John Richardson

[A P Tomlinson]

29 Hanbury Street is on the north side of the street.
The sun rises in the east.
It was just around Dawn when he entered the yard and the eastern sky would had been marginally brighter than "pitch dark." Which is all you need to be able to see shapes.
The body was against the fence on the WESTERN side of the yard. So neither the building nor fence would have cast shadow, and there was a yard to the east exposing the body to more "Sky Light".
The body would have simply been in the very dim light of the very early dawn. We're not talking about direct sunlight. We are talking amount the small amount of ambiant light from the sky.

Sitting on the steps, standing on the steps, his peripheral vision would have been able to see a human body lying against the fence. No head turning required.

If it was too dark in the yard at dawn to see a body exposed to the eastern skyline, I'd need some really compelling additional information to convince me he could see a padlock on a north facing cellar door down a flight of steps, from the door step well enough to know if it was locked or not... in less favouriable light (and yet not see a body at his feet).
Show me some evidence of him suffering from Tunnel Vision... and OK we're off to a good start... but make it better than "He MIGHT have..."

I can buy that he might have been able to see the door well enough to determine whether it was locked or not, without having to walk to a better position to see it clearly. but to say that if he could see that padlock, that he wouldn't be able to ALSO see the body under the conditions at the scene at the time, that just doesn't work.

And remember he sat on the middle stair, removed his boot, and put it back on AFTER the leather cutting (by which time it would be even lighter).
That means he leant forward and downward so that his head would have been just above his knee and about 2 feet or so from the body. No way in hell that door was blocking his view.
He would have SMELLED her at that point.


So IF he's lying and has killed her, he's a bigger bloody idiot than we are suppposed to take Lechmere for... All he needs to say is, "I quickly leaned out and looked down the right, and could make out that the padlock was fine. It was very dark and I barely would have seen anything against that other side of the yard because the door blocked my view and I was looking the other way."
It wouldn take Moriarty or Lecter levels of villainous intellect to come up with THAT story.

[Trevor Marriott]

29 Hanbury Street is on the north side of the street.
The sun rises in the east.
It was just around Dawn when he entered the yard and the eastern sky would had been marginally brighter than "pitch dark." Which is all you need to be able to see shapes.
The body was against the fence on the WESTERN side of the yard. So neither the building nor fence would have cast shadow, and there was a yard to the east exposing the body to more "Sky Light".
The body would have simply been in the very dim light of the very early dawn. We're not talking about direct sunlight. We are talking amount the small amount of ambiant light from the sky.

Sitting on the steps, standing on the steps, his peripheral vision would have been able to see a human body lying against the fence. No head turning required.

If it was too dark in the yard at dawn to see a body exposed to the eastern skyline, I'd need some really compelling additional information to convince me he could see a padlock on a north facing cellar door down a flight of steps, from the door step well enough to know if it was locked or not... in less favouriable light (and yet not see a body at his feet).
Show me some evidence of him suffering from Tunnel Vision... and OK we're off to a good start... but make it better than "He MIGHT have..."

I can buy that he might have been able to see the door well enough to determine whether it was locked or not, without having to walk to a better position to see it clearly. but to say that if he could see that padlock, that he wouldn't be able to ALSO see the body under the conditions at the scene at the time, that just doesn't work.

And remember he sat on the middle stair, removed his boot, and put it back on AFTER the leather cutting (by which time it would be even lighter).
That means he leant forward and downward so that his head would have been just above his knee and about 2 feet or so from the body. No way in hell that door was blocking his view.
He would have SMELLED her at that point.


So IF he's lying and has killed her, he's a bigger bloody idiot than we are suppposed to take Lechmere for... All he needs to say is, "I quickly leaned out and looked down the right, and could make out that the padlock was fine. It was very dark and I barely would have seen anything against that other side of the yard because the door blocked my view and I was looking the other way."
It wouldn take Moriarty or Lecter levels of villainous intellect to come up with THAT story.

But that is exactly what he told Insp Chandler so why did he then change his story, and the sad fact is that he was never challenged about changing his account. So in my opinion the police investigation and the interrogation of the witnesses were below par, to say the least, it seems as though they interviewed witnesses and simply took down what they said and did nothing more other than to present them to the coroner.

As to Cadosh they could have made enquiries with the residents of the adjoining houses to see if any occupants were out and about in their gardens at the same time as Cadosh and could have made the noise Cadosch purportedly heard.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

But that is exactly what he told Insp Chandler so why did he then change his story, and the sad fact is that he was never challenged about changing his account. So in my opinion the police investigation and the interrogation of the witnesses were below par, to say the least, it seems as though they interviewed witnesses and simply took down what they said and did nothing more other than to present them to the coroner.

