John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

I just realized my side door is perfect for an experiment. When I'm not more pissed than a fart.

ill look forward to see what you come up with .

[GBinOz]

You have the head by the side of the bottom step, why is that?

I already showed it this way.

I dimensioned it for a reason.

It's not my diagram. It comes from here: https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-cadosch.html . The author doesn't note it's source.

We did discuss dimensions before. James Mason's boot would be about the same as mine - 12". In his video it can clearly be seen that his foot doesn't overhand the step - there is space front and back. I would estimate that the steps were about 15" rather than 9". I find Phillip's description confusing, but if the steps were widened further into the yard, Phillip's 6" would be getting close to the inside edge of the step.

I don't think that JR would have had his knees above his waist as it would have leaned his body backwards. I think he would have stretched out his legs so the tops of his thighs were horizontal, so the door would have passed over his legs with about a 3" gap. If he were resting his boot on his left knee, the door would come into contact with the boot and his hand, so I think he may have rotated in a clockwise direction so the door rested on his arm or shoulder. IF he sat on the step, that is how I would see it playing out. Others are free to disagree. It's JMO.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes however we still have richardson telling chandler what he did on the morning of the murder then adding the boot incident at the inquest . I see a problem with that .For obvious reasons.[to me anyway]

Some have questioned why richardson would make up ,or lie about the boot incident. ''If'' he did, i can certainly think of one very good reason . ill hold onto it for a little longer tho.

He very clearly didn’t lie and he had no reason to lie. What’s going on here is a work of fantasy. It’s a determined effort to try absolutely anything to try and discredit Richardson so that Phillips unreliable estimation can be promoted (contrary to the known people.) It’s quite an experience to watch the contortions and conspiracist reasoning that going on here. And all the while the crux of the matter is swept under the carpet….

[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.

Could Richardson have missed the body because it was hidden behind the door and he wasn’t aware of the fact? No. Not a single, solitary, remote chance of that.

Could he have lied? There’s no positive evidence that he did. He had no reason doing so. If he had, he couldn’t have been so stupid as to have come up with with such an ineffective one at the expense of 9 better and more obvious ones. And no one but a cretin would have placed himself at the scene of the crime with a knife when he had absolutely no need to have done so. So….no, clearly he didn’t lie. The suggestion can and should be kicked into the long grass once and for all before it just gets more and more embarrassing.

Before you say it Fishy, you can hold whatever opinion that you want and express it as many times as you want to (so please don’t do the usual) But to persist in stating that it’s somehow a ‘close run thing’ on whether Richardson told the truth or not is simply a falsehood. It’s overwhelmingly in favour of him not lying. It’s not even near to being close.

Comments will continue of course and that’s fine I guess but it’s gone way past the ridiculous how a mystery has been deliberately manufactured just to bolster Phillips unreliable estimation (support of which is little more than a joke.) I find it extremely sad for the subject as a whole that we keep scraping the barrel with this stuff.

[FISHY1118]

He very clearly didn’t lie and he had no reason to lie. What’s going on here is a work of fantasy. It’s a determined effort to try absolutely anything to try and discredit Richardson so that Phillips unreliable estimation can be promoted (contrary to the known people.) It’s quite an experience to watch the contortions and conspiracist reasoning that going on here. And all the while the crux of the matter is swept under the carpet….

[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.

Could Richardson have missed the body because it was hidden behind the door and he wasn’t aware of the fact? No. Not a single, solitary, remote chance of that.

Could he have lied? There’s no positive evidence that he did. He had no reason doing so. If he had, he couldn’t have been so stupid as to have come up with with such an ineffective one at the expense of 9 better and more obvious ones. And no one but a cretin would have placed himself at the scene of the crime with a knife when he had absolutely no need to have done so. So….no, clearly he didn’t lie. The suggestion can and should be kicked into the long grass once and for all before it just gets more and more embarrassing.

Before you say it Fishy, you can hold whatever opinion that you want and express it as many times as you want to (so please don’t do the usual) But to persist in stating that it’s somehow a ‘close run thing’ on whether Richardson told the truth or not is simply a falsehood. It’s overwhelmingly in favour of him not lying. It’s not even near to being close.

Comments will continue of course and that’s fine I guess but it’s gone way past the ridiculous how a mystery has been deliberately manufactured just to bolster Phillips unreliable estimation (support of which is little more than a joke.) I find it extremely sad for the subject as a whole that we keep scraping the barrel with this stuff.

Less long repetitive speeches from you herlock, focus on the evidence ,all of it . Not just one part.

