at the market forward a little to being in the yard. When the coroner asked to see the knife could have produced any knife. No-one would know the difference except him, and we have only his word that it was the rabbit knife that he had on him that morning.

While I acknowledge the possibility that your scenario could be what happened, I am not persuaded that it was what actually happened. I think there were many far more favourable times and places for the repair, so why would he resort to the least favourable option? JMO.

Best regards, George

"I think his second attempt at repair was the successful attempt at the market with the borrowed knife."

Assuming he didn't lie about the whole scenario just to explain why his presence, boot spring, freshly washed apron, and a potential other knife were next to a freshly gutted corpse, you could be right. He also conveniently places himself next to the body with a knife. Most modern criminals always leave a clue but there are so many ways to be caught now. Back then you literally had to be caught red-handed and could leave fingerprints, your own blood, semen, whatever and it meant nothing.