John Richardson

[Abby Normal]

You dont listen do you, it has been explained that if he did sit on the step as he states with the door propped open against him he could not have seen the body. As for your contiuning statement that he says there was no body to see, there wouldnt have been because all he would have been able to see was what was in front of him and to his right which is the area he was focussed on having gone there for just that purpose.

Phillips estimated TOD is correct which puts the murder in the same time frame as all the other victims

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

even if the door was propped against him he still would have seen her body. she wasnt standing hiding in the corner, she was was lying flat on the ground infront of him slightly to his left with her legs and feet extented away from him. added to that while hes sitting looking down toward tje ground at his own feet.

of course he would have seen her had she been there.

and you can keep saying phillips tod is correct till your blue in the face, but all that means is your wrong but now you have a blue face.

really trevor, your responses are getting more desperate and sillier than ever.

[FISHY1118]

I use the word fantasy because balance is lacking. All across this case there are obvious discrepancies, errors, disagreements which give us at least 2 points of view (often more) on each topic. But that doesn’t mean that each side carries equal weight and that’s the case here. The side of the argument that points to Richardson telling the truth and the side where he lied aren’t close. They aren’t even remotely close. Just because we can say “it’s not physically impossible that Richardson might have changed his story” this doesn’t add weight to it because there is no real weight to it. And when we consider the fact that even if it were the case then it still wouldn’t mean that he’d lied or had anything to hide. So the case that Richardson lied is not worth discussing because it makes no sense whichever way you look at it. It’s a non-starter that we can safely dismiss.

On the contrary, I think your equal weight stance in regard to the Chapman murder is indeed hanging in the balance.

As far as the evidence of witness testimony goes, the suggestion is probably more apt in the her murder than some of the others .
I'd say the chances of it being as clear cut as what some make out to be are remote, and it would be risky to assume otherwise.

[harry]

There is barely two lines of his telling what he did when he arrived at the house .(Richardson). That is all Chandler had to remember.I would expect Chandler to at least enter those two lines in his notebook,while it was fresh in his memory,and possibly to have recorded those two lines in a statement of interview.Further I would expext Chandler to have refreshed his memory just before giving evidence at the inquest.So when he testified that Richardson had only told him of standing by the door,that is all that Richardson did tell him.
We can rule out lapses of memory,or any chance of Chandler lying or being unsure.
We are therefor left with the additional testimony of Richardson,of having sat on the steps.Why didn't he tell Chandler that.My opinion is because it didn't happen.

[jerryd]

even if the door was propped against him he still would have seen her body. she wasnt standing hiding in the corner, she was was lying flat on the ground infront of him slightly to his left with her legs and feet extented away from him. added to that while hes sitting looking down toward tje ground at his own feet.

of course he would have seen her had she been there.

and you can keep saying phillips tod is correct till your blue in the face, but all that means is your wrong but now you have a blue face.

really trevor, your responses are getting more desperate and sillier than ever.

To add a bit, if you don't mind Abby.

Her knees were spread outward on each side. In my mind that makes her right leg even more visible even if the door were up against Richardson.

[GBinOz]

Gentlemen, please, a little decorum. There is no need to resort to insults or the denigration of the views of others. Let us look at some of the facts.

1. It had been JR's habit for two months to check the lock on market days by opening the back door and looking down at the lock.
2. JR initially told only this story to Chandler on 8 Sep, and to the press from 8 Sep to 10 Sep.
3. The jury asked Chandler if JR could have missed the body when he executed this procedure. Chandler replied that he thought he could have missed the body. He also did not qualify his answer by saying that he needed to go down the steps to see the lock, thus agreeing with JR and Mrs R in that assertion.
4. In at least two press reports it was questioned whether he could have missed the body even if he sat on the steps. Irish Times 10 Sep:
It is a remarkable fact, however, that the man Richardson, who first went into the yard where the corpse was discovered says that he actually sat down on the step of the passage to cut a piece of leather off his shoe and yet did not see the body. This, however, may be explained by the circumstances that the passage door opens outward and toward the left, and so would conceal the body behind it.
There is no suggestion anywhere (that I can find) that he went down the steps and closed the door behind him. Had he done that he would have mentioned it at the inquest to counteract the suggestions made in the press.

