John Richardson

[Wickerman]

Don't you see the space behind his right heel?

I do, but as I can't measure it we cannot use it, besides it is blurred and in the shade. All we can say is the heel does not contact the back of the step, but the toe overhangs the front.
How does that tell us the width of the step?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fishy.

This is what we call 'selective editing'.
The answer is on that same page, but you pretend it is not there in the hope no-one else looks for it.

Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov.

Richardson was asked, "Did you go into the yard?"

To which he replied: "No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep,....."

Richardson cont. "...When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place."


What did he mean by "doorstep"?
The very next line that you choose not to show gave you that answer.


Did you sit on the top step? - "No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard".


Conclusion, you know very well that Richardson claimed to see the padlock while sitting on the middle step.

Exactly Wick. You beat me to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Echo, 20 September 1888

A further consultation of the detectives engaged in the case was held this morning, and an officer again visited the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, and made a careful inspection of the palings leading from that house to No. 27, where resides the young man Cadosh, who stated at the inquest that he heard sounds proceed from the spot where the body lay at a quarter-past five on the morning of the murder. An examination of the fence shows that immediately over the place in the yard there is an aperture in the palings by which the dead body could have been plainly visible, while anyone moving in the yard might easily have been seen.14

The backyard of 29 Hanbury Street from a contemporary newspaper illustation, showing the precarious nature of the fence

“An aperture” is in the singular Fishy. It means that there was one gap. According to the sketch provided though there was an aperture between each piece of wood. The drawing of the fence is clearly extremely inaccurate. More evidence of the inaccuracy of the sketch. Can we really imagine that the police, when assessing Cadosch’s evidence, wouldn’t have pointed it out if the fence had huge gaps all along it and wasn’t high enough to have concealed anyone over 4 feet tall?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. . John Richardson When I was on the ''doorstep'' I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.

[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? John Richardson ,No....... [so he must have stood on the doorstep]

This evidence by Richardsons own account can only mean one thing , while he was on the doorstep he ''saw''the lock. just as the sketch suggested he was able to.

You haven’t explained how Richardson saying that he hadn’t sat on the top step meant that he must have stood?

[Wickerman]

I'd like to know why Fishy is editing the reply?

In each case where we read the reply to the coroner's question: "Did you sit on the top step?".

Richardson replies "No, the middle step", or "No, the second step".

This is a farce.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Points of inaccuracy when comparing this sketch to the photographs.

1. The top step extends out level with the passage way inside whereas in the photograph the step drops down immediately.

2 There are 2 deep steps in the sketch whereas in the photograph there is only one. The middle step (the one that Richardson sat on)

3. The cellar door is twice the height as it is the the photograph.

4. The window sill is considerably higher than in the photograph.

5. If the fence in the sketch has so many gaps and is so low that no one could have failed to have noted this.

6. The window in the sketch is almost exactly square whereas in the photographs it’s twice as high as it is wide.

7. I can’t really see any evidence for the two canopies in the photos that appear in the sketches. The photo that includes some of the other houses in the row also show no canopies. I’m not saying that this proves that these canopies could have existed btw.

8. The hole in the ground where the steps go down to the cellar are extend out into the yard. In the sketch it looks around 2 feet but in the photo I’d estimate that it was at least double that.

The sketch is clearly inaccurate in so many ways. Others may be able to spot more.

[GBinOz]

On Sep 8 Richardson is telling Chandler and the press that he went to the back door, looked down at the cellar and then went away to his work.

On Sep 10 in his press interviews he is adding the sitting on the step cutting leather from his boot story.

At the inquest he tells the coroner that he cut a piece of leather off his boot. Not tried to cut, actually cut.

When he shows the coroner an obviously inadequate knife, the story changes again. The knife wasn't sharp enough to cut leather. He finished the job at work with a borrowed knife.

The police view? " doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl." Home Office Files (Ref. HO/144/220/A49301C, f 8g)

Swanson seemed to view him more as a suspect than a witness:
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."
Note: Lack of evidence for proof of guilt does not prove innocence.

Richardson lived in the roughest, most crime ridden area in London but we are urged to accept that he was the George Washington of Spitalfields and could not tell a lie, or even indulge in a little massaging of the truth. Instead, it is speculated that Chandler was hard of hearing or corrupt.

The above is a short synopsis of what is written down in the records, no speculation, no conjecture, no superlatives claiming the evidence is overwhelmingly one way or the other. The foreman of the jury and the police had doubts about Richardson (and Cadosch and Long), and so do I. I wonder how many Richardson advocates think that Ted Bundy got a raw deal from police. He maintained his innocence all along.....why would he lie? .

