John Richardson

[The Macdonald Triad]

Just a shot in the dark but could the "no" Cadosch heard have been Chapmans response to Richardson telling her to leave the premises because she was sleeping in that corner, and he already suspected her of stealing? She already was forced to leave her doss house, walked around and couldn't find a punter. She must have been exhausted, hungover and dejected and at the end of her rope. Incidentally the yard would be perfect for her to sleep because Amelia knew her and was nice to her and there was a loo right there for her to use. I know it's a stretch but for those that think Richardson was JTR not so much.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Just a shot in the dark but could the "no" Cadosch heard have been Chapmans response to Richardson telling her to leave the premises because she was sleeping in that corner, and he already suspected her of stealing? She already was forced to leave her doss house, walked around and couldn't find a punter. She must have been exhausted, hungover and dejected and at the end of her rope. Incidentally the yard would be perfect for her to sleep because Amelia knew her and was nice to her and there was a loo right there for her to use. I know it's a stretch but for those that think Richardson was JTR not so much.

The timing is all wrong - Richardson was in the market when Cadosch was in the yard.

[The Macdonald Triad]

The timing is all wrong - Richardson was in the market when Cadosch was in the yard.

Cadosch was in the yard multiple times pissing due to his operation. Did he carry a watch?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Who has suggested memory loss on the part of John Richardson? I certainly haven’t. So it’s an invention. The flaws in your post are obvious Harry.

Chandler merely mentioned that Richardson hadn’t mentioned sitting and repairing his boot. So it was Chandler’s word against Richardson’s. Why do you assume that Richardson must have lied? Why couldn’t Chandler have been mistaken? For example, Richardson could have just said “I went and sat on the steps and couldn’t have missed the body had it been there,” and Chandler misheard ‘sat’ for ‘stood.’ Why is that very reasonable possibility ignored by you I wonder?

We have the story below of Richardson sitting on the steps to repair his boot 2 days before he testified at the inquest. Would you suggest that the Press, completely out of thin air, created the boot repair story? Surely even you can’t believe that one. So are we suggesting that he changed his story, for no logical reason, 2 days before the inquest?

The Echo 10 Sept;

"At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, of 2, St. John-street, son of the landlady of 29, Hanbury-street, the proprietor of a packing-case business, as usual went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. A short while before there had been a burglary in this place. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot. The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. The man is quite clear that he saw nothing to attract his attention before he left. "

And even if Richardson hadn’t mentioned sitting on the steps Harry, it still isn’t anywhere near enough to suggest a change of story’s and it’s certainly no reason for a sinister interpretation. Very obviously Richardson might just have told Chandler that he’d gone to the back door steps to check the lock (his primary task) and hadn’t seen the body and couldn’t have missed it had it been there. In a conversation in a busy passage way at a gruesome, high profile murder scene it’s hardly surprising that Chandler wouldn’t have comprehensively grilled Richardson. As long as he was certain that he couldn’t have missed the body from the steps that was enough at the time.

……

To claim as a fact the Richardson altered his statement is an over-repeated falsehood. We’ve already shown how silly the suggest is that Richardson ignored 8 easy ways that he could have lied to strengthen his claim that the body wasn’t there in favour of a lie placing himself at the scene with a knife. The idea that he lied should be dismissed as nothing more than silliness. All part of an agenda though I can’t help thinking.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Cadosch was in the yard multiple times pissing due to his operation. Did he carry a watch?

He says he got up about 5. 15 am and shortly after this went into the yard and heard the voice. He says he went into the yard twice in all and never suggested multiple times.

[Dickere]

Cadosch was in the yard multiple times pissing due to his operation. Did he carry a watch?

Anyone else read this a la Captain Crabtree ?

[Caligo Umbrator]

Caligo,
Who was talking about the Coroner court?

Harry,
Given the subject being examined, this is an odd first question. In reply, I would have to state that the topic under discussion in this thread mainly involved witness statements, made under oath, pertaining to circumstances surrounding the murder of Annie Chapman and directly related by the witnesses inside a Coroner's Court in London, in the late 19th century. The fact that a Coroner's Court was heavily involved in these matters appears to have eluded no one else.


You are another one who needs to read my posts properly.


I believe I have read your posts very properly indeed. During this discussion, you requested specific information relating to Law, which I believe was adequately provided, in regard to the matter we all believed was under consideration.


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


You now pull away the magicians' cloth and reveal that all along we were unknowingly discussing an entirely different style of court, with an entirely different purpose, in an entirely different Century and with little, if any, relevance to this thread. What a cunning and masterful trap you set for all of us.
I should be interested to know how it is that you may believe such a court and its procedures are in any manner relevant to anything under discussion in this thread.



