John Richardson

[GBinOz]

He told Chandler that he’d sat on the step and couldn’t possibly have missed a body.

No he didn't. This is purely your speculation that you have elevated to the status of evidence. You're attempting the equivalent of trying to prove a negative.

It should be noted that Chandler didn't seek out Richardson to interview him that morning. Richardson felt compelled to talk to Chandler while the latter was busy with his duties immediately after the discovery of the body and the arrival of the doctor. Here is what Richardson considered that Chandler should know.
[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.

Richardson was anxious that Chandler should know that
. he was there that morning
. he had a reason for being there
. he was only there long enough to check the lock from the stairs, and that he did not enter into the yard
. the body wasn't there when he was there.

You previously insinuated that Amelia had supported the contention that the lock could be seen from the steps only because she had spoken to her son. I am imagining the conversation:
Hey Mum, if the police question you, tell them that we had a break-in in the cellar a while back and that I have been checking the lock on the door on market day ever since. And be sure to tell them that I don't have to go into the yard to check, that I can see the lock from the steps.

Unfortunately Amelia, being old and forgetful tells the coroner:
Have you ever had anything stolen?-No, although I have sometimes left my room doors unfastened at night.

John Richardson testimony:
A Juror-His mother said there had been no robberies.
The Witness-She forgot. If you will ask her, you see that it is right.

Mrs. Richardson, recalled in her son's absence, said she had never had anything stolen from her house.
The Coroner-Have you ever lost anything from the cellar?
The Witness-Oh, yes; I have missed a saw and a hammer, but that is a long time ago. They broke the padlock of the cellar door at the time. My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.
Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

So Amelia forgot about the robbery until prompted by the coroner? - Thinks - Ahh yes, now I remember what Johnny told me to say.

So we are asked: why would Richardson invent the boot repair story when he could have used a simpler explanation? Because he had corroboration for the necessity of a boot repair story from the man at the markets from whom he borrowed the knife to actually do the boot repair. But why place yourself at the scene of a murder with a knife. Because the knife he produced was so blatantly inadequate for the purpose of cutting throats, stomachs or particularly leather, or any purpose other than perhaps cutting carrots, that it could barely be regarded as a knife.

"He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness."" - Wolf Vanderlinden

[GBinOz]

Yeah, I might be stating the bleedin' obvious here, but...
He hears a brief conversation whispered in the quiet shadows of the night.
Then he hears a bump against the fence.

No quite.

The conversation (and scuffle) was part of his original single visit to the Loo story that he told the press. None of this occurred "in the quiet shadows of the night". It occurred in daylight with the bustle of people arising from bed to go to work. He actually testified:
As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door.
So he was in the doorway with his back to the yard and the door closing behind him.

"Then he hears a bump against the fence". ?
No!
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.

So which was it? A fall against the fence, or something touching the fence?

So how do you see this going down?

Was the "No" a protestation by Annie as Jack commenced his attack....with a witness only feet away? Did he wait until Cadosch returned 4 minutes later, spent time in the Loo and was returning towards the house before killing her (with a witness only feet away), so that Cadosch heard her body fall against the fence? Or had he already killed her and persisted in his mutilations after Cadosch came out the back door for the second time, until Cadosch returned from the Loo, at which stage Jack tried to hide and touched the fence?

[FISHY1118]

This is a view of number 31. The layout is simply mirrored, The yellow line shows where a builder would put the frame (in line with the window frames) and the purple line shows where the door would sit (roughly in line with the sash window). The hinges would be on the afrthest side from the back door for the door to open against the cellar (foundation) wall, meaning the lock would be on the side nearer to the back door. Increasing the angle someon would need to lean out to see it.
The roof of the lean-to would also obscure a standing view from the doorway and would require someone to step down to the middle or bottom step and crouch. Essentially adopting a squat or seated position on the middle step. To avoid tiping over one foot would need to be on the botom flags of the stair.

I dont think your theory regarding the hinges and the lock as to which side they where on can be proven by your post, or for that matter make much different . Given the fact that Mrs Richardsons testified her son could see the lock from the steps without going into the yard , John Richardson himself told Chandler''he came to the back door checked the lock was ok and then went back to work'' ,he did not go into the yard to do this . All this leaves up no closer to an accurate t.o.d where John Richardsons testimony goes .

