John Richardson

[GBinOz]

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.”


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.

Hi Herlock,

With all due respect my friend, I think you are drawing a long bow with that argument. You have eloquently shown that Richardson was talking gibberish, but this was an inquest. He was not on trial for murder, or even for wonton boot repair. Remember the brief of an inquest? I think you know better than to try to justify a reversal of evidence by speculating on words that may have been left out. I could just as easily suggest that the coroner and the jury were all stunned into silence thinking "does this man really expect us to believe that he even attempted to cut leather with that knife, let alone claim that he partially succeeded?". I would suggest that had this been a trial, any barrister would have torn strips off him.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

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

Good point George , with all the uncertainty of witness testimony the contradictory newspapers reports, its easy to see why and how the t.o.d subject has been used and manipulated in such a way as to try and convince people of a later Chapman death.

We of course however, for the blatantly obvious thats staring us in the face ,know differently.

Cadosch = uncertainty and contradictory.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Herlock,

With all due respect my friend, I think you are drawing a long bow with that argument. You have eloquently shown that Richardson was talking gibberish, but this was an inquest. He was not on trial for murder, or even for wonton boot repair. Remember the brief of an inquest? I think you know better than to try to justify a reversal of evidence by speculating on words that may have been left out. I could just as easily suggest that the coroner and the jury were all stunned into silence thinking "does this man really expect us to believe that he even attempted to cut leather with that knife, let alone claim that he partially succeeded?". I would suggest that had this been a trial, any barrister would have torn strips off him.

Cheers, George

hi george, and fishy and FM
so what do you think is going on with richardson and cadosch? something sinister? were they involved in tje murder somehow? mistaken, with innocent explanation? fifteen minutes of fame? what?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

With all due respect my friend, I think you are drawing a long bow with that argument. You have eloquently shown that Richardson was talking gibberish, but this was an inquest. He was not on trial for murder, or even for wonton boot repair. Remember the brief of an inquest? I think you know better than to try to justify a reversal of evidence by speculating on words that may have been left out. I could just as easily suggest that the coroner and the jury were all stunned into silence thinking "does this man really expect us to believe that he even attempted to cut leather with that knife, let alone claim that he partially succeeded?". I would suggest that had this been a trial, any barrister would have torn strips off him.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

He was giving evidence about what he’d done that morning and the knife became important because the coroner sent him to fetch it. If a sentence makes no sense we can’t assume that it was spot on. It doesn’t point to evasiveness in any way. Chandler reckoned that he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair to him that day so if Richardson wanted to be evasive why bother bringing it up. Be evasive by not mentioning it. Not be employing two sentences that make absolutely no sense. It wasn’t any kind of slip up. He didn’t drop himself in it. It was a nonsense sentence. Therefore he didn’t say it. He can’t have done.

I’ll repeat….John Richardson is one of the strongest and most important witnesses in the whole case. There is nothing remotely suspicious about him. A Barrister in court would have found no issue with him because the court stenographer wouldn’t have mistakenly reported gibberish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good point George , with all the uncertainty of witness testimony the contradictory newspapers reports, its easy to see why and how the t.o.d subject has been used and manipulated in such a way as to try and convince people of a later Chapman death.

We of course however, for the blatantly obvious thats staring us in the face ,know differently.

Cadosch = uncertainty and contradictory.

Still no answer to my question I see Fishy. You should write a book on how to avoid questions. Perhaps one day you’ll answer one. I live in hope.

[FISHY1118]

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.

Your playing word games again herlock

You got your Cadosch lesson on Uncertainty, when will you admit that?.Dont start your usual sulking again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your playing word games again herlock

You got your Cadosch lesson on Uncertainty, when will you admit that?.Dont start your usual sulking again.

You’re 7th opportunity to answer the question goes begging.

Top quality dodging Fishy. Fishy and Fisherman. Is there a school of question dodging that you’re both members of?

[FISHY1118]

Still no answer to my question I see Fishy. You should write a book on how to avoid questions. Perhaps one day you’ll answer one. I live in hope.

Perhaps one day you'll realize your asking the same questions regarding t.od that have already been answered.

When will you be stop avoiding the topic of witnesses uncertainty and unreliability, as experts have shown ?
You use this for Phillips yet you avoid it like the plague for Cadosch and Richardson and long .

Its because you would then have to admit t.od cannot be determined one way or the other.

But hey, you keep telling yourself that in your world . The evidence tells us possible other alternatives ,a fact you can't and refuse to accept.

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n819844]

You’re 7th opportunity to answer the question goes begging.

