John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

One other point is that FM's suggestion won't help us here, or at least, not many of us. The suggestion was that one do the experiment oneself by going out at 4:50 on September 8th. Even if you select the right date, dawn is at different times in different places depending on one's latitude, whether or not one has daylight savings time, and whether one lives in the eastern or western part of one's time zone. The experiment might work for those who live in London, but not for the rest of us. I see no reason to take any approach other than to refer to the Casebook page that you mentioned.

Very true. In the end, the notion that the police, who investigated Richardson, never realized that the time he said he was there would be too dark for him to check the lock or fix his boot, etc, is simply not a viable argument. In other words, the fact the police actively looked into Richardson as a potential suspect in the case and found nothing to draw suspicion to him, indicates that the basic facts of his testimony were not found to be false. It does not preclude the possibility that somehow the door obscured his view (which I believe is only a slim possibility, but as I say, George has found a news report which could indicate the police found that was at least possible, so I can't exclude it despite my own personal skepticism. While the newspapers also get things wrong, either because they make things up to make the story more interesting, or they just get the details confused, etc, not everything they report is invalid, and that is why I think we have to consider the possibility that Richardson was mistaken. I don't think there's a very high likelihood of that, but given the above, we have to entertain that option. It is always better to err on the side of caution in an investigation after all.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

And isn’t it great when we hear people repeating what Chandler said at the inquest on the 13th September in an attempt to portray him as untrustworthy:

[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.


Yet in The Telegraph, September 10th, we get:

‘Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot.’

Can anyone believe that Richardson invented his boot repair story, withheld it from Chandler on the 8th, then blabbed it to the Press on the 10th?

Hi Herlock,

Is there anything in the Telegraph report that might indicate if the interview with Richardson was on the 9th or the 10th? Something like "yesterday when speaking with ..." vs "today/this morning when speaking with ..." type things? It doesn't appear the Telegraph is in the news archives here, otherwise I would look up the story myself.

I think we need take into consideration that when Richardson spoke with Chandler on the 8th, that is in the context of him showing up and informing the police that he was there that morning just before 5:00. He's not giving a formal statement, but making contact with an officer at the scene, who is going to record notes (i.e. his name, address, etc) so that this witness can later give a full and formal statement. It is highly improbable that Richardson is going to go into the details of his every action that morning, but at that time he would focus on conveying the important points that "I was here at 4:50 am, and when I checked the lock she was not there at that time." The other details would emerge during a formal interview where he gives a far more complete statement. Given he mentions the boot repair in the Telegraph, I would be surprised if that detail did not come out during that formal statement process. I'm just not sure when that took place?

It should be noted that there is a difference between a witness "filling in the gaps" over successive interviews and a witness "changing their story". The latter would be things like Richardson saying he went there to check the lock, and then later gives his reason as to get something from the shed when it was pointed out there was no lock on the door (pretend that was the case), and modifies the time of his visit after it becomes apparent he was spotted at work at 4:50, and so forth. Those sorts of changes in the story are reasons to suspect one's statements (or even to raise suspicions against them; we see this sort of thing with regards to Packer, which is why his information is often viewed with questionable utility). However, when the information added doesn't change what came before other than to add more details and expand upon things (which his boot fixing story does), that's exactly what having multiple interviews are for - to get information that might have been overlooked the first time.

There will be some bits that get phrased differently in each telling because of how we use language. In fact, if multiple interviews follow the same wording, that is suspicious because it sounds rehearsed, rather than someone retelling the same event at a different time. Things like "didn't go into the yard" vs "sat on the steps with his feet on the flags" is not a contradiction because "going into the yard" means doing something like walking over to the shed, not just going outside (I know George finds that an unusual idea, but I think that's might be something particular to Australian English, I know to me when Richardson says he sat on the steps, yet didn't go into the yard, that makes perfect sense to me and is probably how I might even say it myself if I were him).

Anyway, I'm rabbiting on here, and getting sidetracked as usual.

Really all I wanted to know is if there's any indication of when the interview took place for the Telegraph. And I suppose also, do we know when Richardson went to the police to give his full statement? His discussion with Chandler at the scene would not be it after all.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi Herlock,

Is there anything in the Telegraph report that might indicate if the interview with Richardson was on the 9th or the 10th? Something like "yesterday when speaking with ..." vs "today/this morning when speaking with ..." type things? It doesn't appear the Telegraph is in the news archives here, otherwise I would look up the story myself.

