John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Experts also have express caution regarding witnesses and their fallibilities when it comes to testimony , but i guess arrogant people also claim to know more .

Why do you keep repeating this Fishy? No one is disputing it. But you appear to take it to mean that all witnesses are unreliable when this is clearly not the case. We have to assess each one on their own merits and come to a judgment. Blindly accepting them is just as wrong as blindly dismissing them. It’s not a difficult concept.

No , you didnt miss it you just ignored it . Cadosch = Uncertainty, ive showed you that already remember.

There is nothing in that article to even suggest that Gavin Bromley thought that there was any doubt that there was someone in the yard of number 29 when Cadosch was in his yard. You clearly haven’t bothered to actually read it or you wouldn’t post as if it’s some kind of rebuttal.

So now you move to another game by using the word ''Doubt'' as an attempt to argue for arguement sake . Round and Round you go .

You’re last point is obvious nonsense. What other word could I use but ‘doubt’ when I was asking if Gavin Bromley exhibited any ‘doubt’ about Cadosch’s statement. Please pay attention Fishy.

And, as usual, you avoid the question……

If someone is uncertain about A but certain about B is it logical to dismiss B because of A?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Cadosch thought the 'No' came from 29, what difference to him or anyone would it make as to what side of 29 left or right ? why not just finish at that ,he already stated it could have come from 29 , but no he added It was not in our yard ''but i cant be sure which side it came from''


You might think, and its only your opinion ''not a fact'' that leads to your conclusion that he meant left/right ..... i dont, yours is no more certain than mine , and yup again were left with Cadosch = uncertainty.




Theres really no point going into detail with the rest of your post, your simple making the same points as you have done from the start of this thread .Which btw myself George ,Trevor and others have discussed at lenght already. Sadisfactory.

This is poor stuff from you Fishy.

I haven’t said that my interpretation is the correct one. It’s simply one that I favour and is just as likely as the other (as you appear to accept when you say that it’s ‘no more likely’ than the other interpretation. All that you needed to do was to say that both could be truth but you can’t do that can you because the suggestion came from me. And you can’t be seen to agree with Herlock can you?

You really should read the posts before responding Fishy. The post that you’ve just made is completely pointless.

[A P Tomlinson]

Good post AP.

We know that knocking up was a job done by the police and I believe that someone wanting to be knocked up would go to the local station and talk to the desk sergeant (I’ll stand correcting on this - I know that David O wrote an article on this topic but he hasn’t put it up on his new site yet) It wasn’t like asking for an alarm call in a hotel of course but the sergeant would have known the approximate times that a beat Constable would pass and the ‘client’ could request a call. So his knock up might have been 20 minutes before he actually needed to leave the house if the next pass by the Constable would be 10 minutes after his required leaving time. Then we have to factor in that Constable’s had other more important duties investigating an open window or door or dealing with some kind of incident resulting in a slightly late knock up. And if the client didn’t have a clock they wouldn’t have been aware that they’d been knocked up 5 minutes later than usual.

Absolutely, a lot of coppers did it. Beat constables in London typically earned around 28 shillings a week in 1888. It was very much a supplement to their income, particularly if they had a nice regular beat.
It's possible even probable that the station desk sergeant would keep a list/rota for coppers working those beats to earn some extra money.

For a professional "Knocker Up" it was possible (at a rate of a couple of pence per client) to earn around the same income as a beat constable. And if you are a PC given the option to earn an extra 8 or 10 shillings a week for nothing more than tapping on a few windows... we're not talking about accepting bribes or extorting bookies here... you would take it.

One point I've never quite managed to find an answer to, is the question of what would happen if, in the case of Mizen for example, your Police Constable Knocker Uppper actually gets involved in proper police business for a few hours? Who finishes the round? Does your employer take kindly to the excuse?
If anyone has that information I would love to know.

Given the way they move round the streets at that time of day, I'm actually a mite surprised by how little the "Non Constabulary Knockers" feature in suspect theories.

[FISHY1118]

You’re last point is obvious nonsense. What other word could I use but ‘doubt’ when I was asking if Gavin Bromley exhibited any ‘doubt’ about Cadosch’s statement. Please pay attention Fishy.

