John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

And this is the third time I’ve had to state the obvious and I’ve been able to manage it by simply reading.

Mrs. Richardson said: “When I saw the murdered body I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face…”

This doesn’t really sound like someone that closely scrutinised the victims face does it? I don’t know, maybe it’s because the woman had been horrifically mutilated and that she had her throat cut and her intestines thrown over her shoulder? This might have put a damper on her overwhelming desire to closely examine the victims face?

So the reality of the matter is that it would be a very fair bet to say that Elizabeth Long saw Annie Chapman’s face for considerably longer than did Mrs Richardson. Long almost certainly would have been closer and Long absolutely definitely wouldn’t have been reluctant to look at her.

Yet you eliminate Long and accept Richardson.

Also, we have no evidence that what Richardson said was ever investigated or corroborated and yet you accept it at face value. Mr. Unsafe-To-Rely-On appears to be very selective in his criteria on what is reliable and what isn’t.

A more perfect example of the bias that I’ve talked about I can’t recall seeing.

You believe what you want to belive, I cant be arsed trying to make you see sense when all you want to do is constantly argue. Three times today you have been proved wrong, yet still you wont accept that you are wrong, what is wrong with you, do you set out to deliberately to wind people up?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You believe what you want to belive, I cant be arsed trying to make you see sense when all you want to do is constantly argue. Three times today you have been proved wrong, yet still you wont accept that you are wrong, what is wrong with you, do you set out to deliberately to wind people up?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, if you had been right I’d have remembered it and probably noted it in my diary. I’ve explained this as simply as I can. I’ve said nothing inaccurate. If you can’t see that then…

You have no logic or reason.

[FISHY1118]

Which part is unsafe?

All the post here that relate to unsafe testimony .Its been covered already .

[harry]

It is not a question of what might be visible when Richardson looked at the yard,but what might have been missed.His might have been just a glance,with the door open.
Mrs Richardson may well have disliked looking at the body of Chapman,is that an indication she didn't?.Doesn't need no more than a glance to recognise someone that is familiar.Were the features distorted?

[FISHY1118]

It is not a question of what might be visible when Richardson looked at the yard,but what might have been missed.His might have been just a glance,with the door open.
Mrs Richardson may well have disliked looking at the body of Chapman,is that an indication she didn't?.Doesn't need no more than a glance to recognise someone that is familiar.Were the features distorted?

And thats the point isnt Harry, there are just countless possible ways to interpret the evidence testimony such is the nature of the Chapman murder .

No one can really be sure as to an accurate t.o.d due of the complexity of it all . Even to suggest that its more probable one way or the other would be very poor judgement on anyones behalf. In my opinion.

[Indian Harry]

Does anyone know anything about Richardson's life after 1888?

[GBinOz]

So the reality of the matter is that it would be a very fair bet to say that Elizabeth Long saw Annie Chapman’s face for considerably longer than did Mrs Richardson. Long almost certainly would have been closer and Long absolutely definitely wouldn’t have been reluctant to look at her.

Hi Herlock,

To be fair, it is obvious from Mrs Richardson's interview with Lloyd's that she had spoken with Annie, and bought her handicrafts on a number of occasions, so she only needed a glance to recognise her. And that is all she was doing, she hadn't been asked to make a formal identification. On the other hand, Long had a half hour walk to work and said she saw many many couples standing around, of whom she took no notice, but somehow, from all those couples, she managed to pick out one woman, whom she had never seen before, and identify her as the victim. What are the odds?

From the Lloyd's interview of 16 Sept:" John Richardson repeated to our reporter his statement before the coroner – that for years, even before his father’s death, it had been known that parties out of the street came and used the passage, landing, and stairs for sleeping and other purposes, and also that they used to go through to the back.
As “Dark Annie” had been in the habit of coming so often to the home, he had no doubt in his own mind that she was well acquainted with the place.".
Richardson saw the body in the yard half an hour before he spoke to Chandler. Why didn't he tell Chandler that the victim was a regular visitor? This is a vital piece of evidence which he didn't mention (AFAIK) until four days after he testified at the inquest.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

It is not a question of what might be visible when Richardson looked at the yard,but what might have been missed.His might have been just a glance,with the door open.

I think it is a part of the question, Harry.