There is little point in arguing that JR could have come up with better explanations. He said what he said, and that's what we need to address. When Baxter arrived at his conclusion as to the ToD he was challenged by the Foreman of the jury that it conflicted with Phillip's estimate and was brushed off with "but he qualified his estimate". There is no doubt that there were suspicions and doubts about JR's evidence at the time, as well as in these discussions. I venture to suspect that a member of the press, or two, may have sat on the step with the door closed on the shoulder to see what they could see, and hence their explanation in their publication.

The truth is we can't know with absolute certainty what happened. We each have to make our own assessment of the preponderance of evidence and accept that others will decide differently. That is not to say that points of view cannot be raised for discussion, but at least let that be done without the derogatory epiphets.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

There is barely two lines of his telling what he did when he arrived at the house .(Richardson). That is all Chandler had to remember.I would expect Chandler to at least enter those two lines in his notebook,while it was fresh in his memory,and possibly to have recorded those two lines in a statement of interview.Further I would expext Chandler to have refreshed his memory just before giving evidence at the inquest.So when he testified that Richardson had only told him of standing by the door,that is all that Richardson did tell him.
We can rule out lapses of memory,or any chance of Chandler lying or being unsure.
We are therefor left with the additional testimony of Richardson,of having sat on the steps.Why didn't he tell Chandler that.My opinion is because it didn't happen.

Hi harry,

What if Chandler didn't do things as you expect he would? Then he would be relying upon his recollection wouldn't he, meaning we couldn't rule out lapses of memory, etc?

Why do you think the sitting on the steps didn't happen rather than Richardson just not mentioning it the first time he spoke to Chandler? As far as I can see, there's no evidence to indicate that Richardson lied (as you're implying), and there's even the finding of the part of his leggings that points towards physical corroboration (though not definitive, of course) of his boot repair story.

There's also the complete incomprehensibility of either a guilty or innocent person making up a story that puts a knife, however dull, in their hand at a knife-murder crime scene! That, to me, is only the sort of thing someone who actually did sit there with a knife in their hand repairing their boot would say.

Personally, I can't imagine the reasoning you must envision Richardson followed to decide to lie about having a knife at the crime scene if, in fact, he didn't, and would be interested in hearing your proposal for his line of thought.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Gentlemen, please, a little decorum. There is no need to resort to insults or the denigration of the views of others. Let us look at some of the facts.

1. It had been JR's habit for two months to check the lock on market days by opening the back door and looking down at the lock.
2. JR initially told only this story to Chandler on 8 Sep, and to the press from 8 Sep to 10 Sep.
3. The jury asked Chandler if JR could have missed the body when he executed this procedure. Chandler replied that he thought he could have missed the body. He also did not qualify his answer by saying that he needed to go down the steps to see the lock, thus agreeing with JR and Mrs R in that assertion.
4. In at least two press reports it was questioned whether he could have missed the body even if he sat on the steps. Irish Times 10 Sep:
It is a remarkable fact, however, that the man Richardson, who first went into the yard where the corpse was discovered says that he actually sat down on the step of the passage to cut a piece of leather off his shoe and yet did not see the body. This, however, may be explained by the circumstances that the passage door opens outward and toward the left, and so would conceal the body behind it.
There is no suggestion anywhere (that I can find) that he went down the steps and closed the door behind him. Had he done that he would have mentioned it at the inquest to counteract the suggestions made in the press.

There is little point in arguing that JR could have come up with better explanations. He said what he said, and that's what we need to address. When Baxter arrived at his conclusion as to the ToD he was challenged by the Foreman of the jury that it conflicted with Phillip's estimate and was brushed off with "but he qualified his estimate". There is no doubt that there were suspicions and doubts about JR's evidence at the time, as well as in these discussions. I venture to suspect that a member of the press, or two, may have sat on the step with the door closed on the shoulder to see what they could see, and hence their explanation in their publication.