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Conclusion, you know very well that Richardson claimed to see the padlock while sitting on the middle step.

Just on Sep 8, or on every day when he checked the lock?

[Herlock Sholmes]

On Sep 8 Richardson is telling Chandler and the press that he went to the back door, looked down at the cellar and then went away to his work.

According to Chandler. Richardson got no chance to respond of course George.

On Sep 10 in his press interviews he is adding the sitting on the step cutting leather from his boot story.

And as Jeff pointed out there’s nothing suspicious about a man providing addition information when questioned more closely or when additional questions are asked.

At the inquest he tells the coroner that he cut a piece of leather off his boot. Not tried to cut, actually cut.

When he shows the coroner an obviously inadequate knife, the story changes again. The knife wasn't sharp enough to cut leather. He finished the job at work with a borrowed knife.

Sorry George but aren’t you being a little selective? From The Times version:

By the CORONER. – He cut the piece of leather off his boot because it hurt him. He took a piece out on the previous day, but that was not sufficient.

He’d cut a piece of leather but because the knife wasn’t sharp enough he couldn’t do a sufficiently good job of it. There’s just no mystery here.

The police view? " doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl." Home Office Files (Ref. HO/144/220/A49301C, f 8g)

We have to ask why no one leapt on this seemingly obvious discrepancy at the Inquest George? I’d say it was simply because they heard what Richardson had said - he cut some leather with the knife that he had on him but it wasn’t sufficiently sharp to do a fully effective job.

Swanson seemed to view him more as a suspect than a witness:
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."
Note: Lack of evidence for proof of guilt does not prove innocence.

No, but it shows that the police look into his statement and his behaviour and saw nothing suspicious.

“She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m. She was talking outside the house at half-past five when Mrs. Long passed them. Cadosh says it was about 5.20 when he was in the backyard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say "No," and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence; but if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half-hour when he passed Spitalfields clock. It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces”

The Coroner clearly favoured the witnesses over the Doctor’s TOD estimate.

Richardson lived in the roughest, most crime ridden area in London but we are urged to accept that he was the George Washington of Spitalfields and could not tell a lie, or even indulge in a little massaging of the truth. Instead, it is speculated that Chandler was hard of hearing or corrupt.

Thats not what I’ve said or implied George. It’s not impossible for anyone to have lied but the evidence strongly favours (by a country mile imo) Richardson telling the truth.

I only mentioned the possibility of Chandler telling a porky because if we cant just assume Richardson to be honest then why should we assume that Chandler was above telling a small lie. I’m not saying that he did George but I’ll say this, he might have had more reason to lie than Richardson did. As yet not one person has come up with a believable, sane reason for Richardson telling the lie that he’s alleged by some to have told. But if (and note I’m only saying ‘if’) Chandler hadn’t questioned Richardson very closely (due to circumstances) he might not have wanted his superiors to have known this (they might have gotten the impression that he couldn’t cope with this kind of crime scene) so he ‘might’ have said that he’d asked Richardson a question that he hadn’t really.

The above is a short synopsis of what is written down in the records, no speculation, no conjecture, no superlatives claiming the evidence is overwhelmingly one way or the other. The foreman of the jury and the police had doubts about Richardson (and Cadosch and Long), and so do I. I wonder how many Richardson advocates think that Ted Bundy got a raw deal from police. He maintained his innocence all along.....why would he lie? .

Cheers, George

I went through the suggestion that Richardson might have lied in my long post George. Again, I’ll say that we have to agree to disagree but I have to give my honest opinion as you will give yours (and I’m far from alone in this) The idea that Richardson lied is simply not credible when looked at in anything more than a cursory way. I think that the chances of him lying are so low that to be honest I don’t think that they’re worthy of discussion and I’m more than surprised that the idea should get backing. It seems close to clear cut to me.

Id say what happened was….. Richardson tried repairing his boot the day before and initially at least he felt that he’d done a good job. He heads to work the next day with the knife in his pocket that he’d used for feeding the rabbit. As he began pacing it out his boot began to hurt again so he decided to have another attempt when he reached his mothers house because he could sit down to work. He opens the yard door to an angle of above 90 degrees because in stepping down the steps he’s moving forward too and so has to allow for the width of his body. He sits on the middle step and manages to cut another small piece from his boot but it was a struggle due to the bluntness of the knife and so he couldn’t cut as much as he wanted to so he puts his boot back on and heads for the market where he could lay his hands on a sharp knife to do the job properly. Later he returns and from next doors yard he sees the body and realises how close she is to where he’d sat. He can see for an absolute fact that the body couldn’t have been there when he’d sat on the step or he couldn’t have missed it.