During their initial conversation, Richardson told Inspector Chandler that he was sure Annie's body wasn't there and so in effect he was saying he could see into that part of the yard, no matter where he was stood/sat and how far he opened the door.

It follows the pertinent point is whether or not he was lying about being there.

We have evidence in that he misled the coroner with his knife tale, and so his entire statement is compromised in terms of trust. In a court of law, it would have been dismissed.

Verdict: lying, 'wasn't at 29 Hanbury Street that night. Whatever motive, or lack thereof, is irrelevant because that's guesswork but what we do know is that he misled the coroner.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Even to suggest that its more probable one way or the other would be very poor judgement on anyones behalf. In my opinion.

I couldn't disagree more with this.

On the one hand we have: Richardson who misled the coroner and as such compromised his entire statement, Cadosh who simply claimed to hear noises at a time when the place was coming alive, Long who didn't take much notice of the couple nor saw where they went, Long and Cadosch whose timings contradict one another, the practicalities of a 5.30am TOD, i.e. getting to the back unseen, murder, mutilation, leaving unseen, at a time when the place was coming alive; all in less than half an hour.

It's not particularly convincing.

Then we have some indisputable evidence left for us by Dr Phillips: 'rigor commencing of the limbs' in a environmental temperature which would delay the onset of rigor, 'little food in the stomach' when the only evidence we have of Annie eating is at 1.45am and an easily digested potato also, the statement of this experienced doctor: "at least two hours", meaning in the English language: "a minimum of two hours".

That's not bad. 'Some actual evidence to help us along.

In order to discount Dr Phillips and accept Long/Cadosh/Richardson, mental acrobatics, statement manipulation and invention is needed. The statements have to be bended into something that they are not recorded as saying.

In order to go with Dr Phillips, it's simply following his evidence and observations left behind and reading their witness statements as they are as opposed to how we want them to be, i.e. misleading the coroner, contradictions between them, impracticalities based on what is known, and noises heard at a time when the place was coming alive again.

[FISHY1118]

I couldn't disagree more with this.

On the one hand we have: Richardson who misled the coroner and as such compromised his entire statement, Cadosh who simply claimed to hear noises at a time when the place was coming alive, Long who didn't take much notice of the couple nor saw where they went, Long and Cadosch whose timings contradict one another, the practicalities of a 5.30am TOD, i.e. getting to the back unseen, murder, mutilation, leaving unseen, at a time when the place was coming alive; all in less than half an hour.

It's not particularly convincing.

Then we have some indisputable evidence left for us by Dr Phillips: 'rigor commencing of the limbs' in a environmental temperature which would delay the onset of rigor, 'little food in the stomach' when the only evidence we have of Annie eating is at 1.45am and an easily digested potato also, the statement of this experienced doctor: "at least two hours", meaning in the English language: "a minimum of two hours".

That's not bad. 'Some actual evidence to help us along.

In order to discount Dr Phillips and accept Long/Cadosh/Richardson, mental acrobatics, statement manipulation and invention is needed. The statements have to be bended into something that they are not recorded as saying.

In order to go with Dr Phillips, it's simply following his evidence and observations left behind and reading their witness statements as they are as opposed to how we want them to be, i.e. misleading the coroner, contradictions between them, impracticalities based on what is known, and noises heard at a time when the place was coming alive again.

Im not sure, are you disagreeing with my post ?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM!

The arrival of dawn is not like someone has flicked a switch though.

It is a gradual process.

See attached astronomical definitions;

Dawn – Definition and Meaning (timeanddate.com)

Civil dawn is what we would consider to be typical "dawn" however prior to that there is "nautical dawn" when sea and sky would be distinguishable.

I'd personally consider that a body in the yard right in front of him would be visible during the transition from nautical dawn to civil dawn.

Hi Ms Diddle,

Upon doing a spot of further reading I'm not as confident as you are:

On the morning of the 31st August, Polly Nichols murder, dawn broke at 4.37am.

Dr Lewellyn stated:

On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time.

PC Neil stated:

Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row.

So, half an hour before dawn broke, it was dark even though there was a street lamp shining at the end of Buck's Row.

There was no artificial lighting at the back of 29 Hanbury Street.

Again, there is simply no way of proving how dark it was at the back of 29 Hanbury Street between 4.45and and 4.50am, but due to London pollution, which was at its peak at the end of the 19th century, nautical twilight would have been impeded - that much is certain - to what degree we can't know.