[FISHY1118]

I'm afraid the only sad thing is that there are just some that will never ever ever be open to different possibilities where evident so rightly allows. and are so desperate to use such unkind remarks just to destable a topic for this own self gratification. And so it will continue on after this im sure .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Less long repetitive speeches from you herlock, focus on the evidence ,all of it . Not just one part.

I have an even longer one coming. I do focus on the evidence and not the fantasies that I keep reading Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm afraid the only sad thing is that there are just some that will never ever ever be open to different possibilities where evident so rightly allows. and are so desperate to use such unkind remarks just to destable a topic for this own self gratification. And so it will continue on after this im sure .

And there will always be some posters who see an idea and then perform contortion after contortion to defend it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Despite the fact that I’m clearly wasting my time on this subject I’ll try one last time to explain why it’s not a ‘close run thing’ on whether Richardson lied or not as is regularly claimed.

The first point that has to be stressed and not simply ignored, even though it’s an obvious one, is that Inspector Chandler didn’t say, in either The Times or The Telegraph versions, that Richardson told him that he’d stood on the steps. Only that he hadn’t mentioned sitting on the steps to fix his boot. It’s a subtle point but one that gets conveniently ignored. So its just a question of whether he’d mentioned his reason for sitting there or not. Chandler doesn’t provide evidence for him not doing so; only that he might not have mentioned it at the time.

The next point is, can we be certain that Richardson didn’t mention his reason for sitting on that step? On this particular point alone yes, we have to concede that it’s at least even (possibly even favouring Chandler - especially on the subject of the boot?) But it has to be conceded (surely?) that it’s possible that in those circumstances that Richardson might have just said “I sat on the steps,” and Chandler either misheard it as “I stood on the steps” or that he mis-remembered at a later time. Its a conveniently ignored possibility . It’s also worth asking - would it have been completely unheard of for a policeman to lie to cover his own backside? Can we be anything like certain that Chandler didn’t press Richardson enough as to whether he’d stood or sat (or indeed why he’d sat?) and that he was embarrassed about this lapse when questioned later, which resulted in him lying? I don’t press this particular point with any real enthusiasm but just to point out that police officers don’t have a monopoly on honesty and that we should at least bear that point in mind.

So, even if Richardson hadn’t initially mentioned sitting on the step to repair his boot would that imply dishonesty? Categorically not in my opinion. We don’t know how closely Chandler questioned him but we know that this questioning took place in the passage way of the scene of a brutal, high-profile murder. It wasn’t a sit down grilling. Chandler was a busy man under considerable pressure with people wishing to leave and enter the scene no doubt and with Constable’s asking questions and reporting the results of interviews. He also had Doctor Phillips there who he was no doubt keen to get information from. So it’s entirely reasonable to say that this wasn’t a close or lengthy interrogation. It’s entirely possible (even likely) that Richardson might have just said that he’d gone to the back door to check the cellar lock and had seen all over the yard and that there was no body there. Chandler probably just assumed that he’d stood and just asked him if he was certain that there was no body. Of course Richardson was entirely certain about this. So there’s clearly nothing suspicious about Richardson not mentioning a detail that a) wasn’t relevant to Chandler, and b) that Chandler probably didn’t press him on, for obvious reasons. Jeff Hamm has recently made the entirely valid and relevant point that witness often reveal more information on further and more in depth and specific questioning. This is simply a fact of life. And again, it’s something that shouldn’t be ignored.

So to some up so far, there’s simply nothing suspicious about Richardson neglecting to mention a detail that we can’t be certain that he didn’t, at least in part, mention in the first place. Hardly reasonable evidence for a lie so far.

People usually have a reason for lying. The 15 minutes of fame one borders on desperation in my opinion especially in the LVP where, at best, a witness might have got a mention in a newspaper that most of his friends and colleagues possibly wouldn’t even have read. No YouTube or Twitter publicity. So we need a reason for John Richardson to have lied. The only one that has been put forward is that he wanted to strengthen his point that there was no body there. To somehow ‘prove’ that he couldn’t have missed a body. So how could he have done that? We can’t assume that Richardson was some kind of Professor Moriarty-like criminal genius of course but we also can’t assume that he was some kind of knuckle-dragging cave-dweller either. So what ‘lies’ would have been able to even a man of average or slightly below average intelligence? No complicated plots of course, no Napoleon-like strategic wizardry. He could have said……

I sat on the steps and closed the door behind me…..

I stood on the steps and pushed the door back to the fence…..

I sat on the steps and pushed the door back to the fence……

I went over to check the cellar and the door swung closed……

I stood in the yard and smoked for a couple of minutes……

I went over to use the outside loo…..