I think we need take into consideration that when Richardson spoke with Chandler on the 8th, that is in the context of him showing up and informing the police that he was there that morning just before 5:00. He's not giving a formal statement, but making contact with an officer at the scene, who is going to record notes (i.e. his name, address, etc) so that this witness can later give a full and formal statement. It is highly improbable that Richardson is going to go into the details of his every action that morning, but at that time he would focus on conveying the important points that "I was here at 4:50 am, and when I checked the lock she was not there at that time." The other details would emerge during a formal interview where he gives a far more complete statement. Given he mentions the boot repair in the Telegraph, I would be surprised if that detail did not come out during that formal statement process. I'm just not sure when that took place?

It should be noted that there is a difference between a witness "filling in the gaps" over successive interviews and a witness "changing their story". The latter would be things like Richardson saying he went there to check the lock, and then later gives his reason as to get something from the shed when it was pointed out there was no lock on the door (pretend that was the case), and modifies the time of his visit after it becomes apparent he was spotted at work at 4:50, and so forth. Those sorts of changes in the story are reasons to suspect one's statements (or even to raise suspicions against them; we see this sort of thing with regards to Packer, which is why his information is often viewed with questionable utility). However, when the information added doesn't change what came before other than to add more details and expand upon things (which his boot fixing story does), that's exactly what having multiple interviews are for - to get information that might have been overlooked the first time.

There will be some bits that get phrased differently in each telling because of how we use language. In fact, if multiple interviews follow the same wording, that is suspicious because it sounds rehearsed, rather than someone retelling the same event at a different time. Things like "didn't go into the yard" vs "sat on the steps with his feet on the flags" is not a contradiction because "going into the yard" means doing something like walking over to the shed, not just going outside (I know George finds that an unusual idea, but I think that's might be something particular to Australian English, I know to me when Richardson says he sat on the steps, yet didn't go into the yard, that makes perfect sense to me and is probably how I might even say it myself if I were him).

Anyway, I'm rabbiting on here, and getting sidetracked as usual.

Really all I wanted to know is if there's any indication of when the interview took place for the Telegraph. And I suppose also, do we know when Richardson went to the police to give his full statement? His discussion with Chandler at the scene would not be it after all.

- Jeff

Hi Herlock and Jeff,

Chandler testified at the inquest as to what was said to him by Richardson early in the morning of the 8th.
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

On the same day Richardson told The Star reporters:
"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."

So nothing Richardson said on the 8th even hinted at a boot repair. We do note, however, that his story has changed about whether or not he was in the yard, and contradicts his sworn testimony:
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No

Like Jeff, I am not able to access The Telegraph, but I found this in The Star 10 Sep:
In order not to lose any evidence of value, the post-mortem examination was conducted without delay at the mortuary, to which the body had been removed by the police divisional surgeon, who, upon advice, reserves his description of the injuries until the inquest. It is, however, this gentleman's opinion, as communicated to his chiefs, that death had taken place some two or three hours prior to the first examination of the corpse, shortly after its discovery. If that view of the medical aspect of the case be correctly stated, the time of the murder must have been earlier than four in the morning. Not a sound was heard to fix the time by. On Saturday the sun rose at twenty-three minutes past five; for half an hour previously the light would be such as to render it difficult for any one to distinguish even near objects. At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, son of the landlady, of 29, Hanbury-street, as usual, went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot. The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. This man is quite clear that he saw nothing to attract his attention before he left. About twenty-five minutes past five Albert Cadosch, living at No. 31, the next house on the left-hand side, entered the yard adjoining that of No. 29. He states that he heard some talking on the other side of the palings, and he distinguished the word "No." There was then, he fancied, a slight scuffle, with the noise of something falling, but he took no notice, thinking that it was from his neighbors. It was half an hour later, at six o'clock, that John Davis, before going to his work, walked along the passage into the yard, and made the horrifying discovery of the mutilated body. There are several reports of deceased having been seen in the company of a man early on Saturday morning, but little reliance is placed upon them. In one case, a man employed at a public-house, who gave information, failed to identify the deceased as the woman he believed to have been called out of the place at five a.m. by a man in a skull cap.