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


I have read through all the posts that pertain to this enquiry you made and, unless perhaps I have missed some shining gem, find that only your posts (starting at 505) appear to contain the precise phrase you seek the meaning of - "Presumption of Truth".
I certainly haven't uttered it and find no instance of anyone else doing so, at least before yourself.
As you are seemingly the author of that phrase, at least on this thread and on this forum, surely it should fall upon you and not others, to enlighten us as to its meaning or intention?





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


You appear to have developed a 'Strawman Argument', seemingly with the sole intent of disrupting this thread, rather than that of any serious discussion or enquiry.




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

I'd try not to sound so desperate in desiring to further your argument. I honestly cannot imagine why you would think anyone here has the slightest interest in you confirming such a claim or hearing from you further on such irrelevant matters.

BTW - The name isn't calico, it's Caligo. and, while we're about it - 'Concilliation' is more correctly spelled as 'Conciliation'

Yours,
Caligo.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi harry,

I believe there is a news report where he mentions the boot repairing before the inquest, so while that's not an official statement to the police it's clear he remembered doing it before the inquest.

And, just to be technical, not mentioning something because you didn't think to at the time doesn't really mean you "forgot" it (though we often might phrase it as "I forgot to mention ...", it's not really "forgetting" in the sense that he actually didn't remember doing it). Again, given his reason for going to Hanbury was to check the lock, that is something that would easily come out when talking with Chandler, who no doubt asked what he was doing there (I went to check the lock). The boot repair, being an incidental event, might not get mentioned simply because it was just that, viewed as incidental by Richardson. As he gets questioned on multiple occasions, sometimes by police and sometimes by the news, there are more and more opportunities for people to ask him for more details as to his activities, bringing out such incidental things that he did. It's not that he "forget" he repaired his boot just because he might not have mentioned it. Witnesses do that all the time, and it is through interviews with them that details emerge, otherwise, all one would have to do when someone comes in to make their statement is hand them a piece of paper and say "ok, write it down", and never ask them for any clarification at all. But we know that isn't going to extract the full picture - not because they "forgot", but because a witness doesn't know what is important to an investigator. What a witness might think is incidental and trivial can be the important bit of information (i.e. like where was the door when he repaired his boot? I don't think he forgot if it was resting against him, or if he closed it while he sat on the steps, but he simply never mentioned it. Sadly, it's not recorded if he was asked about it either)

- Jeff

[harry]

Thanks Caligo for giving me a spelling lesson. With my limited education I needed that.
Law,has many forms and functions,and no,I was not referring to a specific law,i was using different laws as a comparison.
If you had read through all the posts you certainly missed something.
I'll repeat it.Post 332. 'The law assumes the witness will tell the truth' I have yet to see anyone explaining that shining gem,as you describe things.
Nothing desperate on my part.Posters are always making comparisons.
Let me make just one little alteration to what Wickerman wrote.
'The law assumes the witness will lie'.
I will leave it up to posters to decide which is more apt.

[harry]

Exactly Jeff.Richardson would not have forgotten it,and as sitting on the step,was one of only two actions he performed,according to him(Richardson),it is mystifieing why he didn't mention it the first time he discussed it with a policeman.To a law enforcement officer, any change in testimony by a witness,is a need for caution in accepting it.
Regardless of the lack of official channel reports,and the need to be carefful of newspaper reporting, the latter is all we have.Regretfully we have to use it.

[JeffHamm]

Exactly Jeff.Richardson would not have forgotten it,and as sitting on the step,was one of only two actions he performed,according to him(Richardson),it is mystifieing why he didn't mention it the first time he discussed it with a policeman.To a law enforcement officer, any change in testimony by a witness,is a need for caution in accepting it.
Regardless of the lack of official channel reports,and the need to be carefful of newspaper reporting, the latter is all we have.Regretfully we have to use it.

Hi harry,

Personally, and for the reasons I mentioned, I don't think it's all that mystifying that he didn't think to mention it the first time. To him, telling the police he was there and that Annie wasn't would be the most important detail. If asked why he was there, it was to check the lock. Going into extraneous details, particularly as it involved him having a knife, is easily something he might not mention. If he's innocent, though, it could come out if people probed him for more details, as it apparently did (i.e. in the news, at the inquest). His story doesn't fundamentally change, though, it just has more detail added to it. He's not "taking back" anything he said before and "trying a new approach" really, such as "ok, I didn't go to check the lock, I went there to try and fix my boot ...." That would be suspicious to me, now he's changing his reason for being there, removing information he gave before (to check the lock motivation), and inserting an alternative. However, what he did was simply include more of his activities while at Hanbury Street, activities which were not his reason for being there though, and he still checked the lock, didn't go into the yard, and so forth. He even puts himself at risk of suspicion because he puts a knife in his hand at the time. That seems highly improbable for a guilty person, and highly improbable for an innocent one who didn't actually do the boot repair. If he was going to lie to make his claim she wasn't there seem stronger, he would just say he looked exactly where she was and she wasn't there - no need for any boots or knives or anything.