The truth is we can't know with absolute certainty what happened. We each have to make our own assessment of the preponderance of evidence and accept that others will decide differently. That is not to say that points of view cannot be raised for discussion, but at least let that be done without the derogatory epiphets.

Cheers, George

I coundnt agree more George. I would like to think were all a bit more above the usual insulting, slanging matches one is more likley to witness on say twitter , facebook and reddit .

We have, from what i can see some very bright articulate people on this forum, and a subject matter with an enormous amount of difficulty attacted to every detail as to try work out the mystery that is jack the ripper .

Its not surprizing it continues to this very day to intrigue and baffle us for a solution , healthy debate and respect all round is what brings out the best from all of us. And should i hope continues to do so .

[GBinOz]

Hi harry,

What if Chandler didn't do things as you expect he would? Then he would be relying upon his recollection wouldn't he, meaning we couldn't rule out lapses of memory, etc?

Why do you think the sitting on the steps didn't happen rather than Richardson just not mentioning it the first time he spoke to Chandler? As far as I can see, there's no evidence to indicate that Richardson lied (as you're implying), and there's even the finding of the part of his leggings that points towards physical corroboration (though not definitive, of course) of his boot repair story.

There's also the complete incomprehensibility of either a guilty or innocent person making up a story that puts a knife, however dull, in their hand at a knife-murder crime scene! That, to me, is only the sort of thing someone who actually did sit there with a knife in their hand repairing their boot would say.

Personally, I can't imagine the reasoning you must envision Richardson followed to decide to lie about having a knife at the crime scene if, in fact, he didn't, and would be interested in hearing your proposal for his line of thought.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

To be fair, up until 10 Sep JR was giving the press the same story he gave Chandler, and doubts were being raised as to whether he may have missed the body in his usual procedure. Also, while one press report had the steel identified as from JR's legging, another had it from a boy's gaiter.

The jury questioned Chandler as to whether JR could have missed the body during his usual procedure. For Chandler to have answered in the affirmative one would expect that he had gone to the door and opened it to where he could see the lock and assessed the possibility. Otherwise he should have answered that he didn't know. Questions were being asked as to whether he could have missed the body and JR's persistence in the assurance that he couldn't seems to indicate that he was desperate to be believed on that account. In reality, this was a very rough area and it has been suggested that it was not unusual for men to carry a knife. Even so, it does seem a strange thing to do, and it did attract the attention of the coroner, but we cannot look into JR's mind for his reason. In the end the coroner came down on JR's side, but to the protests of the foreman of the jury.

The second question raised at the time was, if JR is to be believed with his step sitting, could he still have missed the body. My viewing of the Mason video suggests to me that there is that possibility. I was going to attempt another recreation, but there is no suitable door/step arrangement on my property, so I will have to seek that combination on the properties of friends, in the fullness of time. JMO.

Best regards, George

[Trevor Marriott]

even if the door was propped against him he still would have seen her body. she wasnt standing hiding in the corner, she was was lying flat on the ground infront of him slightly to his left with her legs and feet extented away from him. added to that while hes sitting looking down toward tje ground at his own feet.

of course he would have seen her had she been there.

and you can keep saying phillips tod is correct till your blue in the face, but all that means is your wrong but now you have a blue face.

really trevor, your responses are getting more desperate and sillier than ever.

I think you and others need to look at the photo of the door and if you look carefully you will be able to see that when the door is open there is such a poition and angle that would obsure the door from the body. Bearing in mind it was just about getting light that morning so that has to be taken into account

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is barely two lines of his telling what he did when he arrived at the house .(Richardson). That is all Chandler had to remember.

Chandler was in charge of the most important crime scene of his career to date. Easily the most horrific and certainly the most high profile one. He had his junior officers to give various orders too, the buildings residents to question, people wanting to exit and enter the building for various reasons, searches to undertake/supervise, messages to be sent etc. So he was hardly just twiddling his thumbs. He spoke to Richardson, not in a proper sit-down interview, but in a chat in a passageway. Can you honestly state with confidence that errors couldn’t be made? I’m not even suggesting that an error must have been made but just that the situation was ripe for the possibility.