Still, in the absence of something more concrete, I think it's inconclusive, can't be proven and so not of particular importance.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms Diddle,

Upon doing a spot of further reading I'm not as confident as you are:

On the morning of the 31st August, Polly Nichols murder, dawn broke at 4.37am.

Dr Lewellyn stated:

On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time.

PC Neil stated:

Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row.

So, half an hour before dawn broke, it was dark even though there was a street lamp shining at the end of Buck's Row.

There was no artificial lighting at the back of 29 Hanbury Street.

Again, there is simply no way of proving how dark it was at the back of 29 Hanbury Street between 4.45and and 4.50am, but due to London pollution, which was at its peak at the end of the 19th century, nautical twilight would have been impeded - that much is certain - to what degree we can't know.

Still, in the absence of something more concrete, I think it's inconclusive, can't be proven and so not of particular importance.

Hi FM,

I wouldn't say I was confident!

I just lean that way.

I agree that this is just one of those things that we're never going to know for sure, so yeah, it's inconclusive.

I live in Glasgow BTW so I'm used to constant ambient light at all hours of the day and night!

It always comes as a shock on the occasions that I'm in the countryside and I experience actual proper darkness with no light pollution.

Great for star gazing, but a little unnerving initially!!

It may be that I'm applying my urban C21st perceptions to LVP London.

I'm going to do a bit more reading around when I have time....

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not a question of what might be visible when Richardson looked at the yard,but what might have been missed.His might have been just a glance,with the door open.
Mrs Richardson may well have disliked looking at the body of Chapman,is that an indication she didn't?.Doesn't need no more than a glance to recognise someone that is familiar.Were the features distorted?

But why should we dismiss the fact that Richardson, who actually saw the body in situ when he returned to number 29, said that he couldn’t possibly have missed it. That’s the point. He knew that the door could potentially have obscured his view but he was 100% certain that this wasn’t the case on this occasion.

Mrs. Richardson could certainly have recognised Chapman. I don’t doubt the very real possibility. All that I’m saying is that, due to the state of the body (and as she herself said) she looked with reluctance. So only a quick look perhaps? And how can we know that the woman who sold items wasn’t Chapman but someone that resembled her and that Mrs R. was simply mistaken? I’m not saying that this is the case Harry just that this was hardly an ideal ID. I also fully accept the doubts about Long. What I don’t understand is why Trevor, thinks that Long should be eliminated whilst accepting Mrs. R on face value? On paper I’d agree that Mrs. R appears a stronger witnesses (if we use ADVOKAT) but not a witness without doubts. So why isn’t she ‘unsafe to rely on?’

And even if Chapman had been to Hanbury Street before what difference does that make to anything?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And thats the point isnt Harry, there are just countless possible ways to interpret the evidence testimony such is the nature of the Chapman murder .

No one can really be sure as to an accurate t.o.d due of the complexity of it all . Even to suggest that its more probable one way or the other would be very poor judgement on anyones behalf. In my opinion.

So we might as well never discuss or assess any part of the case Fishy? We can assess and come to positions regarding likelihood. Some things are more likely than others. For example we can’t prove that the ripper wasn’t a woman but very few would disagree that he was likelier to have been a man.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it is a part of the question, Harry.

During their initial conversation, Richardson told Inspector Chandler that he was sure Annie's body wasn't there and so in effect he was saying he could see into that part of the yard, no matter where he was stood/sat and how far he opened the door.

It follows the pertinent point is whether or not he was lying about being there.

We have evidence in that he misled the coroner with his knife tale, and so his entire statement is compromised in terms of trust. In a court of law, it would have been dismissed.

Verdict: lying, 'wasn't at 29 Hanbury Street that night. Whatever motive, or lack thereof, is irrelevant because that's guesswork but what we do know is that he misled the coroner.

Nonsense of course.

He did not mislead the inquest so we can dismiss that without a wasting breath. We have already shown the many and very obvious shortcomings to this invention. You are just desperately trying to find reasons to reject Richardson so that you can promote your Great Uncle Gandalf.

So we don’t have a scintilla of even a suggestion of a hint that Richardson lied. What we do know is that he benefitted in no way from lying and that the so-called lie placed himself at the crime scene with a knife.

Richardson was very obviously telling the truth.