Whilst checking the lock I had a look around the yard checking the fence….

That’s only seven but there are a couple more that could been mentioned. Are any of these difficult? Are any of them less than glaringly obvious? And yet we are being asked to believe that John Richardson ignored or missed all of these and settled on the supposed lie that he’d sat on the steps to repair his boot! Unbelievable, but true.

Firstly, it wasn’t a very effective ‘lie’ was it because the question could still be asked “how do you know that she wasn’t hidden by the door?” So he’s avoided the 7+ obvious and 100% effective ones and plumped for this utterly useless one! But that’s not all of course. At a time when people of Richardson’s class trusted the police even less than we do today he stupidly puts a knife in his own hand whilst he’s alone in a yard where a mutilated corpse was found! You really couldn’t make this stuff up but this is exactly what’s being regularly proposed on here. He could even have said that he’d sat on the step without the need to bring a knife into it. “I sat on the step for a smoke” would hardly have required genius.

So to show that Richardson lied we have - Chandler not saying that JR had stood on the steps but only that he hadn’t mentioned his reason for doing so (a point that we can’t prove to have been the case in the first place) We also have Richardson telling a lie that he didn’t need to tell because it achieved nothing and he avoided a collection of childishly obvious and 100% effective lies to do so. And just to top it off….the icing on the cake….he plucks out of thin air a story that makes the police pay much closer attention to him.

It’s not a close run thing as is being suggested. It’s overwhelmingly in favour of Richardson telling the truth. It’s also beyond reason to suggest that John Richardson couldn’t have been unaware that a wooden door was physically capable of concealing a body! Of course he realised the possibility but he knew that it wasn’t the case. He had all of the facts available to him; far more than we do. The size of the door, the height of the step, the position that he’d assumed, the angle of his sight, the location of the body, the floor space that it had taken up and the light available. He knew all of this for a fact! He needed no diagrams. So could he have been mistaken? No he couldn’t. Not a chance in hell.

My apologies for the long post but its misleading when it’s said “he might have, he might not have.” A look at the evidence shows is that’s not the case. My opinion of the chances of Richardson lying…one or two percent but only if I’m being generous. The suggestion that Richardson lied should be dropped. But it won’t be. Some people love a cause I’m afraid. Even thoroughly a lost one. And this one was lost long ago.

[Wickerman]

Now then Jon. I didn't suggest that they wrote that the door rested against his body.

Agreed, you didn't, it's just that for the longest time we have all assumed this was the case. Yet when we read all the testimony, there's nothing to suggest that.
The only suggestion towards that conclusion was the assumption of a journalist, if I recall correctly.

I suggested the wrote the door was between JR and the body, and that they didn't write that the door was closed and therefore behind him.

Neither option is in writing.

So, both options are possible.
I know I wouldn't tolerate the door resting against my arm while trying to remove & trim the boot.

[Wickerman]

It's not my diagram. It comes from here: https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-cadosch.html . The author doesn't note it's source.

We did discuss dimensions before. James Mason's boot would be about the same as mine - 12". In his video it can clearly be seen that his foot doesn't overhand the step - there is space front and back. I would estimate that the steps were about 15" rather than 9".

Ok, thanks, I wasn't sure about the diag.

Steps are normally between 9-10 inch on the flat, thats the 'run'. The step up is the 'rise', which are normally 8-9 inch.
These are the dims I used in my sketch, because two 'runs' make roughly 18 inch, in keeping with Chandlers "nearly two feet".
If the head was nearly 24 inch (2 feet) from the house wall, then the two steps must be less, which they are at 18 inch, in my sketch.

I don't think that JR would have had his knees above his waist as it would have leaned his body backwards. I think he would have stretched out his legs so the tops of his thighs were horizontal, so the door would have passed over his legs with about a 3" gap. If he were resting his boot on his left knee, the door would come into contact with the boot and his hand, so I think he may have rotated in a clockwise direction so the door rested on his arm or shoulder. IF he sat on the step, that is how I would see it playing out. Others are free to disagree. It's JMO.

Yes, I understand, it's just that rather than stretch out his legs, why not sit on the top step - IF, the door is open?
It looks to me like he could sit on that top step and his thigh would be horizontal, with feet flat on the paving stones.
He only needs to sit on the middle step if the door was closed, then there is no top step to sit on.

[Trevor Marriott]

Despite the fact that I’m clearly wasting my time on this subject I’ll try one last time to explain why it’s not a ‘close run thing’ on whether Richardson lied or not as is regularly claimed.