I would expect Chandler to at least enter those two lines in his notebook,while it was fresh in his memory,and possibly to have recorded those two lines in a statement of interview.

We have no way of knowing if he made notes Harry so we can’t just assume it; especially if Chandler intended on a full and proper interview with Chandler at some point later on which undoubtedly would have been the case. So if the gist of what Richardson had told him was something like “I went to the back doorstep and from where I was there was no way I could have missed a body,” Chandler wouldn’t have had the time or inclination to begin checking the height of the step or various angles. He simply had a witness who was confident that he couldn’t have missed a body - with a more in-depth interview to come.

Further I would expext Chandler to have refreshed his memory just before giving evidence at the inquest.

From the notes that we can’t be anything like sure that he’d taken? And if he’d perhaps misheard ‘sat’ for ‘stood?’

So when he testified that Richardson had only told him of standing by the door,that is all that Richardson did tell him.

a) yes if we make the assumption that Chandler was infallible, and b) even if Richardson hadn’t gone into more detail about why he’d sat on the steps it wouldn’t have been in any way suspicious, unless we make the assumption that it was significant or suspicious of course.

We can rule out lapses of memory,or any chance of Chandler lying or being unsure.

No we can’t rule out lapse of memory especially under those circumstances. And, as I’ve said, he might simply have said that he’d gone to the doorway to check the lock and couldn’t have missed the body had it been there and if Chandler hadn’t questioned him further, or he simply accepted what he’d said at the time, then there’s nothing suspicious. We shouldn’t ignore simple, plausible explanations if they are possible. And these explanations are entirely possible.

We are therefor left with the additional testimony of Richardson,of having sat on the steps.Why didn't he tell Chandler that.My opinion is because it didn't happen.

Ive already explained why he might not have gone into detail under the circumstances so there’s no really point in me repeating them but I’ll suggest a scenario to illustrate a point Harry……

I tell a Police Officer:

Me - ”I was walking along the High Street on Tuesday and I saw Harry going into the butchers shop.”

Police Officer - “Are you sure? Perhaps you saw someone that looked like him?”

Me - “No, Im certain it was him.”

then a couple of days later….

PO - “We’ve been told that Harry usually goes to the butchers on a Wednesday so could you be mistaken?”

Me - “No, I know that it was a Tuesday because I was on the way to collect a suit from the dry cleaners, and that was on Tuesday.”

So in that scenario would it have been at all suspicious that I hadn’t added the detail about the suit initially? Or would it have been perfectly understandable and nothing suspicious? I reckon that the majority of reasonable people would go for that latter. So why is it considered suspicious in Richardson’s case? As Jeff pointed out, it’s often the case that more information surfaces on a second, more thorough, questioning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gentlemen, please, a little decorum. There is no need to resort to insults or the denigration of the views of others. Let us look at some of the facts.

1. It had been JR's habit for two months to check the lock on market days by opening the back door and looking down at the lock.
2. JR initially told only this story to Chandler on 8 Sep, and to the press from 8 Sep to 10 Sep.
3. The jury asked Chandler if JR could have missed the body when he executed this procedure. Chandler replied that he thought he could have missed the body. He also did not qualify his answer by saying that he needed to go down the steps to see the lock, thus agreeing with JR and Mrs R in that assertion.
4. In at least two press reports it was questioned whether he could have missed the body even if he sat on the steps. Irish Times 10 Sep:
It is a remarkable fact, however, that the man Richardson, who first went into the yard where the corpse was discovered says that he actually sat down on the step of the passage to cut a piece of leather off his shoe and yet did not see the body. This, however, may be explained by the circumstances that the passage door opens outward and toward the left, and so would conceal the body behind it.
There is no suggestion anywhere (that I can find) that he went down the steps and closed the door behind him. Had he done that he would have mentioned it at the inquest to counteract the suggestions made in the press.