Top quality dodging Fishy. Fishy and Fisherman. Is there a school of question dodging that you’re both members

Answer , Cadosch = uncertainty .

FACT. You've been certainly schooled on that

[FISHY1118]

Utterly pathetic.

Now your sulking again

[FISHY1118]

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.

Hi Abby, I disagree with you reasons regarding cadosch and the hearing of the "No" and the "Noise" as my previous post has outlined . ,Its just my opinion based tho based on the evidence provided at the inquest ,and I don't see where its not an equal and reasonable suggestion and or possibility. .

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, I disagree with you reasons regarding cadosch and the hearing of the "No" and the "Noise" as my previous post has outlined . ,Its just my opinion based tho based on the evidence provided at the inquest ,and I don't see where its not an equal and reasonable suggestion and or possibility. .

ok, but can you see my post on #4488 and let me know what you think?

[GBinOz]

hi george, and fishy and FM
so what do you think is going on with richardson and cadosch? something sinister? were they involved in tje murder somehow? mistaken, with innocent explanation? fifteen minutes of fame? what?

Hi Abby,

I'll not speak to the opinions of Fishy and FM, only my point of view.

Richardson told Chandler that he was briefly at #29 to check the lock. This is reinforced by his interviews with The Star on 8 Sep:
"at a quarter to five the body was not in the yard, Mrs. Richardson's son John, a man of 33, having passed through the yard at that time to see if the cellar door was safe."

"This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure."

The boot cutting was not mentioned until several days later. I am inclined to agree with Wolf Vanderlinden's assessment:
"He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness".". I think that the augmentation of his original story to include the boot repairs did indeed become complete gibberish. That said, I have not eliminated Richardson from my broad list of persons worthy of further consideration in some sort of involvement with the murder. The police had their suspicions, but were unable to prove anything, but Richardson would have had ample opportunity to clean up after the event out of sight in his cellar workshop.

As for Cadosch, I believe that he was genuine in that he heard something that morning, but he also changed his story as I have previously detailed, making his testimony at the inquest more vague than what he originally told the press. I'm not sure why he would minimise his original story, but it could be as simple as that he was intimidated by being summonsed as a witness.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

He was giving evidence about what he’d done that morning and the knife became important because the coroner sent him to fetch it. If a sentence makes no sense we can’t assume that it was spot on. It doesn’t point to evasiveness in any way. Chandler reckoned that he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair to him that day so if Richardson wanted to be evasive why bother bringing it up. Be evasive by not mentioning it. Not be employing two sentences that make absolutely no sense. It wasn’t any kind of slip up. He didn’t drop himself in it. It was a nonsense sentence. Therefore he didn’t say it. He can’t have done.
Because on the day of the murder he was telling the press the story without any mention of boot repair, but a couple of days later he was relating his boot repair story to the press. So he had already committed to the augmented story.
I have difficulty accepting the logical progression of your last sequence of comments.

I’ll repeat….John Richardson is one of the strongest and most important witnesses in the whole case. There is nothing remotely suspicious about him. A Barrister in court would have found no issue with him because the court stenographer wouldn’t have mistakenly reported gibberish.

Now then Herlock. It's just not cricket to base a theory on what you think a court stenographer may have recorded. We can only work with what was reported. It would be like saying that a batsman would have been given "not out" but for that pesky video evidence.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I'll not speak to the opinions of Fishy and FM, only my point of view.

Richardson told Chandler that he was briefly at #29 to check the lock. This is reinforced by his interviews with The Star on 8 Sep:
"at a quarter to five the body was not in the yard, Mrs. Richardson's son John, a man of 33, having passed through the yard at that time to see if the cellar door was safe."

"This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure."

The boot cutting was not mentioned until several days later. I am inclined to agree with Wolf Vanderlinden's assessment:
"He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness".". I think that the augmentation of his original story to include the boot repairs did indeed become complete gibberish. That said, I have not eliminated Richardson from my broad list of persons worthy of further consideration in some sort of involvement with the murder. The police had their suspicions, but were unable to prove anything, but Richardson would have had ample opportunity to clean up after the event out of sight in his cellar workshop.

As for Cadosch, I believe that he was genuine in that he heard something that morning, but he also changed his story as I have previously detailed, making his testimony at the inquest more vague than what he originally told the press. I'm not sure why he would minimise his original story, but it could be as simple as that he was intimidated by being summonsed as a witness.

Cheers, George

thanks George. no problem with any of that. richardson to me is the type of person that does warrant more scrutiny and research.