And, as usual, you avoid the question……

If someone is uncertain about A but certain about B is it logical to dismiss B because of A?

It is you that needs to pay attention herlock, you got your answer you just refuse to accept it. Its you who keep avoiding the answers!!!! , any 5 year old could see what your doing here . Cadosch = uncertainty you can whinge and sook all you like ,wont do you no good .Its just a fact you cant overcome .

[FISHY1118]

This is poor stuff from you Fishy.

I haven’t said that my interpretation is the correct one. It’s simply one that I favour and is just as likely as the other (as you appear to accept when you say that it’s ‘no more likely’ than the other interpretation. All that you needed to do was to say that both could be truth but you can’t do that can you because the suggestion came from me. And you can’t be seen to agree with Herlock can you?

You really should read the posts before responding Fishy. The post that you’ve just made is completely pointless.

This is just nonsense and you know it, to use your words its just more of the same waffle , you cant win the cadosch arguement. The fact by his own words he was uncertain, seriously i dont know what evidence your reading but it dosent get any clearer than that . Give up your making a mockery of this topic ,its embarrassing.

[FISHY1118]

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.


Fact 1 . Albert Cadosch could not be sure WHICH SIDE the ''No'' came from , so we can only ''speculate'' and give an opinion as to whether there was anyone in the back yard of 29 handbury st at that time.

Fact 2. Albert Cadosch heard ''Something'' his doesnt say ''someone'', so again we can only speculate and give opinion as to whether it was the killer or chapman that made that noise .He even hints at a possibility as to what the noise could have been!!!

Fact 3 Albert Cadosch testimony = uncertainty ,anyone that cant see or admit that is argueing just for the hell of it ,and poorly at that .


Lets not think we can change Albert Cadoschs testimony to suit a perticular theory by twisting the evidence every which way and then some ,weve seen far too much of that already.

[Abby Normal]

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.


Fact 1 . Albert Cadosch could not be sure WHICH SIDE the ''No'' came from , so we can only ''speculate'' and give an opinion as to whether there was anyone in the back yard of 29 handbury st at that time.

Fact 2. Albert Cadosch heard ''Something'' his doesnt say ''someone'', so again we can only speculate and give opinion as to whether it was the killer or chapman that made that noise .He even hints at a possibility as to what the noise could have been!!!

Fact 3 Albert Cadosch testimony = uncertainty ,anyone that cant see or admit that is argueing just for the hell of it ,and poorly at that .


Lets not think we can change Albert Cadoschs testimony to suit a perticular theory by twisting the evidence every which way and then some ,weve seen far too much of that already.

hi fishy
theres nothing uncertain about Cadosch hearing people in the backyard of 29. he only speaks of yard 29, so the which side, is clearly referring to which side of the yard 29 he heard the no. He heard something fall against the fence a short time later, and since a dead body was in fact found there, its obviously chapman or her killer who made the noise. richardson saw no one earlier, and long saw her talking to a man out front about the time cadosch heard the noises/voice. three witnesses all back each other up. Its not uncertain he heard voices and noises coming from 29, who were obviously chapman and her killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is you that needs to pay attention herlock, you got your answer you just refuse to accept it. Its you who keep avoiding the answers!!!! , any 5 year old could see what your doing here . Cadosch = uncertainty you can whinge and sook all you like ,wont do you no good .Its just a fact you cant overcome .

Yet again……you avoid answering.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is just nonsense and you know it, to use your words its just more of the same waffle , you cant win the cadosch arguement. The fact by his own words he was uncertain, seriously i dont know what evidence your reading but it dosent get any clearer than that . Give up your making a mockery of this topic ,its embarrassing.

Utterly pathetic.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.


Fact 1 . Albert Cadosch could not be sure WHICH SIDE the ''No'' came from , so we can only ''speculate'' and give an opinion as to whether there was anyone in the back yard of 29 handbury st at that time.