But, we all see things differently, and if you see that as a huge red flag then we see it differently, and there's nothing wrong with that.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Exactly Jeff.Richardson would not have forgotten it,and as sitting on the step,was one of only two actions he performed,according to him(Richardson),it is mystifieing why he didn't mention it the first time he discussed it with a policeman.To a law enforcement officer, any change in testimony by a witness,is a need for caution in accepting it.
Regardless of the lack of official channel reports,and the need to be carefful of newspaper reporting, the latter is all we have.Regretfully we have to use it.

Fact one - Chandler did not take a statement from Richardson, nor did he ask him any searching questions. He was managing a crime scene.
Fact two - Richardson told him that he was certain that the body was not there at the time. This is a clear statement that he did more than just check the lock. So Chandler didn't even ask him how he could be so sure. There is no evidence of anything remotely resembling a discussion, and a clear suggestion that Chandler asked him nothing at all!

[Trevor Marriott]

Fact one - Chandler did not take a statement from Richardson, nor did he ask him any searching questions. He was managing a crime scene.
Fact two - Richardson told him that he was certain that the body was not there at the time. This is a clear statement that he did more than just check the lock. So Chandler didn't even ask him how he could be so sure. There is no evidence of anything remotely resembling a discussion, and a clear suggestion that Chandler asked him nothing at all!

When a police officer attends an incident the first thing he has to do it try to find out what has happened and preserve the crime scene, his next step is to ascertain if there any witnessess, the next step is to obtain from those witnesses what has happened and what each witness saw.

Chandler it seems only spoke to Richardson briefley but sufficiently enough for him to get Richardsons initial first account and bearing in mind that account was not a lenghty one I fail to see how he could have been mistaken about what Richardson initially told him

The main point to consider is that there is no evidence to show that Richardson denied making that statement to Chandler in the form Chandler gives it at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Fact one - Chandler did not take a statement from Richardson, nor did he ask him any searching questions. He was managing a crime scene.
Fact two - Richardson told him that he was certain that the body was not there at the time. This is a clear statement that he did more than just check the lock. So Chandler didn't even ask him how he could be so sure. There is no evidence of anything remotely resembling a discussion, and a clear suggestion that Chandler asked him nothing at all!

Part of the #450 post ,




''There is no evidence of anything remotely resembling a discussion''.......... Nope not a single bit !!!! Oh except this fact.



You seem to like to put less importants on Chandlers words at the inquest . Sure ,when asked whether Richardson mentioned the boot incident he simply replied. ''No'' . Wick takes this to mean that it [the ''No'' ] should not be considered evidence just because he failed to mention it to Chandler . However he and others fail to mention this part of Chandlers testimony.

Joseph Chandler, ''He ''Told me'' he did not go down the steps''.

And this part


Coroner , Did you see John Richardson .?

Chandler, ''I saw him about quarter to seven, ''He told me'' he had been to the house that morning about quarter to five .''He said'' he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar to see if it was alright ,and then went away to his work''. By Chandler own testimony his leaving no doubt what he thinks Richardson did that morning ,which regardless how ever way you look at it, lets one accept what Chandler said ''under oath'' equally as what Richardson did!. That is just a fact.


As ive stated before and continue to do so , because of this testimony alone ,we cant judge Richardsons testimony that he sat on the step to cut his boot leather as being a better option, or more likely option , or even correct one , More than what Chandler has suggested. Its just not right to do so in my opinion.


Right here [see a bove] we have a Richardson problem that is plain to see, and how complicated it becomes when trying to support one theory over another .For him to sit on the step he must first go down them or at least them or one

[GBinOz]

To claim as a fact the Richardson altered his statement is an over-repeated falsehood. We’ve already shown how silly the suggest is that Richardson ignored 8 easy ways that he could have lied to strengthen his claim that the body wasn’t there in favour of a lie placing himself at the scene with a knife. The idea that he lied should be dismissed as nothing more than silliness. All part of an agenda though I can’t help thinking.

Hi Herlock,

So, on his two minute walk to Hanbury St, Richardson noticed his boot repair had not been successful as the boot was hurting his toe. On arriving at No 29 he finds his knife in his pocket. Having used that knife, which was a rusty little table knife without a handle and with a broken blade, that morning to cut carrots he knew how sharp it wasn't, but decides to sit on the step in the morning gloom and make another failed attempt to set the boot right. Then he walks a few more minutes to the market and succeeds in the repair with a borrowed knife. Where does that story rate on the "silliness" scale?

Of what agenda could you possibly be thinking, pray tell?

Cheers, George