There is little point in arguing that JR could have come up with better explanations. He said what he said, and that's what we need to address. When Baxter arrived at his conclusion as to the ToD he was challenged by the Foreman of the jury that it conflicted with Phillip's estimate and was brushed off with "but he qualified his estimate". There is no doubt that there were suspicions and doubts about JR's evidence at the time, as well as in these discussions. I venture to suspect that a member of the press, or two, may have sat on the step with the door closed on the shoulder to see what they could see, and hence their explanation in their publication.

The truth is we can't know with absolute certainty what happened. We each have to make our own assessment of the preponderance of evidence and accept that others will decide differently. That is not to say that points of view cannot be raised for discussion, but at least let that be done without the derogatory epiphets.

Cheers, George

Can I ask why you come to the conclusion that Richardson usually checked the lock from standing on the steps and that his mother concurred?

Yes, he said that he had been checking the lock on market days for some time but he doesn’t explain how he’d done it. Just that he had. When he said that he could check the lock without going into the yard he was speaking about that particular occasion. He doesn’t say “I always checked the lock from the steps” as far as I’m aware. And how could his mother have known his usual actions in checking the locks as she wouldn’t have been present when it happened and we surely aren’t suggesting that he’d have bothered describing his method of checking the cellar lock, only that he was in the habit of doing so?

Furthermore, can we doubt that Richardson had spoken to his mother soon after the discovery of the body? And is it at all unlikely that his mother might have asked if he was certain that he couldn’t have missed the body? And so if that was the case then Richardson probably told her that he’d actually sat on the steps and so was just a few inches away and couldn’t have missed it. So there we would have Mrs Richardson knowing that he’d sat on the steps and that he was able to check the lock from a position sitting on the step. It’s therefore incorrect to claim that Mrs Richardson was in any way validating a claim the Richardson usually stood on the steps to check the lock. He might usually have stepped into the yard but on this occasion he had needed to sit on the steps and so could check the lock while seated.

……

There’s every point in coming up with better explanations because it’s being claimed that Richardson lied and added a part of his testimony that didn’t occur. A reason for this is also being suggested - that Richardson was trying to falsely strengthen his claim that he couldn’t have missed a body. So this point has to be challenged George. If the suggested reason for the lie is weak - and this reason certainly is weak because it would have been obvious to all that even by lying about sitting down it could still be claimed that the door against his body could have obscured his view. The fact that he’d have had 8 or 9 other childishly obvious lies that he could have told which would have achieved what his allegedly lie hadn’t done adds considerable weight (close to absolute proof imo) that he simply didn’t lie. To claim that he did we have to not only claim that he was an idiot but also that he’d chosen an option that brought him to the attention of the police due to the knife. All of this, when not simply ignored, tips the balance massively, overwhelmingly in favour of Richardson telling the truth. As I’ve said before George, for me this is a no brainer and I can’t see how anyone can favour a lie in the face of this.

…….

We can’t know for certain what happened but I believe that we are as close as we can ever be. We will continue to disagree of course George and that’s just life but for me it’s not even approaching a close run thing. Richardson clearly told the truth. The body wasn’t there.

[harry]

It comes down Jeff,to understanding why policemen were given notebooks,and taught to advise more senior officers by submitting reports.
It has been claimed by others,that carrying knives was a common practice,so regardless of what he intended to do that morning,having a knife in his possession would not be unusual.
Even if Chandler failed to record ,in writing,what Richardson said,he had to remember only that Richardson had stood by the door,checked a lock,
and left.Not a hard thing to do,by any stretch of the imagination.That was Chandler's testimony,and it cannot be changed.
Richardson's testimony does not conflict with that testimony.Richardson however says that in addition,he(Richardson )sat on the step.The problem as I see it,is why didn't Richardson tell Chandler he (richardson) had sat on the step.I do not accept that Richardson had some sort of memoy failure.There wasn't much to remember,and both activities had followed in quick succession.So if I do not believe the sitting on the step took place,I have good reason to believe so
If that implies Richardson lied,doesn't it imply,by those that believe Richardson,that Chandler lied?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you and others need to look at the photo of the door and if you look carefully you will be able to see that when the door is open there is such a poition and angle that would obsure the door from the body. Bearing in mind it was just about getting light that morning so that has to be taken into account