[FISHY1118]

Perhaps you should try actually reading the content of what Trevor said instead of simply cheerleading. If you had then you couldn’t fail to see it for what it is.

Perhaps you should try consentrating on the evidence and not so much as when two or more posters happen to agree with each others assessment of the Chapman murder and t.o.d , you might just learn something new , But i wont hold my breath .

[Wickerman]

No quite.

The conversation (and scuffle) was part of his original single visit to the Loo story that he told the press. None of this occurred "in the quiet shadows of the night". It occurred in daylight with the bustle of people arising from bed to go to work. He actually testified:
As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door.
So he was in the doorway with his back to the yard and the door closing behind him.

"Then he hears a bump against the fence". ?
No!
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.

So which was it? A fall against the fence, or something touching the fence?

So how do you see this going down?

Was the "No" a protestation by Annie as Jack commenced his attack....with a witness only feet away? Did he wait until Cadosch returned 4 minutes later, spent time in the Loo and was returning towards the house before killing her (with a witness only feet away), so that Cadosch heard her body fall against the fence? Or had he already killed her and persisted in his mutilations after Cadosch came out the back door for the second time, until Cadosch returned from the Loo, at which stage Jack tried to hide and touched the fence?

Hi George.

Given the questions you raise, I wonder if you had considered reading Cadoche's own words, to a reporter.
Sometimes, inquest testimony comes across somewhat sanitized, so if it can be supplemented by his story in his own words, it can often smooth out some issues.

"Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings, as if between two people. He caught the word "No," and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice and went to his work".
Daily News, 10 Sept. 1888.

[Lewis C]

...buggered this and the previous post up in the editing...
Sorry.


The point of the time of death surely rules certain suspects IN and others OUT?

Hi A P,

Yes, or at least it affects the strength of certain suspects, above all, the man that this thread is named after. If the later TOD is right, Richardson is a very weak suspect. In fact, here's a question for anyone, has it been proven that Richardson went to work after being in the yard, providing him with an alibi if the later TOD is right? Even if not, I see very little reason to suspect him if the later TOD is right. However, if the early TOD is right, I think that would make him one of the leading suspects.

Charles Cross is not as weak a suspect with the early TOD, because in that case it could have happened when he was on his way to work, but with the later TOD, he would have been at work when it happened unless he had the day off, and I don't think he had many days off during the week.

Druitt had a cricket match later in the day that Chapman was murdered, and while he doesn't have an alibi either way, with an early TOD he would have had more time to clean up and get a little rest before his cricket match. So he's a slightly stronger suspect with an early TOD than with a late one.

Long's witness status is also affected by the TOD. With an early TOD, she has no value at all as a witness. With a later TOD, it's very possible that she saw JtR, even if she didn't get a very good view of him, so in that case she is at least worth talking about.

[FISHY1118]

Echo Sep 19:
Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

m

Excellent post George.

Probably one of the most important point in the entire debate George ,it speakes volummes that which no one has been able to give an adequate answer, as to why at the time of the murders that the medical doctor and the investigating authorities at the time thought that the body was already there when Richardson stood on the step to check the lock.

[FISHY1118]

Exactly right. Judge on merit. Cadosch heard the ‘no’ which he believed came from number 29. So he was already alerted to a presence there. Even if the ‘no’ had come from elsewhere Cadosch still believed it came from number 29. He comes t a second time, aware in his mind that there has been someone in the yard of number 29 but this time he doesn’t here something floating on the breeze like a word. He hears a noise against a wooden fence that he was standing next to. Could he have been wrong. I’d say unlikely in the extreme.

Too much limbo dancing and contortion going on to deliberately try and dismiss witnesses so that the Doctors estimation can be shoehorned into place.

Id say your You’re misreading and misunderstanding Herlock

[FISHY1118]

I’ll very politely ask those that think that John Richardson was a desperate liar to consider exactly what it is being suggested. So, to review.

John Richardson tells us that he’d been having trouble with his boot and had already cut some leather from it to try and cure the problem. That morning, before setting out, he’d been cutting up some carrots for a rabbit and had slipped the knife into his pocket. Nothing remotely unlikely about that of course as we’ve all done something similar at some point. He had possibly intended to leave it in the kitchen when he got back inside the house but got distracted by something or he simply forgot.