No need for an Da Vinci code stuff George. Simple, obvious and supported by the facts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just on Sep 8, or on every day when he checked the lock?

We can’t assume that it was specified George. We have no way of knowing how he checked the locks on every previous occasion. All that we know is that on that occasion he’d checked the lock from sitting on the steps. And all that we can say about his mother is that she concurred that on that particular day her son sat on the steps and checked the lock from there without having to go into the yard.

[The Macdonald Triad]

For those that like Richardson for the Ripper and think the Torso Killer was also the Ripper with a safe bolt hole to take his time with corpses, how about that cellar? The stolen tools may have been a farce since Richardson's mom didn't remember any theft. Just so he could get a padlock on the door. Ripper or no he definitely has more going for him than Lechmere.

[Varqm]

What about the commotion heard by Cadosche.the/those person(s) also missed the body?

[JeffHamm]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Nice photo Trevor, thanks for that.

And to all,

I count 11 fence boards from the end of the steps to the vertical fence post. A quick google search tells that fence boards tend to be either 3.5, 5.5, or 11.5 inches, and the ones in the photo look to me to be less than the widest but more than the narrowest, so probably 5.5 inches wide each (presuming fence boards of 1888 were similar of course). If those dimensions apply, that makes the distance from the end of the steps to the fence post about 5 feet, an Annie wasn't much taller than that. So, from the descriptions of where her body was, her feet would be in the vicinity of the fence post.

With Richardson sitting on the middle step, feet on the flagstones, even if the door is resting against him, it would be open more than shown in the photo as if he's working on his boot he's not going to be leaning back but forwards. I just can't see how, given his position how the body could be obscured, even if he did the unlikely and had door against him while working on his boot.

I realize that's an opinion since to prove that one would have to do a recreation, with similar sized people and steps and doors, etc. I know George has shown a video, but that gives us the view of someone standing inside the house as the door opens, not of someone sitting on the middle step as Richardson testifies he was, so not really showing the view we need to consider (and also, we don't know the size or placement of the various items in the scene).

I guess it boils down to speculating that Richardson lied about sitting on the steps to repair his boot and that he only opened the door and glanced at the lock then left. To me, that is the only way I could envision him missing the body if it were there. However, there's nothing about his statements that, in my view, indicate he was lying about the boot repair. Moreover, we have it entered into evidence that the spring to his leggings was found in a location appropriate for his given statement. We also have his confidence that the body was not there and he is sure he could not have missed seeing it. Finally, the nature of the lie that is being speculated he told places him at a crime scene with a knife, however unsuitable, simply out of pride - he's annoyed he is not being believed she wasn't there so he fabricates a boot repair with knife story seems to be the motivation for his speculated lie. That, to me, just doesn't have the ring of plausibility to it. If he simply is annoyed about being questioned as to his accuracy, all he has to say is that when he checked the lock he could see into the yard and she wasn't there, there's no need to create a story with a knife or boot repairs or anything. Those sorts of details only make sense under the circumstances if he actually did them, and we even have the leggings spring pointing towards that story being plausible and true.

We even have the doctor pointing out he may have miscalculated how quickly the body would have cooled, indicating that he's not objecting to the ToD suggested by the witness statements and allowing for his estimate to be off. We also know that estimating ToD by feeling how warm a body is has been discounted as a method for estimating ToD (though in 1888 it was at the time considered a useable method - we know better now). We also have his objective observation of rigor mortis was commencing, and having looked at the progression of rigor (some earlier posts), that observation is also not at odds with the ToD suggested by the witnesses. Finally, we also have Cadoche's testimony that he heard people speaking and later a noise against the fence, both of which he believed came from the backyard where the crime occurred, and also Long's testimony that she believes she saw Annie outside Hanbury street (she later id's Annie's body at the morgue). Cadoche and Long's testimony are consistent with Annie being murdered after Richardson's visit.

In the end, we have a collection of evidence and statements that all make a coherent and realistic series of events, placing Annie's murder after Richardson's checking of the lock. The alternative requires accepting a highly implausible lie to be told by Richardson, a very particular positioning of the door when he checks the lock, and a subsequent discounting of Cadoche's testimony and Long's testimony, and acceptance of a ToD based upon a known to be unreliable method that was even presented in a qualified way.