Fact 2. Albert Cadosch heard ''Something'' his doesnt say ''someone'', so again we can only speculate and give opinion as to whether it was the killer or chapman that made that noise .He even hints at a possibility as to what the noise could have been!!!

Fact 3 Albert Cadosch testimony = uncertainty ,anyone that cant see or admit that is argueing just for the hell of it ,and poorly at that .


Lets not think we can change Albert Cadoschs testimony to suit a perticular theory by twisting the evidence every which way and then some ,weve seen far too much of that already.

A lot of pointless words to justify your repeated refusal to answer a question. The refusal speaks volumes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi fishy
theres nothing uncertain about Cadosch hearing people in the backyard of 29. he only speaks of yard 29, so the which side, is clearly referring to which side of the yard 29 he heard the no. He heard something fall against the fence a short time later, and since a dead body was in fact found there, its obviously chapman or her killer who made the noise. richardson saw no one earlier, and long saw her talking to a man out front about the time cadosch heard the noises/voice. three witnesses all back each other up. Its not uncertain he heard voices and noises coming from 29, who were obviously chapman and her killer.

You won’t get through to him Abby. He’s come to his own erroneous conclusion and we know from experience that he’ll never own up to being wrong (which he usually is) so he’ll defend at all cost no matter how barrel-scrapingly his argument is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fact 1[/B] . Albert Cadosch could not be sure WHICH SIDE the ''No'' came from , so we can only ''speculate'' and give an opinion as to whether there was anyone in the back yard of 29 handbury st at that time.

But we know that he could have meant on which side of number 29 the ‘no’ came from. You try and dismiss this because you are biased.

Fact 2. Albert Cadosch heard ''Something'' his doesnt say ''someone'', so again we can only speculate and give opinion as to whether it was the killer or chapman that made that noise .He even hints at a possibility as to what the noise could have been!!!

Oh of course. Someone could have been moving packing cases around in the yard without noticing the steaming corpse lying there. Good suggestion Fishy. Up to your usual standards. The fact that there were no lacking cases in that yard at the time of course won’t dampen your enthusiasm to post silly suggestions,

Fact 3 Albert Cadosch testimony = uncertainty ,anyone that cant see or admit that is argueing just for the hell of it ,and poorly at that .

Ill say it below.


.

You have now had 5 opportunities to answer an extremely simple question Fishy. You repeatedly refuse to do it because you 100% know that your argument is utterly refuted.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If you are trying to imply that it was too dark for Richardson to see the body from the steps at 4:50

I wasn't, but now that we're on the subject, John was told to go and get his knife that cut his boot. John returned with the knife and when they all looked at it and said: "are you sure?", John said: "oh, not this knife, another knife". At that point they probably should have done John for wasting the authorities' time.

John was not necessarily straight down the line.

In the end, Richardson testifies that he could see into the yard fine at the time he visited.

John attempted to lead the inquest a merry dance with his knife tale, and so it follows John should be viewed as not necessarily reliable.

As I said in the post to which you replied, at quarter to five on the 8th September it will be dark. Try it. Go somewhere where there isn't a light nearby. Furthermore, Annie's body lay with a tall building blocking one side, acting as a sort of cul-de-sac, making it darker still. As I said, it really depends on where the nearest light source was at that time of the morning.

Nobody at the time expressed any indication that this was surprising

Aye because of course you're pouring over the statements with time to think about it 150 years later. At the inquest, they were giving their accounts in accordance with their status, as opposed to being sat in a police room scrutinising witness statements. They didn't have the time to scrutinise in minute detail, and in the event they were afforded that time the inquest would still be going on now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wasn't, but now that we're on the subject, John was told to go and get his knife that cut his boot. John returned with the knife and when they all looked at it and said: "are you sure?", John said: "oh, not this knife, another knife". At that point they probably should have done John for wasting the authorities' time.

John was not necessarily straight down the line.



John attempted to lead the inquest a merry dance with his knife tale, and so it follows John should be viewed as not necessarily reliable.