As to Cadosh they could have made enquiries with the residents of the adjoining houses to see if any occupants were out and about in their gardens at the same time as Cadosh and could have made the noise Cadosch purportedly heard.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From the newspaper reports he seems to not be be the sharpest knife in the drawer if you'll pardon the expression.
Did much of his story "change" or did he simply add a layer of unsolicited detail when in court? Because there's a difference. Is that not part of the purpose of the inquest??

It would hardly be the first or last case of someone adding detail at a subsequent hearing beyond information they initially told the police. It's one of the reasons the UK Police changed the wording of the warning given at arrest.
1.) to prevent the suspect holding back information it might later rely on after prosecution have made their case, and
2.) to impart upon people the importance of not forgeting little details that might be important later.

The purpose of the inquest wasn't to determine amyones guilt or innocence. But if someone had given sufficient cause to warrant further investigation during the inquest the coroner would have instructed the police to do so, and the inquest may have reached a verdict of "Wilful murder against... Mr Witholding Witness"

He would have probably seen the body from the door.
So, if he is lying - deliberatley attempting to mislead the Police inquiry... it is to place the murder later than he was there. For that lie to stand up he needs to be very confident that no one who actually KNOWS that the body WAS there is going to be able to show him to be lying.
Therefore, unless he was party to the body being put their, why does he need to lie, and if he was party to the body being put there why invent a lie that puts him firmly where the body is, should that lie be broken?
(That sounds/reads a lot more complex than it was in my head...)

To me the two most likely reasons for the boot leather story are that either he forgot about it when questioned by police and remembered it later, OR he was nervous about telling the police that he'd been in the yard with a knife around the time of the incident, and becme more nervous about NOT bringing it up when faced with the scrutinising glare of Wynne Baxter.

[Trevor Marriott]

From the newspaper reports he seems to not be be the sharpest knife in the drawer if you'll pardon the expression.
Did much of his story "change" or did he simply add a layer of unsolicited detail when in court? Because there's a difference. Is that not part of the purpose of the inquest??

It would hardly be the first or last case of someone adding detail at a subsequent hearing beyond information they initially told the police. It's one of the reasons the UK Police changed the wording of the warning given at arrest.
1.) to prevent the suspect holding back information it might later rely on after prosecution have made their case, and
2.) to impart upon people the importance of not forgeting little details that might be important later.

The purpose of the inquest wasn't to determine amyones guilt or innocence. But if someone had given sufficient cause to warrant further investigation during the inquest the coroner would have instructed the police to do so, and the inquest may have reached a verdict of "Wilful murder against... Mr Witholding Witness"

He would have probably seen the body from the door.
So, if he is lying - deliberatley attempting to mislead the Police inquiry... it is to place the murder later than he was there. For that lie to stand up he needs to be very confident that no one who actually KNOWS that the body WAS there is going to be able to show him to be lying.
Therefore, unless he was party to the body being put their, why does he need to lie, and if he was party to the body being put there why invent a lie that puts him firmly where the body is, should that lie be broken?
(That sounds/reads a lot more complex than it was in my head...)

To me the two most likely reasons for the boot leather story are that either he forgot about it when questioned by police and remembered it later, OR he was nervous about telling the police that he'd been in the yard with a knife around the time of the incident, and becme more nervous about NOT bringing it up when faced with the scrutinising glare of Wynne Baxter.

Well, the bottom line is that if he simply did what he initially told Insp Chandler then I would suggest he could have easily missed the body and we will never know why he changed his account, and surely he must have know that by changing his account questions would be asked, but it seems none were

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

Well, the bottom line is that if he simply did what he initially told Insp Chandler then I would suggest he could have easily missed the body and we will never know why he changed his account, and surely he must have know that by changing his account questions would be asked, but it seems none were

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unless... any of the police who had seen the body had done so by walking down the same corridor and into the same yard, with the same door swinging the same way and realised that he would, indeed, have very easily seen a body even by the very early light of first dawn had one been there at the time he was.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Well, the bottom line is that if he simply did what he initially told Insp Chandler then I would suggest he could have easily missed the body and we will never know why he changed his account, and surely he must have know that by changing his account questions would be asked, but it seems none were

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There is no real evidence that he ever changed his account. Chandler did not interview him in detail at the site, and take his statement there. We know for a fact that the police checked his statement thoroughly when he made it, and could not find any fault with it, because Swanson said so.

[Trevor Marriott]

Unless... any of the police who had seen the body had done so by walking down the same corridor and into the same yard, with the same door swinging the same way and realised that he would, indeed, have very easily seen a body even by the very early light of first dawn had one been there at the time he was.