This was published two days before John and Amelia Richardson testified before the inquest, and is the first time that I have found that he was reported as sitting on the steps. As Jeff points out, it would be of vital importance to know the source of the Star publication, but that is not immediately apparent. It contains a report of the Inquest proceedings of the 12th, but whether the remainder is sourced from police interviews, or reporter interviews, I'll leave open to comment. While Richardson's story has been augmented to include the boot repair, Cadosch's story is his original, and substantially different to his testimony on Sep 19th. A record of the full interview of Richardson by police would be invaluable, but I suspect the hope of finding it would be somewhat forlorn.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

And isn’t it great when we hear people repeating what Chandler said at the inquest on the 13th September in an attempt to portray him as untrustworthy:

[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.


Yet in The Telegraph, September 10th, we get:

‘Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot.’

Can anyone believe that Richardson invented his boot repair story, withheld it from Chandler on the 8th, then blabbed it to the Press on the 10th?

Hi Herlock,

Chandler was reporting on the 13th to the inquest what Richardson told him on the 8th, which agreed with what Richardson also told The Star on the 8th. He needed a few days to invent the boot story he told the press on the 10th. To quote Wolf Vanderlinden (again):
"He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness".

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock and Jeff,

Chandler testified at the inquest as to what was said to him by Richardson early in the morning of the 8th.
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

On the same day Richardson told The Star reporters:
"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."

So nothing Richardson said on the 8th even hinted at a boot repair. We do note, however, that his story has changed about whether or not he was in the yard, and contradicts his sworn testimony:
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No

Like Jeff, I am not able to access The Telegraph, but I found this in The Star 10 Sep:
In order not to lose any evidence of value, the post-mortem examination was conducted without delay at the mortuary, to which the body had been removed by the police divisional surgeon, who, upon advice, reserves his description of the injuries until the inquest. It is, however, this gentleman's opinion, as communicated to his chiefs, that death had taken place some two or three hours prior to the first examination of the corpse, shortly after its discovery. If that view of the medical aspect of the case be correctly stated, the time of the murder must have been earlier than four in the morning. Not a sound was heard to fix the time by. On Saturday the sun rose at twenty-three minutes past five; for half an hour previously the light would be such as to render it difficult for any one to distinguish even near objects. At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson, son of the landlady, of 29, Hanbury-street, as usual, went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot. The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. This man is quite clear that he saw nothing to attract his attention before he left. About twenty-five minutes past five Albert Cadosch, living at No. 31, the next house on the left-hand side, entered the yard adjoining that of No. 29. He states that he heard some talking on the other side of the palings, and he distinguished the word "No." There was then, he fancied, a slight scuffle, with the noise of something falling, but he took no notice, thinking that it was from his neighbors. It was half an hour later, at six o'clock, that John Davis, before going to his work, walked along the passage into the yard, and made the horrifying discovery of the mutilated body. There are several reports of deceased having been seen in the company of a man early on Saturday morning, but little reliance is placed upon them. In one case, a man employed at a public-house, who gave information, failed to identify the deceased as the woman he believed to have been called out of the place at five a.m. by a man in a skull cap.

This was published two days before John and Amelia Richardson testified before the inquest, and is the first time that I have found that he was reported as sitting on the steps. As Jeff points out, it would be of vital importance to know the source of the Star publication, but that is not immediately apparent. It contains a report of the Inquest proceedings of the 12th, but whether the remainder is sourced from police interviews, or reporter interviews, I'll leave open to comment. While Richardson's story has been augmented to include the boot repair, Cadosch's story is his original, and substantially different to his testimony on Sep 19th. A record of the full interview of Richardson by police would be invaluable, but I suspect the hope of finding it would be somewhat forlorn.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

What gets in the papers, though, is always subject to concern. We see many news paper articles reporting on various witnesses where the fine details and wording don't really line up. Take, for example, Robert Paul's Lloyd's interview, which is so substantially different from any of the sworn testimony that it bears, at best, only a slight resemblance. The thing is, that might not be all that bizarre, how one talks to a reporter, and how confident one asserts things, will be very different compared to how one tells the same story to the police. Richardson's language, if the words are even his, when speaking to a reporter could very easily be different as per above. Particularly if the reporter is pushing for statements that would "make a good story", unlike the police, who would (hopefully), be pushing to get a clear idea of what exactly he did and exactly how confident he is. With regards to issues about the "word choice", if Richardson simply told the reporter he went to check the lock on the cellar door in the backyard, the reporter may present that in his story as Richardson having passed through the yard despite Richardson having not actually said that. The article does not present that statement as a quote, but a description, which very well could be the reporter's description of what he understood Richardson to mean rather than what Richardson himself actually said.