Personally, I'm finding it hard to understand why the alternative should be preferred.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Trevor,

Nice photo Trevor, thanks for that.

And to all,

I count 11 fence boards from the end of the steps to the vertical fence post. A quick google search tells that fence boards tend to be either 3.5, 5.5, or 11.5 inches, and the ones in the photo look to me to be less than the widest but more than the narrowest, so probably 5.5 inches wide each (presuming fence boards of 1888 were similar of course). If those dimensions apply, that makes the distance from the end of the steps to the fence post about 5 feet, an Annie wasn't much taller than that. So, from the descriptions of where her body was, her feet would be in the vicinity of the fence post.

With Richardson sitting on the middle step, feet on the flagstones, even if the door is resting against him, it would be open more than shown in the photo as if he's working on his boot he's not going to be leaning back but forwards. I just can't see how, given his position how the body could be obscured, even if he did the unlikely and had door against him while working on his boot.

I realize that's an opinion since to prove that one would have to do a recreation, with similar sized people and steps and doors, etc. I know George has shown a video, but that gives us the view of someone standing inside the house as the door opens, not of someone sitting on the middle step as Richardson testifies he was, so not really showing the view we need to consider (and also, we don't know the size or placement of the various items in the scene).

I guess it boils down to speculating that Richardson lied about sitting on the steps to repair his boot and that he only opened the door and glanced at the lock then left. To me, that is the only way I could envision him missing the body if it were there. However, there's nothing about his statements that, in my view, indicate he was lying about the boot repair. Moreover, we have it entered into evidence that the spring to his leggings was found in a location appropriate for his given statement. We also have his confidence that the body was not there and he is sure he could not have missed seeing it. Finally, the nature of the lie that is being speculated he told places him at a crime scene with a knife, however unsuitable, simply out of pride - he's annoyed he is not being believed she wasn't there so he fabricates a boot repair with knife story seems to be the motivation for his speculated lie. That, to me, just doesn't have the ring of plausibility to it. If he simply is annoyed about being questioned as to his accuracy, all he has to say is that when he checked the lock he could see into the yard and she wasn't there, there's no need to create a story with a knife or boot repairs or anything. Those sorts of details only make sense under the circumstances if he actually did them, and we even have the leggings spring pointing towards that story being plausible and true.

We even have the doctor pointing out he may have miscalculated how quickly the body would have cooled, indicating that he's not objecting to the ToD suggested by the witness statements and allowing for his estimate to be off. We also know that estimating ToD by feeling how warm a body is has been discounted as a method for estimating ToD (though in 1888 it was at the time considered a useable method - we know better now). We also have his objective observation of rigor mortis was commencing, and having looked at the progression of rigor (some earlier posts), that observation is also not at odds with the ToD suggested by the witnesses. Finally, we also have Cadoche's testimony that he heard people speaking and later a noise against the fence, both of which he believed came from the backyard where the crime occurred, and also Long's testimony that she believes she saw Annie outside Hanbury street (she later id's Annie's body at the morgue). Cadoche and Long's testimony are consistent with Annie being murdered after Richardson's visit.

In the end, we have a collection of evidence and statements that all make a coherent and realistic series of events, placing Annie's murder after Richardson's checking of the lock. The alternative requires accepting a highly implausible lie to be told by Richardson, a very particular positioning of the door when he checks the lock, and a subsequent discounting of Cadoche's testimony and Long's testimony, and acceptance of a ToD based upon a known to be unreliable method that was even presented in a qualified way.

Personally, I'm finding it hard to understand why the alternative should be preferred.

- Jeff

It goes without saying that I couldn’t agree more Jeff. Excellent post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point which favours Richardson telling the truth is one that I don’t think has been mentioned so far, but if it has and I missed it then my apologies to whoever brought it up.

On a previous thread when the question was raised - why didn’t Richardson simply not mention going to number 29 that morning - it was suggested that it might have been the case that someone could have come forward to say that they had seen him enter the yard and exit the yard that morning (someone living across the street for example). It’s a perfectly valid suggestion and something I can’t see anyone disagreeing with. Bearing that point in mind we have Richardson saying this at the inquest:

“[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.”

If, as has been suggested, Richardson had simply gone to the yard door, partially opened it, checked the lock then left (as he wouldn’t have stood there for any length of time with the door partially open) What would have happened if he had been seen? The witness would have testified to seeing John Richardson entering the front door then exiting a matter of 10 or 15 seconds later immediately showing Richardson to have lied.