The first point that has to be stressed and not simply ignored, even though it’s an obvious one, is that Inspector Chandler didn’t say, in either The Times or The Telegraph versions, that Richardson told him that he’d stood on the steps. Only that he hadn’t mentioned sitting on the steps to fix his boot. It’s a subtle point but one that gets conveniently ignored. So its just a question of whether he’d mentioned his reason for sitting there or not. Chandler doesn’t provide evidence for him not doing so; only that he might not have mentioned it at the time.

The next point is, can we be certain that Richardson didn’t mention his reason for sitting on that step? On this particular point alone yes, we have to concede that it’s at least even (possibly even favouring Chandler - especially on the subject of the boot?) But it has to be conceded (surely?) that it’s possible that in those circumstances that Richardson might have just said “I sat on the steps,” and Chandler either misheard it as “I stood on the steps” or that he mis-remembered at a later time. Its a conveniently ignored possibility . It’s also worth asking - would it have been completely unheard of for a policeman to lie to cover his own backside? Can we be anything like certain that Chandler didn’t press Richardson enough as to whether he’d stood or sat (or indeed why he’d sat?) and that he was embarrassed about this lapse when questioned later, which resulted in him lying? I don’t press this particular point with any real enthusiasm but just to point out that police officers don’t have a monopoly on honesty and that we should at least bear that point in mind.

So, even if Richardson hadn’t initially mentioned sitting on the step to repair his boot would that imply dishonesty? Categorically not in my opinion. We don’t know how closely Chandler questioned him but we know that this questioning took place in the passage way of the scene of a brutal, high-profile murder. It wasn’t a sit down grilling. Chandler was a busy man under considerable pressure with people wishing to leave and enter the scene no doubt and with Constable’s asking questions and reporting the results of interviews. He also had Doctor Phillips there who he was no doubt keen to get information from. So it’s entirely reasonable to say that this wasn’t a close or lengthy interrogation. It’s entirely possible (even likely) that Richardson might have just said that he’d gone to the back door to check the cellar lock and had seen all over the yard and that there was no body there. Chandler probably just assumed that he’d stood and just asked him if he was certain that there was no body. Of course Richardson was entirely certain about this. So there’s clearly nothing suspicious about Richardson not mentioning a detail that a) wasn’t relevant to Chandler, and b) that Chandler probably didn’t press him on, for obvious reasons. Jeff Hamm has recently made the entirely valid and relevant point that witness often reveal more information on further and more in depth and specific questioning. This is simply a fact of life. And again, it’s something that shouldn’t be ignored.

So to some up so far, there’s simply nothing suspicious about Richardson neglecting to mention a detail that we can’t be certain that he didn’t, at least in part, mention in the first place. Hardly reasonable evidence for a lie so far.

People usually have a reason for lying. The 15 minutes of fame one borders on desperation in my opinion especially in the LVP where, at best, a witness might have got a mention in a newspaper that most of his friends and colleagues possibly wouldn’t even have read. No YouTube or Twitter publicity. So we need a reason for John Richardson to have lied. The only one that has been put forward is that he wanted to strengthen his point that there was no body there. To somehow ‘prove’ that he couldn’t have missed a body. So how could he have done that? We can’t assume that Richardson was some kind of Professor Moriarty-like criminal genius of course but we also can’t assume that he was some kind of knuckle-dragging cave-dweller either. So what ‘lies’ would have been able to even a man of average or slightly below average intelligence? No complicated plots of course, no Napoleon-like strategic wizardry. He could have said……

I sat on the steps and closed the door behind me…..

I stood on the steps and pushed the door back to the fence…..

I sat on the steps and pushed the door back to the fence……

I went over to check the cellar and the door swung closed……

I stood in the yard and smoked for a couple of minutes……

I went over to use the outside loo…..

Whilst checking the lock I had a look around the yard checking the fence….

That’s only seven but there are a couple more that could been mentioned. Are any of these difficult? Are any of them less than glaringly obvious? And yet we are being asked to believe that John Richardson ignored or missed all of these and settled on the supposed lie that he’d sat on the steps to repair his boot! Unbelievable, but true.

Firstly, it wasn’t a very effective ‘lie’ was it because the question could still be asked “how do you know that she wasn’t hidden by the door?” So he’s avoided the 7+ obvious and 100% effective ones and plumped for this utterly useless one! But that’s not all of course. At a time when people of Richardson’s class trusted the police even less than we do today he stupidly puts a knife in his own hand whilst he’s alone in a yard where a mutilated corpse was found! You really couldn’t make this stuff up but this is exactly what’s being regularly proposed on here. He could even have said that he’d sat on the step without the need to bring a knife into it. “I sat on the step for a smoke” would hardly have required genius.

