John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

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.

That may be the case , and too a point i agree on certain things that probably shouldnt go as far as trying to suggest different ways in which Richardson did on didnt do with his god damm boot! . However what we have that is beyond dispute, is conflicting testimony and press reporting that absolutely positively gives grounds for more than ''one'' theory to have taken place that morning . Im sure youll agree with that .

[Doctored Whatsit]

Common sense as ever Jeff.

I have decided that being called Jeff is a compliment! Because I like compliments.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Or we could deduce that the coroner didn’t see mystery in everything? He saw that Richardson was clearly telling the truth and what Chandler might or might not have heard made no difference.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Common sense as ever Jeff.

My apologies, the quote was from Doc and not Jeff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Many issues in this case are a close run thing in terms of interpretation Fishy but this isn’t one of them in my opinion. It’s not remotely close. The chances of Richardson lying are so obviously minute that they can safely be dismissed. It’s a no brainer.

[DJA]

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Richardson has been accused of lying on this thread Harry. Many times.

I just have to ask. What was said in that passage way was between Richardson and Chandler. Why do you dismiss the possibility of Chandler being wrong? Why must it have been Richardson?

Why do you dismiss the possibility that Richardson might have said “I sat on the step” but Chandler misheard it for “I stood on the step?”

Why do you dismiss the suggestion that Richardson’s reason for sitting on the step was irrelevant so there was nothing sinister if he hadn’t actually mentioned it? Why couldn’t the convo have been something like “I went to the steps to check the cellar lock and there was no body there,” - “but are you sure that you couldn’t have missed it?” - “Absolutely no chance. I’d have seen it had it been there.”

Why do you dismiss all of these to propose that Richardson told a pointless lie that achieved absolutely nothing apart from to cause the police to look at him more closely?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have decided that being called Jeff is a compliment! Because I like compliments.

[FISHY1118]

Many issues in this case are a close run thing in terms of interpretation Fishy but this isn’t one of them in my opinion. It’s not remotely close. The chances of Richardson lying are so obviously minute that they can safely be dismissed. It’s a no brainer.

Well you, like the rest of us are fully entitled to judge the evidence and form an opinion.Others will of course see it differently with good reason. After reviewing the complex nature and confusion of witness testimony, i don't blame them.IMO.

[FISHY1118]

Lets not go there shall we

[Abby Normal]

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 dr. and i totally agree. while there are some minor issues with his story, i dont think they raise to the level of a red flag, maybe just possibly a yellow flag. and i certainly dont think we can conclude hes lying or is unreliable.

the police did flush out those type witnesses like packer and violenia so we know they could do it when confronted with such types.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Doc,

I agree that there is much conflicting evidence in the newspaper reports, but they are largely all we have, so if we don't take too much stock of them, what do we have to talk about?

Richardson may have just been brief in his initial statement to Chandler, but such brevity would not be expected when talking to the press.

Star 8 Sep:
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.

Daily News 10 Sep:
John Richardson, living in the house, states that he, in accordance with his usual practice, entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall Market, and at that time, 4.50, he was certain no one was in the yard.

Not a word about his boot, just his usual practice. Not even one mention of Herlock's eight alternative stories.

There are some reports that convey the feeling of the time as well as the words.
East London Observer 15 Sep
The Coroner was very severe on him over the story of the knife with which he had cut a piece of leather off his boot before five o'clock on Friday morning, on the stone steps near which the body was found. He wanted to know why he had the knife, why he should put a table knife in his pocket, and altogether made the witness look very uneasy and very uncomfortable. His discomfort was increased when, at the suggestion of the Coroner, he was sent off in charge of Inspector Chandler to find the knife with which he had cut the leather off his boot.

Daily News 14 Sep
The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable. The jury questioned the police-officer with the view of ascertaining whether it may have been possible that when Richardson went to the yard the body might have been laying there without his perceiving it. The inspector thought that it was very possible if he had only gone to the top of the steps. In that case, as the door opened outwards, it might have concealed the body behind it. Richardson, however, had sworn that he sat on the middle step with his feet on the ground, to cut a piece from his shoe, and it was allowed that in this position he must inevitably have seen the murdered woman. The importance of this point is that upon it depends the limitation of the time within which the murder must have been committed.
The boldened seems to sort out that it is the house steps being talked about, not the cellar steps. It also appears that coroner and the jury were part of the "soft conspiracy".

Echo 14 Sep:
It is regarded as of considerable importance that Dr. Philips yesterday established the fact that the deceased must have been lying in the backyard in Hanbury street at least upwards of two hours before her body was found, and that young Richardson, therefore, must have been mistaken in his evidence.

There is our alternative. Richardson wasn't lying, just mistaken in his evidence.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

I agree that there is much conflicting evidence in the newspaper reports, but they are largely all we have, so if we don't take too much stock of them, what do we have to talk about?

Richardson may have just been brief in his initial statement to Chandler, but such brevity would not be expected when talking to the press.

Star 8 Sep:
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.

Daily News 10 Sep:
John Richardson, living in the house, states that he, in accordance with his usual practice, entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall Market, and at that time, 4.50, he was certain no one was in the yard.

Not a word about his boot, just his usual practice. Not even one mention of Herlock's eight alternative stories.



*1.Why would Richardson feel the need to tell the press he had a sore foot because of a problem with his boot? Again he says there was no body in the yard. He just doesn't say how he knew. They didn't ask.


There are some reports that convey the feeling of the time as well as the words.
East London Observer 15 Sep
The Coroner was very severe on him over the story of the knife with which he had cut a piece of leather off his boot before five o'clock on Friday morning, on the stone steps near which the body was found. He wanted to know why he had the knife, why he should put a table knife in his pocket, and altogether made the witness look very uneasy and very uncomfortable. His discomfort was increased when, at the suggestion of the Coroner, he was sent off in charge of Inspector Chandler to find the knife with which he had cut the leather off his boot.