When he started walking he discovered that the boot was still causing him some discomfort so clearly he hadn’t done a good enough repair job the day before. He wasn’t a Cobbler of course so it’s entirely understandable that his first attempt might have been too cautious or ineffective. Obviously he would have been very wary of cutting away too much leather and ruining his boot. So too little is always better than too much. We have no way of knowing at what point he decided to try again at his mother’s house but perhaps he initially intended to wait until he’d arrived at work but when he found the knife in his pocket he decided to do it there?

He was going to his mothers to check on the cellar doors. We have absolutely no way of knowing how he usually did this. Whether he did it from standing in the doorway or whether he usually stepped into the yard but, by the time that he arrived he would have known that he was going to try and fix his boot and that it wouldn’t have made sense to have attempted this while standing up. Being aware of the layout he would have known that he could see the lock on the cellar door from a position sitting on the steps so he simply sat down, looked to his right and checked the door then commenced his effort at repair. He does the best that he could with the knife in his possession, puts his boot back on and leaves. As he continues his walk to work he finds that his boot still hurts (possibly because the blade wasn’t sharp enough to cut sufficient leather off or that it was too short) so he intends to do a better job at work where a much sharper knife is available.

After being told about the murder he returns voluntarily to Hanbury Street. Maybe he was concerned that it might have been his mother that had been killed? At some point he sees the body from a neighbours garden. Chandler speaks to him at around 6.45 in the passageway so at a very busy time for Chandler and just 15 minutes after Phillips had arrived. So it’s a short interview (remember Chandler was at the mortuary a few minutes after 7.00) Richardson tells Chandler that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there - and he knew exactly where it lay and exactly how much floor space it took up and exactly the properties (and position at the time) of the door. Light was also no issue.

At the inquest Chandler (Telegraph version with direct quotes) said, when asked, that Richardson hadn’t mentioned repairing his boot. Can we assume that this was a sinister lie? Why would the reason that he’d sat on the step be in the slightest way relevant to Chandler? Clearly it wouldn’t have been so not mentioning it is a complete non-issue. Richardson did mention it in a newspaper on the 10th though. Probably because the reporter spoke to him at greater length than Chandler had time to and as Jeff pointed out, information doesn’t always come out fully straight away….it often requires further questioning and just because an extra detail might surface later this in no means deception. So why is deception assumed in this case?

Then we have to ask ourselves why he would have lied? How would he have benefitted and why he might have felt the need? Why was it vital for him to show that the body could not to have been there? Did he suspect that Chandler was suspicious about him? It seems unlikely because Chandler was asking him specifically if he could have innocently missed it. So he could have simply agreed that he ‘could’ have missed it with no detrimental effects for him. So what possible reason could there have been for him to have been so desperate that he was willing to lie to the police? And let’s not forget, by the time of the inquest he’d had plenty of time to think, so would he really have wanted to be exposed in the Press as a liar or an idiot if the killer had been caught and it was discovered that Chapman was actually killed before he’d arrived at number 29? This doesn’t sound remotely likely to me. Others will come to their own opinions of course.

We don’t know how intelligent Richardson was so let’s suggest average intelligence. No genius; no moron. So how difficult could it possibly have been for Richardson to have found a way of convincing everyone that he couldn’t have missed a body…..apart from one that, without being in any way forced into it, immediately brings suspicion on himself by placing himself at the scene of a knife murder in possession of a knife? Could he possibly have found a worse way? It’s difficult to come up with one (close to impossible actually) especially when you consider that the alternatives that would have been easily apparent to a moderately intelligent toddler. 1. He’d pushed to door open back to the fence, 2. He stepped onto the flags to check the lock, 3. He gone to the outside loo and couldn’t have missed a body coming back, 4. He’d gone to check the shed, 5. He’d gone into the yard for a smoke.

It’s just not credible that he’d have missed these childishly obvious (and totally effective, unlike sitting on the steps which introduces the possibility of the body being behind the door!) explanations in favour of the most incriminating one possible.

Why would anyone even suspect that this was true but is actually what’s being suggested here. And it’s being suggested simply to make Phillips earlier ToD fit the evidence. It’s not plausible. Not even remotely plausible. I don’t think I’ve ever read such a concerted effort to demonise, denigrate and dismiss witnesses in this case as I’ve read for Richardson and Cadosch.

All witnesses aren’t mistaken. All witnesses aren’t unreliable or unsafe. All witnesses aren’t looking for their 15 minutes of fame. So let’s discard the tedious generalities and assess the evidence as a whole. And it plainly and obviously points to Richardson telling the truth. Could he have missed the body perhaps? I’d say it’s as near to impossible as it’s possible to get.