I doubt the body would have been visible in that scenario. the corridor was on one level the body was found on a lower level and not visible from the corridor

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

I doubt the body would have been visible in that scenario. the corridor was on one level the body was found on a lower level and not visible from the corridor

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But didn't he intially tell Chandler, or whoever took his statement, that he was sure that WOULD have seen the body?
Before he "changed" his story, I mean?
Chandler was the first officer on the scene. He knew the layout, he was there. He didn't have enough doubt to make it worthy of further scrutiny.
Richardson would have needed to do more than just lean round the wall to see the padlock, there was a low roof over the cellar steps, he would have needed to step down at least one step and crouch as he leant round the wall, as he stands back up his peripheral vision and position would grant him plenty of scope to see/not see what he claimed he couldn't have missed seeing.

And still, no one has explained why a simple explanation doesn't fit, and why a more cumbersome consipracy to conceal the mere possibillity of the body being there is more likely.

[Lewis C]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEk3Aj72t_I&ab_channel=%F0%9D%94%92%F0%9D% 94%A9%F0%9D%94%A1%E2%84%AD%F0%9D%94%B2%F0%9D%94%AF %F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%AC%F0%9D%94%B0%26%F0%9D%94%8 4%F0%9D%94%AB%F0%9D%94%B1%F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%AE% F0%9D%94%B2%F0%9D%94%A6%F0%9D%94%B1%F0%9D%94%A6%F0 %9D%94%A2%F0%9D%94%B0

"Video unavailable
This video contains content from Paramount Global (INTL), who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds"

Any chance of someone being able to download and re-post these videos for anyone to see?

Hi Hair Bear,

The same video is available on a different Youtube channel, except that instead of having 2 parts, the 2 parts are combined into one long video. You can try it out and see if it's viewable in your country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8VF4WKmccc

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, the bottom line is that if he simply did what he initially told Insp Chandler then I would suggest he could have easily missed the body and we will never know why he changed his account, and surely he must have know that by changing his account questions would be asked, but it seems none were

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He didn’t change anything. Chandler simply said that he hadn’t mentioned repairing his boot. Why assume that Chandler was correct? And even if he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair it doesn’t mean that he hadn’t said that he’d sat on the step. In a newspaper that came out well before the inquest his boot repair story is mentioned. And even if he hadn’t mentioned it it’s not an issue because he could have just told Chandler that he’d gone to the door to check the cellar and couldn’t possibly have missed a body.

Theres a quite intentional agenda here to paint Richardson as an untrustworthy liar when we have no reason to suspect this and it’s done purely to bolster Phillips and the earlier ToD. Later ToD by a mile. It’s glaringly obvious.

[Lewis C]

As to Cadosh they could have made enquiries with the residents of the adjoining houses to see if any occupants were out and about in their gardens at the same time as Cadosh and could have made the noise Cadosch purportedly heard.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Cadosch said that he was sure that the noise came from No. 29, so if there were also noises in other yards, they wouldn't be the same noise that Cadosch heard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It can’t really be simpler. Cadosch heard the sound of something bumping against a fence that he was pretty much standing next to. Therefore there was movement in the yard of number 29. If Chapman had been dead for an hour or more this sound couldn’t possibly have come from a human being. Animals don’t go around clumsily bumping into fences. They also tend to avoid humans (even corpses) There were no packing cases or sweeping brushes or anything that could have mysteriously fallen against the fence.

Therefore the overwhelming likelihood, close to an absolute certainty, is that this noise was connected to Chapman’s murder. Then we add the fact that he heard a “no” which he believed came from number 29 (though he may not have been certain) and we are left with no other conclusion to arrive at. Why can’t some people just accept this. Add Richardson who couldn’t possibly have missed a corpse. Then add Long seeing a woman who looked exactly like Chapman, with a man feet from number 29, at just around the same time and hey presto!

There’s plenty of mysteries in this case but this isn’t one of them. Chapman was killed around 5.30. These drawn out arguments are pointless. It should simply be accepted. How much more obvious could anything be?

[The Rookie Detective]

I'm not quite sure why the earlier TOD is pushed; when the only person who stated that it was earlier, then stated that he could have been mistaken by his own admission.

The problem that we face with the ripper murders, is that we sometimes prioritize our own favored suspect/s and then try and fit everything to suit that particular suspect.

Instead of starting with logic, reason, math, science, and probability...we choose to believe the unlikely at the expense of everything else, just to fit in with our preferred suspect.


I fail to see the reasoning behind why 3 witnesses are dismissed, in favor of a man who then subsequently admitted he may have been mistaken.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never understood it (apart from the two who require it to fit their own suspects) The evidence couldn’t point more strongly to a later ToD.

[The Rookie Detective]

I completely agree with you on this Herlock.


RD