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you should stop ignoring the fact that Richardson was aware of this more than we are because he was actually there. And he was confident that the door hadn’t obscured his view of the body and so we have to resort to accusing him of lying (because he’d known ‘how’ he might possibly have been mistaken and categorically dismissed it) And when we assess his ‘lie,’ we can see that not only was it an obviously ineffective lie and not only could a child have come up with 8 or 9 more successful and more convincing ones but the ‘lie’ that he told would have caused the police to have suspicions against him (and without him having anyone to back up the fact that he’d done nothing wrong)

So the ‘lie’ argument doesn’t hold water. Neither does the ‘stupidity’ argument. It really couldn’t be clearer. As I’ve said before, far too much ‘heavy lifting’ is being done to try and discredit Richardson. Even to the extent of assuming that Chandler couldn’t possibly have made an error of simple mis-hearing or by claiming that a TOD estimation that we have no way of assessing (and that we know was unreliable) must have been correct. Or even that we somehow know how a serial killer would have thought or acted or that we can know his personal circumstances on that morning.

[harry]

Lets try to understand Chandler's role that morning.He arrived and took charge.He secured the murder scene.That could easily be done by stationing an officer at the door into Hanbury Street,another at the door leading to the backyard,and another in the yard itself.Nothing much to tax his brain there.It requred little time and no pressure.Then a check of the body's situation and the yard.Then the living quarters and occupants.Wheres the pressure?
About seven oclock Richardson arrives.It would need only a couple of minutes to hear his story.So where is this supposed presure and lack of time and opportunity?If the circumstances demanded it,he could have sent for help.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lets try to understand Chandler's role that morning.He arrived and took charge.He secured the murder scene.That could easily be done by stationing an officer at the door into Hanbury Street,another at the door leading to the backyard,and another in the yard itself.Nothing much to tax his brain there.It requred little time and no pressure.Then a check of the body's situation and the yard.Then the living quarters and occupants.Wheres the pressure?
About seven oclock Richardson arrives.It would need only a couple of minutes to hear his story.So where is this supposed presure and lack of time and opportunity?If the circumstances demanded it,he could have sent for help.

Your making suppositions that can’t be backed up Harry. For a start we know nothing of Chandler’s character or competence. This is a murder in the middle of a series. The spotlight would have been on and Chandler would never have dealt with a murder as horrific as this one or one that was so high profile. We also can’t know the exact situation that morning. How many Constable’s were in and out asking questions or reporting what people have told them? Plus the Doctor was there too. We can’t know the full situation from Chandler’s point of view.

Apart from the possibility of an error on Chandler’s part (and is it entirely unknown for a police officer to have neglected to question a witness as thoroughly as would have been expected only to try and cover his own a**e later?) But, and this is an important ‘but’ why is it so suspicious if Richardson hadn’t bothered mentioning sitting on the step or his reason for sitting on the step? If he sounded absolutely confident that he couldn’t have missed the body from the steps why would Chandler have gone any deeper when he’d have known that he or any other officer could have interviewed Richardson at greater length after the doctor had been, the body had been moved, and the initial investigation was over? Maybe he was at fault or maybe he was just convinced by Richardson’s certainty.

In the example that I gave about the butchers shop would it have been considered suspicious that I hadn’t mentioned collecting the suit on the first interview Harry? Of course not. As Jeff has pointed out, 2nd (and proper) interviews would have gone into more depth. More detail and more information comes out. Some people aren’t very talkative so maybe Richardson only told what he felt was necessary. Some people if asked “why didn’t you mention sitting on the step,” would answer with complete honesty “because you never asked me.” There’s simply nothing suspicious about Richardson unless we deliberately look for things to get suspicious about. He had no reason to lie. It’s that simple.