Again id say to that

''You’re Misreading and Misunderstanding herlock''.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

Given the questions you raise, I wonder if you had considered reading Cadoche's own words, to a reporter.
Sometimes, inquest testimony comes across somewhat sanitized, so if it can be supplemented by his story in his own words, it can often smooth out some issues.

"Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings, as if between two people. He caught the word "No," and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice and went to his work".
Daily News, 10 Sept. 1888.

Hi Jon,

That is in fact the single visit to the Loo story to which I was referring. In this version he is presented as returning to the house from the Loo, hearing a conversation and the word "No", followed by a scuffle and a noise of a falling against the palings. This is exactly what most would think happened to Annie - a short conversation, Annie realises she is in trouble, Jack kills her and she falls against the fence. Jack is unaware of Albert because the latter has been in the Loo, and only realises his presence when Albert reaches a point near the fence. So why didn't he stick to this uncomplicated story?

Come the inquest his testimony is sanitised, or watered down. Now there is no conversation or scuffle, just the word "No", and he is now in his doorway with the door closing between him and the yard so he is unsure of the direction of that exclamation. He testifies that he returned to the Loo after 4 minutes, and spent an un-stated length of time attending to his ablutions, before heading back to the house when he heard either a fall or a touch against the fence. He seems to have backed off a strong story in favour of a far weaker story, but that is what he testified under oath. His general demeanour at the inquest I found almost apologetic, in that he stated that he really didn't hear anything unusual, and even offered a possible reason for the noise against the fence.

So why the difference. Did he allow what he thought may have happened colour his early interview with the press, and did he then reflect on his actual experience and decide to water down his testimony? If we accept his testimony at the inquest we have to concede that Jack stuck with his task in daylight after a witness that had been within feet of the start of his attack, returned to the scene of that attack. Jack wouldn't have known how much Albert had seen or heard, and couldn't have anticipated that Albert would just ignore the situation and amble off to work.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

m

Excellent post George.

Probably one of the most important point in the entire debate George ,it speakes volummes that which no one has been able to give an adequate answer, as to why at the time of the murders that the medical doctor and the investigating authorities at the time thought that the body was already there when Richardson stood on the step to check the lock.

Thanks Fishy. It seems to me that their conclusion was reached by physically determining what could be seen from the seated position that Richardson claimed to have assumed. I also see the fact that Phillips taking exception to Richardson's evidence points to the likelihood that he meant his so called caveat to apply to the "probably more" part of his estimate, not to the "at least two hours" part. Personally, I think that the entire boot repair story was an embellishment, and I still believe that Richardson deserves closer scrutiny, but that is JMO. That said, one has to look at all the factors in determining a preponderance of evidence, and I have yet to join the 98% brigade, with my probability opinion meter still hovering just past centre.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

manyat he meant his so called caveat to apply to the "probably more" part of his estimate, not to the "at least two hours" part. Personally, I think that the entire boot repair story was an embellishment, and I still believe that Richardson deserves closer scrutiny, but that is JMO. That said, one has to look at all the factors in determining a preponderance of evidence, and I have yet to join the 98% brigade, with my probability opinion meter still hovering just past centre.

Cheers, George

The fact remains George, and this has been the topic of much debate as to what was said at the inquest and alternatively was was said in the many press report by the witnesses. The problem of course lies with the way in which its all interpreted with so much differences in the wording between both sources ,how in gods names could anyone can cling to a definative t.o.d ? . My meters lower than yours im afraid. JMO of course.

[GBinOz]

- Then we have a policeman who apparently described a hard felt hat, but changed it to a Deerstalker - why?

Hi Jon,

There were hard felt deerstalkers as well as the soft cloth version. Smith testified to a hard felt deerstalker.

https://www.google.com/search?q=a+hard%2C+felt%2C+deerstalker%2C+dark+hat &rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU841AU843&oq=a+hard%2C+felt%2C+deerstalker% 2C+d ark+hat&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3&sourceid =chrome& ie=UTF-8

I seem to recall reading that the hard felt version was actually used in country areas when stalking deer, where as the soft cloth version was more often found in the metropolitan areas.