This sort of thing is always a concern with stories in the papers. When we have nothing else, they are the only source of information we have, but we always have to be suspect of the fine details they contain for this very reason (it's not something I'm only applying to Richardson by the way, but something I think should be a default mind set when dealing with the newspapers). When we do have access to transcript forms of the inquest (not just the summary reports, which need to be viewed with the same concern), and official documents by the police, the details in those should be viewed as the more reliable. I think they should be viewed in generally in that order of preference too, because the official police documents we do have tend to be summaries, and so there is somebodies "interpretation" between us and the witness' actual words. I don't think we have any transcripts of witness statements given to the police, only summary reports, which is a shame.

Anyway, those are interesting, but again, given my views above, I really don't think the fact that the press contradict Richardson's sworn testimony is really a big deal. To me, particularly when they are not quoting the witness in the story but summarizing things, it looks more like the press got it wrong.

As always, I'm just outlining how I approach the different sources, and if we value them differently, then it is hardly surprising we lead different ways after viewing them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course, as it ensures all bases are covered.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

So for me, the only way he is missing her is if it is too dark, but if that is the case, how can he see that the lock on the cellar is okay? If it's too pitch-black, how is it that he attempts to cut his boot, and how does he walk through the passageway if it is jet black? How did the Ripper and Annie open the back door if they couldn't see the handle? There has to be SOME light.

This is a circular argument and is predicated on two factors:

1) John Richardson. John misled the coroner with his knife tale, which makes him somewhat unreliable.

2) You're assuming people were unable to move around in the dark. The reality is that in the event of no light nearby then people had to move around in the dark. Take Morris Eagle, he tells you that it was too dark to see and he was capable of finding his way. As for finding a handle on a door, it's not going to take long to find a handle on a door when it's dark.

So, no, there doesn't 'have to be some light'.

Rather than theorising with no evidential basis whatsoever, as you have done here, a better approach would be to try it out at that time of the day at that time of the year, and to understand where exactly the nearest artificial light source was in relation to the back of 29 Hanbury Street. That way, you're relying on experience and the circumstance of 29 Hanbury Street, as opposed to a theory which is merely the thoughts of a few posters; most of whom are wedded to a wider theory, and one that is devoid of any practical application.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Like Jeff, I am not able to access The Telegraph, but I found this in The Star 10 Sep:
[I][COLOR=#2980b9]On Saturday the sun rose at twenty-three minutes past five; for half an hour previously the light would be such as to render it difficult for any one to distinguish even near objects.

Cheers, George

What a load of absolute rubbish! There is perfectly good light 30 minutes before dawn - not broad daylight, but you can certainly see everything reasonably clearly, and near objects without difficullty.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

What gets in the papers, though, is always subject to concern. We see many news paper articles reporting on various witnesses where the fine details and wording don't really line up. Take, for example, Robert Paul's Lloyd's interview, which is so substantially different from any of the sworn testimony that it bears, at best, only a slight resemblance. The thing is, that might not be all that bizarre, how one talks to a reporter, and how confident one asserts things, will be very different compared to how one tells the same story to the police. Richardson's language, if the words are even his, when speaking to a reporter could very easily be different as per above. Particularly if the reporter is pushing for statements that would "make a good story", unlike the police, who would (hopefully), be pushing to get a clear idea of what exactly he did and exactly how confident he is. With regards to issues about the "word choice", if Richardson simply told the reporter he went to check the lock on the cellar door in the backyard, the reporter may present that in his story as Richardson having passed through the yard despite Richardson having not actually said that. The article does not present that statement as a quote, but a description, which very well could be the reporter's description of what he understood Richardson to mean rather than what Richardson himself actually said.

This sort of thing is always a concern with stories in the papers. When we have nothing else, they are the only source of information we have, but we always have to be suspect of the fine details they contain for this very reason (it's not something I'm only applying to Richardson by the way, but something I think should be a default mind set when dealing with the newspapers). When we do have access to transcript forms of the inquest (not just the summary reports, which need to be viewed with the same concern), and official documents by the police, the details in those should be viewed as the more reliable. I think they should be viewed in generally in that order of preference too, because the official police documents we do have tend to be summaries, and so there is somebodies "interpretation" between us and the witness' actual words. I don't think we have any transcripts of witness statements given to the police, only summary reports, which is a shame.

Anyway, those are interesting, but again, given my views above, I really don't think the fact that the press contradict Richardson's sworn testimony is really a big deal. To me, particularly when they are not quoting the witness in the story but summarizing things, it looks more like the press got it wrong.