As I said in the post to which you replied, at quarter to five on the 8th September it will be dark. Try it. Go somewhere where there isn't a light nearby. Furthermore, Annie's body lay with a tall building blocking one side, acting as a sort of cul-de-sac, making it darker still. As I said, it really depends on where the nearest light source was at that time of the morning.



Aye because of course you're pouring over the statements with time to think about it 150 years later. At the inquest, they were giving their accounts in accordance with their status, as opposed to being sat in a police room scrutinising witness statements. They didn't have the time to scrutinise in minute detail, and in the event they were afforded that time the inquest would still be going on now.

A highly jaundiced version of events. What is it about John Richardson that causes people to seek out the sinister?

From The Telegraph’s record of the inquest Richardson said:

I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.

Then when he was recalled we get:

produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.



Most people don’t talk in gibberish but if they do it sticks out like a sore thumb and it gets noticed. So if we take what he said in the way that you (and others on a mission to discredit him) do, what he appears to be saying is “I had cut leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut leather from my boot because the knife wasn’t sharp enough.”

And he uttered this piece of nonsense in front of a jury and a Coroner who were all listening intently to what he said and not a single one of them noticed or pulled him up on it. Not one person said “hold on Mr. Richardson that makes absolutely no sense.” And this inquest concerned a murder with a knife and here was a man admitting to having been at the scene with a knife! How likely is that? Not very, to say the least I’d say.

We know that these Press versions were not verbatim reports and that they often varied in content from newspaper to newspaper. The Times for example mentions his previous attempt to repair his boot. Others don’t. The Daily News reported it too:

When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough.


Richardson was also asked:

Has your knife been seen by the police?

No, sir.

Have you got it with you?

No.


So he already made an unsuccessful the previous day where he’d specified that he’d actually cut a piece of leather out of his boot but he hadn’t cut enough. He clearly wasn’t an expert leather worker.


Conclusion: it’s obvious that at number 29 John Richardson had made a second attempt to make his boot more comfortable. He’d cut off a piece of leather but it still wasn’t enough (probably due to the knife, which he only used in the yard because he had it on him at the time) Then, when he got to work he did a better job with a more suitable one. Then a non-verbatim newspaper inaccurately reported “not sharp enough..” but without adding something like “to do a good enough job.”

Richardson talking gibberish and no one noticing or a poorly worded report from newspapers with a record of error. No competition.

[GBinOz]

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.


Fact 1 . Albert Cadosch could not be sure WHICH SIDE the ''No'' came from , so we can only ''speculate'' and give an opinion as to whether there was anyone in the back yard of 29 handbury st at that time.

Fact 2. Albert Cadosch heard ''Something'' his doesnt say ''someone'', so again we can only speculate and give opinion as to whether it was the killer or chapman that made that noise .He even hints at a possibility as to what the noise could have been!!!

Fact 3 Albert Cadosch testimony = uncertainty ,anyone that cant see or admit that is argueing just for the hell of it ,and poorly at that .


Lets not think we can change Albert Cadoschs testimony to suit a perticular theory by twisting the evidence every which way and then some ,weve seen far too much of that already.

Hi Fishy,

I think that Cadosch should have stuck to his original story:
Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 9 September 1888
On visiting the house next door to the tragedy, 27, our representative saw Mr. Albert Cadosen [sic], a carpenter, who resides there and works in Shoe-lane, Fleet-street. He says: I was not very well in the night and I went out into the back yard about 25 minutes past five. It was just getting daylight, and as I passed to the back of the yard I heard a sound as of two people up in the corner of the next yard. On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say “No.” Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found. As I thought it was some of the people belonging to the house, I passed into my own room, and took no further notice.

By the time he got to the Inquest, his single visit to the Loo had become two visits, he decided he hadn't heard anything from the back of the yard, and had forgotten about the "scuffle" and someone falling heavily on the ground against the fence in favour of "something touching the fence".

His original story was far more supportive of his having heard the murder. I wonder if he became increasingly embarrassed over the fact he had not bothered to even glance over the fence? But of course when a witness has multiple accounts of what happened it does weaken the value of his testimony, but since we are relying on press reports in both cases, perhaps he meant something else entirely (sarcasm alert).

Cheers, George