*2. Wouldn't anyone feel uncomfortable being cross examined by the coroner at the inquest of a murder?


Daily News 14 Sep
The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable. The jury questioned the police-officer with the view of ascertaining whether it may have been possible that when Richardson went to the yard the body might have been laying there without his perceiving it. The inspector thought that it was very possible if he had only gone to the top of the steps. In that case, as the door opened outwards, it might have concealed the body behind it. Richardson, however, had sworn that he sat on the middle step with his feet on the ground, to cut a piece from his shoe, and it was allowed that in this position he must inevitably have seen the murdered woman. The importance of this point is that upon it depends the limitation of the time within which the murder must have been committed.
The boldened seems to sort out that it is the house steps being talked about, not the cellar steps. It also appears that coroner and the jury were part of the "soft conspiracy".

*3. Chandler, who is repeatedly mentioned as someone Richardson lied to, or failed to mention important facts to in their conversation in the passage, actually had "no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable." So, as Richardson "had sworn that he sat on the middle step with his feet on the ground .... he must have inevitably have seen the murdered woman." Why do people keep quoting the brief converation between Richardson and Chandler, as if it was an interview, which it wasn't, and ignore the evidence that Chandler seems to have thought Richardson was actually reliable?

Echo 14 Sep:
It is regarded as of considerable importance that Dr. Philips yesterday established the fact that the deceased must have been lying in the backyard in Hanbury street at least upwards of two hours before her body was found, and that young Richardson, therefore, must have been mistaken in his evidence.

There is our alternative. Richardson wasn't lying, just mistaken in his evidence.

*4. I am not terribly impressed with the power of the argument that because a journalist believed Dr Phillips' evidence to be beyond possible error, Richardson must have been mistaken. Chandler believed Richardson, and it is beyond dispute that modern experts have cast doubt on the accuracy of ToDs quoted in 1888.

* Sorry George,

My comments didn't come out as I expected, so I've given them a * and a number. I would like to consider accepting the possibility that Richardson could have been mistaken, but if he sat on the steps, he couldn't have been mistaken. As the police accepted his evidence then, I do now. They had all of the evidence which we don't have.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Doc,

I agree that there is much conflicting evidence in the newspaper reports, but they are largely all we have, so if we don't take too much stock of them, what do we have to talk about?

Richardson may have just been brief in his initial statement to Chandler, but such brevity would not be expected when talking to the press.

Star 8 Sep:
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.

A simple case of him not elaborating on what position he’d been in George. Nothing remotely suspicious. He’s stating something as a fact….the body wasn’t there.

Daily News 10 Sep:
John Richardson, living in the house, states that he, in accordance with his usual practice, entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall Market, and at that time, 4.50, he was certain no one was in the yard.

Not a word about his boot, just his usual practice. Not even one mention of Herlock's eight alternative stories.

See the quote below. Unless you would suggest that the newspaper invented the boot story then it shows that 2 days before the inquest Richardson was telling people that he’d sat on the steps to repair his boot thus proving that the newspapers that reported otherwise were clearly mistaken.

There are some reports that convey the feeling of the time as well as the words.
East London Observer 15 Sep
The Coroner was very severe on him over the story of the knife with which he had cut a piece of leather off his boot before five o'clock on Friday morning, on the stone steps near which the body was found. He wanted to know why he had the knife, why he should put a table knife in his pocket, and altogether made the witness look very uneasy and very uncomfortable. His discomfort was increased when, at the suggestion of the Coroner, he was sent off in charge of Inspector Chandler to find the knife with which he had cut the leather off his boot.

Naturally he’d have been uneasy. An inquest on a knife murder and the coroner was focusing on his knife.

Daily News 14 Sep
The Coroner closely questioned the inspector as to the visit of young Mr. Richardson to the backyard in Hanbury-street. Evidently Mr. Baxter had not been quite satisfied with the circumstances attending that visit, but from Inspector Chandler's tone and manner, he had himself apparently no doubt that this young man's evidence was reliable. The jury questioned the police-officer with the view of ascertaining whether it may have been possible that when Richardson went to the yard the body might have been laying there without his perceiving it. The inspector thought that it was very possible if he had only gone to the top of the steps. In that case, as the door opened outwards, it might have concealed the body behind it. Richardson, however, had sworn that he sat on the middle step with his feet on the ground, to cut a piece from his shoe, and it was allowed that in this position he must inevitably have seen the murdered woman. The importance of this point is that upon it depends the limitation of the time within which the murder must have been committed.
The boldened seems to sort out that it is the house steps being talked about, not the cellar steps. It also appears that coroner and the jury were part of the "soft conspiracy".

Echo 14 Sep:
It is regarded as of considerable importance that Dr. Philips yesterday established the fact that the deceased must have been lying in the backyard in Hanbury street at least upwards of two hours before her body was found, and that young Richardson, therefore, must have been mistaken in his evidence.

There is our alternative. Richardson wasn't lying, just mistaken in his evidence.

He was neither. He was truthful and accurate and couldn’t possibly have missed a corpse.

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. "

2 days before he testified at the inquest George.

[Trevor Marriott]

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. "

2 days before he testified at the inquest George.

So he could have sat on the steps with the door between the steps thus hiding the body !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats it then, mystery solved he didnt lie, he sat on the step to repair his boot, and could not have seen the body because the door was blocking his view. Might as well close the thread down now, Phillips was right, Richardson didnt see the body !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk