John Richardson

[GBinOz]

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."

Daily News 14 Sep
There was also a piece of flat steel which has since been identified as the spring of a perambulator.

Morning Advertiser 13 Sep
The police took away an empty box used for keeping nails and the steel out of a boy's gaiter.

Little wonder that we have so much difficulty with reported inquest statements.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

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

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''


George how else should we intrepret this statement from Chandler ? Other than what it can only mean .

Mind you he is quoteing Richardson with theses words '' he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar to see if it was alright ''

Noticed how he indicates what Richardson did he ''Looked down'' FROM'' the back door to see if the cellar was alright . !!!!!

There we have it, straight from a police inspectors own under oath testimony .

[Doctored Whatsit]

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''


George how else should we intrepret this statement from Chandler ? Other than what it can only mean .

Mind you he is quoteing Richardson with theses words '' he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar to see if it was alright ''

Noticed how he indicates what Richardson did he ''Looked down'' FROM'' the back door to see if the cellar was alright . !!!!!

There we have it, straight from a police inspectors own under oath testimony .

I have absolutely no disagreement that Richardson's story is unusual, a bit confused or confusing, and needed checking out. That is agreed. However, as I have said before, Chandler reported that Richardson was certain that the body was not there at the time. That is a clear statement that Richardson did more than just peer down the cellar steps. Chandler didn't ask him how he could be so sure, so he didn't get told the full story. Richardson wasn't making a detailed statement so he wasn't expected at that point to provide details about everything he had done. In a brief conversation with a police officer who had just taken control at a murder scene, was it crucial that Chandler be advised by Richardson that his boots were really uncomfortable and what he had tried to do about it? Very possibly not! Richardson might easily think that Chandler had enough to do, and that the information was superluous.

I suspect that the conversation with Chandler was not much more than -
"I called in to check the cellar lock about 4. 40 or 4. 45 am, because of a previous break-in. I looked down from the steps and everything was OK. The body definitely wasn't there then."
"We'll need a statement, from you"
"Yes, of course."
I repeat, there is no evidence that Chandler asked him how he could be certain the body wasn't there, if he only looked down the cellar steps.

Again, odd and perhaps suspicious as the story clearly was, it was thoroughly checked out by the police, and he was cleared. Very few witnesses had that treatment.

There is much conflicting evidence in the newspaper reports, so I don't take too much stock of them.

[harry]

I would reply to your post Doctored Whatsit,but I observe it has been answered by others more capable than I.
No one has actually accused Richardson of lying.I have offered a belief that he lied,but I also explained why I believe it to be so.
Had Richardson's first statement relied on things that had happened some days,weeks,or months after the event,there would be reasonable cause to believe in a memory lapse,but it was given about one hour after,and no,I cannot accept that short period affected his recollections.

[Aethelwulf]

I have absolutely no disagreement that Richardson's story is unusual, a bit confused or confusing, and needed checking out. That is agreed. However, as I have said before, Chandler reported that Richardson was certain that the body was not there at the time. That is a clear statement that Richardson did more than just peer down the cellar steps. Chandler didn't ask him how he could be so sure, so he didn't get told the full story. Richardson wasn't making a detailed statement so he wasn't expected at that point to provide details about everything he had done. In a brief conversation with a police officer who had just taken control at a murder scene, was it crucial that Chandler be advised by Richardson that his boots were really uncomfortable and what he had tried to do about it? Very possibly not! Richardson might easily think that Chandler had enough to do, and that the information was superluous.

I suspect that the conversation with Chandler was not much more than -
"I called in to check the cellar lock about 4. 40 or 4. 45 am, because of a previous break-in. I looked down from the steps and everything was OK. The body definitely wasn't there then."
"We'll need a statement, from you"
"Yes, of course."
I repeat, there is no evidence that Chandler asked him how he could be certain the body wasn't there, if he only looked down the cellar steps.

Again, odd and perhaps suspicious as the story clearly was, it was thoroughly checked out by the police, and he was cleared. Very few witnesses had that treatment.

There is much conflicting evidence in the newspaper reports, so I don't take too much stock of them.

Good post but I suspect the 'soft' conspiracy theorists will still have their respective knickers in a twist over such logical thinking.

[FISHY1118]

Good post but I suspect the 'soft' conspiracy theorists will still have their respective knickers in a twist over such logical thinking.

The evidence is there for all of us to make of what we will , some decipher it one way , some will chose another.

Labeling people ''conspiracy theorists'' for there own interpretation is in very poor taste, as far as the subject matter goes there is more than enough evidence to support any number of theories . #830 post are testiment to that surely?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hello George,

Or, a version written without the suspicious overtones……..Richardson did some amateur shoe repair the previous day. It didn’t feel perfect but he’d felt that it wasn’t so uncomfortable that he couldn’t put up with it and he was wary of potentially ruining a serviceable pair of boots. But when he started walking at pace (unlike the short steps taken around the house) his boot began to hurt and he realised that it needed a bit of further attention. He could have waited and walked to work and repaired it there or, as he had a knife on him which he thought would have good enough, he had a go at it at Hanbury Street as he didn’t think much work was required to make the boot comfortable enough.

Perfectly normal, reasonable, everyday behaviour George. The problem is that we can’t know the exact circumstances of course, like at what time he did the first repair and when it began to hurt again (did it become very slightly uncomfortable and got worse over time?) or what was the exact kind of repair or Richardson’s level of skill. And as these are unknowns why do we have to project ‘unlikeliness’ onto a kind of situation that might have happened to anyone?

It’s difficult to see how this is considered unreasonable and yet it’s being proposed (amazingly with straight faces apparently) that John Richardson wanted to add a lie just to prove that he couldn’t have missed the body? Did he say…..yes, I stood on the step but I pushed the door back to the fence so there couldn’t have been a body there. Or….I went to the outside loo…..or, I went over to the cellar door…….or, when I sat on the step I closed the door behind me. Your average toddler could have come up with any of these lies in which he categorically wouldn’t have been able to have missed a body George but no, John Richardson (worlds stupidest man) after having time to think about it! says….. I sat on the steps to repair my boot…..which still left the possibility of the body being hidden behind the door and, into the bargain, puts a knife into his hand whilst he sat alone in a yard with an horrifically mutilated corpse! No that is ‘way off’ the silliness scale and shouldn’t be considered likely for a single second imo.

Another ‘why’ worth asking is, if Richardson was lying’ why did he mention being there in the first place? Yes, he’d have been aware that he might have been observed entering number 29, but he could simply have said that he’d left something in his mother’s room and had gone in to retrieve it without going into the yard. He’d have had time to have spoken to his mother so that she could have confirmed his story for him and left out any mention of his habit of checking the cellar. Another childishly simply lie avoided in favour of an awful, potentially incriminating one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Because Richardson testified before Chandler. He could have misheard ‘sat’ on the steps for ‘stood’ on the steps.

If Richardson told him that he absolutely couldn’t have missed the body why wouldn’t Chandler have believed him?

Interestingly the coroner had no problem accepting that Phillips was mistaken.

[Trevor Marriott]

Another ‘why’ worth asking is, if Richardson was lying’ why did he mention being there in the first place? Yes, he’d have been aware that he might have been observed entering number 29, but he could simply have said that he’d left something in his mother’s room and had gone in to retrieve it without going into the yard. He’d have had time to have spoken to his mother so that she could have confirmed his story for him and left out any mention of his habit of checking the cellar. Another childishly simply lie avoided in favour of an awful, potentially incriminating one.

Because if he had not mentioned he was at the premises he could have been caught out i,e, he could have been seen going into the premises, or coming out, or in the back garden, and his mother could have told the police that he regularly goes to check the lock all of which would have resulted in him having to then answer awkward questions about his movements. But he was put on the spot by Chandler asking for his account.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone else read this a la Captain Crabtree ?

Good moaning Dickere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have absolutely no disagreement that Richardson's story is unusual, a bit confused or confusing, and needed checking out. That is agreed. However, as I have said before, Chandler reported that Richardson was certain that the body was not there at the time. That is a clear statement that Richardson did more than just peer down the cellar steps. Chandler didn't ask him how he could be so sure, so he didn't get told the full story. Richardson wasn't making a detailed statement so he wasn't expected at that point to provide details about everything he had done. In a brief conversation with a police officer who had just taken control at a murder scene, was it crucial that Chandler be advised by Richardson that his boots were really uncomfortable and what he had tried to do about it? Very possibly not! Richardson might easily think that Chandler had enough to do, and that the information was superluous.

I suspect that the conversation with Chandler was not much more than -
"I called in to check the cellar lock about 4. 40 or 4. 45 am, because of a previous break-in. I looked down from the steps and everything was OK. The body definitely wasn't there then."
"We'll need a statement, from you"
"Yes, of course."
I repeat, there is no evidence that Chandler asked him how he could be certain the body wasn't there, if he only looked down the cellar steps.

Again, odd and perhaps suspicious as the story clearly was, it was thoroughly checked out by the police, and he was cleared. Very few witnesses had that treatment.

There is much conflicting evidence in the newspaper reports, so I don't take too much stock of them.

Common sense as ever Jeff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The evidence is there for all of us to make of what we will , some decipher it one way , some will chose another.

Labeling people ''conspiracy theorists'' for there own interpretation is in very poor taste, as far as the subject matter goes there is more than enough evidence to support any number of theories . #830 post are testiment to that surely?

The evidence favours Richardson. It’s not even close Fishy.

[Trevor Marriott]

Because Richardson testified before Chandler. He could have misheard ‘sat’ on the steps for ‘stood’ on the steps.

If Richardson told him that he absolutely couldn’t have missed the body why wouldn’t Chandler have believed him?

and the coroner could have and should recalled Richardson to clarify the ambiguity which clearly arose.

It is my opinion that the police did not conduct a thorough investigation. they were present in court when the depositions were given and the conflicts in the various witness statements were never it seem investigated for clarificatiin purposes. This is one such example

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

The evidence favours Richardson. It’s not even close Fishy.

Well i wouldnt certainly call it ''overwhelming'' one way or the other . Who, if anyone its favours is open to interpretation. IMO

[Aethelwulf]

The evidence is there for all of us to make of what we will , some decipher it one way , some will chose another.

Labeling people ''conspiracy theorists'' for there own interpretation is in very poor taste, as far as the subject matter goes there is more than enough evidence to support any number of theories . #830 post are testiment to that surely?

the thing is though, 134 years later people are trying to rewrite the narrative of the time by suggesting Richardson lied and misled the police and courts. There has to be good evidence for this, of which there is none IMO. Trevor and GB going on about the chronology of when he may have felt pain and repaired is boot is absurd and just noise. the soft conspiracy theorist label is appropriate i think.