So to show that Richardson lied we have - Chandler not saying that JR had stood on the steps but only that he hadn’t mentioned his reason for doing so (a point that we can’t prove to have been the case in the first place) We also have Richardson telling a lie that he didn’t need to tell because it achieved nothing and he avoided a collection of childishly obvious and 100% effective lies to do so. And just to top it off….the icing on the cake….he plucks out of thin air a story that makes the police pay much closer attention to him.

It’s not a close run thing as is being suggested. It’s overwhelmingly in favour of Richardson telling the truth. It’s also beyond reason to suggest that John Richardson couldn’t have been unaware that a wooden door was physically capable of concealing a body! Of course he realised the possibility but he knew that it wasn’t the case. He had all of the facts available to him; far more than we do. The size of the door, the height of the step, the position that he’d assumed, the angle of his sight, the location of the body, the floor space that it had taken up and the light available. He knew all of this for a fact! He needed no diagrams. So could he have been mistaken? No he couldn’t. Not a chance in hell.

My apologies for the long post but its misleading when it’s said “he might have, he might not have.” A look at the evidence shows is that’s not the case. My opinion of the chances of Richardson lying…one or two percent but only if I’m being generous. The suggestion that Richardson lied should be dropped. But it won’t be. Some people love a cause I’m afraid. Even thoroughly a lost one. And this one was lost long ago.

You keep referring to Richardson as having not lied. i have continued to suggest that he didnt lie and that by reason of his actions he may have simply not seen the body. I have found the attached photo with the door at an angle which I believe may have made it impossible for him to have seen the body.

I also previoulsy mentioned whether or not Richardson saw the body in situ after its discovery before or after he was spoken to by Chandler. If he sat on the step with the door at this angle or near to this angle he would be correct in saying he didnt see the body because all he would have seen was to his front and to the right which was his main reasons for going to the backyard.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You keep referring to Richardson as having not lied. i have continued to suggest that he didnt lie and that by reason of his actions he may have simply not seen the body. I have found the attached photo with the door at an angle which I believe may have made it impossible for him to have seen the body.

I also previoulsy mentioned whether or not Richardson saw the body in situ after its discovery before or after he was spoken to by Chandler. If he sat on the step with the door at this angle or near to this angle he would be correct in saying he didnt see the body because all he would have seen was to his front and to the right which was his main reasons for going to the backyard.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You keep getting it wrong Trevor. It’s irrelevant whether it might have been possible for him to have sat in such a position where he might have missed the body. The point is that he knew and stated with 100% confidence that he couldn’t have missed it. He knew that he could see enough of that yard to state with certainty that he couldn’t have missed the body.

This argument should now be over. You should concede. You’re wrong and I’m bored.

[FISHY1118]

You keep referring to Richardson as having not lied. i have continued to suggest that he didnt lie and that by reason of his actions he may have simply not seen the body. I have found the attached photo with the door at an angle which I believe may have made it impossible for him to have seen the body.

I also previoulsy mentioned whether or not Richardson saw the body in situ after its discovery before or after he was spoken to by Chandler. If he sat on the step with the door at this angle or near to this angle he would be correct in saying he didnt see the body because all he would have seen was to his front and to the right which was his main reasons for going to the backyard.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Very interesting post Trevor , its good to see some visual effects that demonstrate the different possibilities of the evidence of both Richardson and Chandler. is concerned . When its all said and done there can be know doubt as to accepting the evidence when read and interpreted properly for what it is. Inconclusive on both sides .

Thats been obvious from 957 post so far on this topic.

[harry]

Why should Chandler be stressed?.He arrives and ensures the scene is controlled.It is a matter then of waiting for Phillips to arrive.There were no time restraints.Chandler states Richardson arrived and gave information.That information consisted of him Richardson opening the door to the yard,observing whether the cellar lock was secured,and then leaving.Three items,no more.I believe that is all that transpired,because Chandler testified so,and I see no reason for Chandler to have lied.The question then is,could Richardson have lied.He could have.

[FISHY1118]

But if he was seated on the first step that would effect his line of vision with the door being propped open by his leg or his arm we are looking at this from the wrong angle we should look at it from the angle from the inside of 29 looking out from the hallway

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Or perhaps Trevor, if he was sitting on say a 45 degree angle with one foot in front and one on the side of the steps with the door leaning agaisnt him. It would make it difficult also to see the body , i guess his vision would be that of looking all over the right hand side of the yard only. To be fair, from that spot id say he would at least see the lower part of her waist and legs if she were there.