As always, I'm just outlining how I approach the different sources, and if we value them differently, then it is hardly surprising we lead different ways after viewing them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course, as it ensures all bases are covered.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I am in agreement with most of your post, but would like to add some comments.

We find ourselves in a situation where most of the official records are unavailable to us, either lost, missing or destroyed. The harsh fact is that it is now a matter of press reports or nothing.

Looking at what I have posted above, I don't see much sensationalising in those reports. I see a danger in reading into reports what the subject of the report "could" have meant, or what we may think they meant. We are really not entitled to assume anything beyond what is reported unless it is directly contradicted elsewhere. To do so is indulging in pure conjecture. (IMO)

Many, many posts ago I referenced a report on the unreliability of witness testimony. That report had the advantage of video records to establish a baseline of the truth of what actually happened against what witness were sure had happened. I recall that report suggesting that the mind tends to tamper with the memory as time proceeds from the actual incident. As a consequence I tend to assess the initial statements of witnesses as having a higher likelihood of reflecting the truth than what they may say in a few days when their mind has had a chance to tamper with their memories.

I tend to consider what Richardson told Chandler early on the morning of the 6th to be the most probable. I also find Cadosch's original single visit to the Loo to be more convincing than the amended version to which he testified a week later, even though it is less supportive of my opinions.

I still rate Doc's assessment of Phillip's statement as the best. While it favours the earlier ToD, it doesn't exclude the later ToD. Even if I discounted all the medical evidence, I still consider the preponderance of evidence leans slightly towards the earlier ToD, but I acknowledge that in that opinion I am part of a small minority, but am not unduly concerned about that fact.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

What a load of absolute rubbish! There is perfectly good light 30 minutes before dawn - not broad daylight, but you can certainly see everything reasonably clearly, and near objects without difficullty.

Hi Doc,

I agree with you, and I want to make it clear that I was reporting a contempory report, not making a judgement statement of my own.

Cheers, George

[Hair Bear]

This is a circular argument and is predicated on two factors:

1) John Richardson. John misled the coroner with his knife tale, which makes him somewhat unreliable.

2) You're assuming people were unable to move around in the dark. The reality is that in the event of no light nearby then people had to move around in the dark. Take Morris Eagle, he tells you that it was too dark to see and he was capable of finding his way. As for finding a handle on a door, it's not going to take long to find a handle on a door when it's dark.

So, no, there doesn't 'have to be some light'.

Rather than theorising with no evidential basis whatsoever, as you have done here, a better approach would be to try it out at that time of the day at that time of the year, and to understand where exactly the nearest artificial light source was in relation to the back of 29 Hanbury Street. That way, you're relying on experience and the circumstance of 29 Hanbury Street, as opposed to a theory which is merely the thoughts of a few posters; most of whom are wedded to a wider theory, and one that is devoid of any practical application.

Thank you for your response.

I hear you, but...

"This is a circular argument"

That may well be but I don't think anyone has mentioned that Richardson would more than likely have been in a standing position before he sat down and when rising, and so not obstructed by the door at that time.

"a better approach would be to try it out at that time of the day at that time of the year"

I have tried it, in the Forest of Bowland where the nearest village had (at the time, at least) no lights. I specifically went there for this reason. I struggled to see at 3:30-4:00am but could see around me at 4:45am. Of course this wasn't London 1888, hence why I don't believe it has any bearing whatsoever on the case. I'm not opposed to the idea of Chapman being murdered at an earlier time, but I'd be grateful if someone could explain how this was affected without light.

"1) John misled the coroner with his knife tale, which makes him somewhat unreliable."

We were not there but the coroner was, and the coroner concluded he was being honest. Hence one of the reasons I lean towards a later time of death.

"So, no, there doesn't 'have to be some light'."

As I have said, I'm not opposed to an earlier ToD, but I would appreciate an explanation of how the Ripper's masterful dissection of Chapman was affected without any light.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Is there anything in the Telegraph report that might indicate if the interview with Richardson was on the 9th or the 10th? Something like "yesterday when speaking with ..." vs "today/this morning when speaking with ..." type things? It doesn't appear the Telegraph is in the news archives here, otherwise I would look up the story myself.

I don’t have access to the full quote Jeff as I took it from Sugden. Someone will be able to access it though.

I think we need take into consideration that when Richardson spoke with Chandler on the 8th, that is in the context of him showing up and informing the police that he was there that morning just before 5:00. He's not giving a formal statement, but making contact with an officer at the scene, who is going to record notes (i.e. his name, address, etc) so that this witness can later give a full and formal statement. It is highly improbable that Richardson is going to go into the details of his every action that morning, but at that time he would focus on conveying the important points that "I was here at 4:50 am, and when I checked the lock she was not there at that time." The other details would emerge during a formal interview where he gives a far more complete statement. Given he mentions the boot repair in the Telegraph, I would be surprised if that detail did not come out during that formal statement process. I'm just not sure when that took place?

Good point Jeff. As I’ve mentioned before, not only wasn’t it a formal interview but it took place in conditions that were hardly ideal. The busy scene of a horrible murder that Chandler knew would be very high profile. He spoke to Richardson just 15 minutes after Phillips had arrived. His subordinates would have been talking to residents and neighbours and possibly looking to report back snippets of information.

It should be noted that there is a difference between a witness "filling in the gaps" over successive interviews and a witness "changing their story". The latter would be things like Richardson saying he went there to check the lock, and then later gives his reason as to get something from the shed when it was pointed out there was no lock on the door (pretend that was the case), and modifies the time of his visit after it becomes apparent he was spotted at work at 4:50, and so forth. Those sorts of changes in the story are reasons to suspect one's statements (or even to raise suspicions against them; we see this sort of thing with regards to Packer, which is why his information is often viewed with questionable utility). However, when the information added doesn't change what came before other than to add more details and expand upon things (which his boot fixing story does), that's exactly what having multiple interviews are for - to get information that might have been overlooked the first time.

To be expected of course. And it’s not impossible of course that Richardson initially thought it prudent to leave out the part about the knife - for obvious reasons.

There will be some bits that get phrased differently in each telling because of how we use language. In fact, if multiple interviews follow the same wording, that is suspicious because it sounds rehearsed, rather than someone retelling the same event at a different time. Things like "didn't go into the yard" vs "sat on the steps with his feet on the flags" is not a contradiction because "going into the yard" means doing something like walking over to the shed, not just going outside (I know George finds that an unusual idea, but I think that's might be something particular to Australian English, I know to me when Richardson says he sat on the steps, yet didn't go into the yard, that makes perfect sense to me and is probably how I might even say it myself if I were him).

I agree Jeff. To me there’s no conflict in the two. Going into the yard would have meant actually walking into the yard as opposed to just sitting with feet on the flags.

Anyway, I'm rabbiting on here, and getting sidetracked as usual.

Really all I wanted to know is if there's any indication of when the interview took place for the Telegraph. And I suppose also, do we know when Richardson went to the police to give his full statement? His discussion with Chandler at the scene would not be it after all.

- Jeff

I can’t answer either of those two Jeff other that the date of The Telegraph

article.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Question - how long would it have taken them to transport the body to the mortuary from Hanbury Street?

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the same day Richardson told The Star reporters:
"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."

Hi George,

This is surely an example of how the Press misinterpret? Clearly they had been told that he walked through the passage and they put yard. Richardson couldn’t have said that he’d walked through the yard as it made no sense. The first part has quotation marks but isn’t a direct quote.

Even if we could somehow prove that Richardson didn’t initially mention the boot repair to Chandler I don’t see that as being suspicious. The conversation between the two might have gone something like this:

Chandler - So what time were you here Mr. Richardson?

Richardson - Around 4.45.

Chandler - Why were you here?

Richardson - I check my mothers cellar door on market days as I’m passing this way.

Chandler - So what did you do this morning.

Richardson - I checked the cellar doors as usual and they were locked.

Chandler - Did you look into the yard?

Richardson - Yes and there was no body lying by that fence.

Chandler - Are you certain that you couldn’t have missed it? It wasn’t very light after all and the door might have blocked your view.

Richardson - Definitely not. I could see all over the yard and it was getting light. I couldn’t possibly have missed the body had it been there.

Chandler - Alright Mr. Richardson. We will take a statement from you at some point.

Yes, it’s hypothetical but it shows a reasonable way that the conversation might have gone and there’s nothing abnormal about my ‘version.’

Its worth pointing out that Chandler spoke to Richardson at around 6.45 and a few minutes after 7.00 he was at the mortuary. So this interview could have been a very long one.

[FISHY1118]

Question completely dodged. Again.

Irrelevant question in relation to the topic being discussed [answered anyway just for the hell of it, ]

[FISHY1118]