Interesting bit of trivia about Smith. According to the A-Z he was very disillusioned and bitter about the way he was treated in the Ripper case. His son formed the impression that there had been a royal connection and some kind of cover-up which had left a bad taste in his father's mouth.

Cheers, George

[A P Tomlinson]

I dont think your theory regarding the hinges and the lock as to which side they where on can be proven by your post, or for that matter make much different . Given the fact that Mrs Richardsons testified her son could see the lock from the steps without going into the yard , John Richardson himself told Chandler''he came to the back door checked the lock was ok and then went back to work'' ,he did not go into the yard to do this . All this leaves up no closer to an accurate t.o.d where John Richardsons testimony goes .

OK, the photo doesn't show which way the door opened.
But thousands upon thousands of precendents do.
The Victorian architects weren't stupid. Doors opening INTO corners are almost always (I'd say always but there is bound to be a photo somewhere on the internet by some plonker who hung one the wrong way... but in normal, everyday construction of normal, everyday houses... it's ALWAYS.) hinged against the returning wall, so that the door doesn't open into the middle of the room. Unless there is an architectural reason not to (such as having two doors in the same corner, which is generally a bad design error unless the gaps were never intended to have doors... and in this case that would mean a door through to the cellar of number 25. Hanging doors that way is and has been standard practise for centuries. the supporting wall of the foundations would be between the two houses. Therefore the cellar wall falls in line with the rest of the walls dividing the properties.
Cellars are small and cramped, having a door swing open into the middle of the room is impractical to the point of being needlessly stupid when all you need to do is hang it the proper way and you suddenly have more space. When the house was built the door would have been hung the proper way. And it would require a deliberate rehanging of the door involving the reversing of fittings to accomodate either rehanging the existing door, or a replacement, into a more obtrusive position. You can't do it by accident, is what that means.
Go find a door in a corner of a room in wherever you are, it will be hung the way I describe. Imagine it opening IN to the room and how much of a pain in the arse it would be moving packing cases in and out of that door.
Remember that because of the depth of the brickwork of the cellar entrance and position of the frame - that cellar door, hung inward will NOT open wide enough to get anywhere NEAR flat with the outside wall, maybe a few degrees past 90...

If this is merely to get the padlock into a better viewing position to keep Richardson in the back-door frame and not coming down any of the steps, you need a better argument than that the door might have opened in the way I need it to.

But just remember... if you decide that you are sticking with the padlock being on the FAR side of the door, despite everything I just said... you now have to explain how he was able to see it from his standing position at the top of the stairs THROUGH the roof of the lean-to that would have absolutely blocked that sight line.
I won't enter into any debate questioning THAT because it's ridiculous


The steps are further out than the doorway. They go all the way down to the floor...
We know the door hinges were loose and it swung freely. A push would open it further than a stiff door that would need an elbow or shoulder into it, and would remain where it was pushed open to, because of rusty hinges.
Common sense tells us he can't see the lock from a position standing at the top by the door frame. The recess, and the lean-to roof show that.
If he is on the steps (plural) and leaning or sitting down he can see pretty much all of the cellar door just by leaning. The door would have swung back on to him and he would have nudged it away, exposing the area where the body was even further.
He can very easily see a body in the yard if its there.

Boots, knives and carrots not withstanding. Whether he sat down and played with his boot, or had a phantom memory of boot repair like Fleetwood Mac is suggesting Cadosche had with the bump on the fence. (at the location a body was later shown to have slid down a fence) He would have been able to see the body had it been there.


The position of the lock is being debated to try and suggest that he stayed at the very top and could merely glance down with the back door only slightly open and therefore blocking his view of the western side of the yard.
But that isn't what he said. That's a contrivance to fabricate doubt when what he said is really straight forward.

"...I was there altogether about two minutes. It was not quite light, but I could see all over the place. I could not have failed to have noticed the deceased, had she been there then."

I know people are going to great pains to exclude this on the basis of it being a "different" or "Changed" story to the one he told Chandler. But Unless Chandler's entire interaction was "I went to the house that morning about a quarter to five. I came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to work." with ONLY those details, and no elaboration of any details at all.
Chandler doesn't expand on whether this was a one off behaviour, or whether it was a daily ritual, or whether his times in doing this varied day to day... does that mean he didn't ask those things? I don't think so.
I think that sounds like a Police oficer giving a summary of relevant details of the time he was there, and nothing he says after that contradicts what he said, but just elaborates on them. He doesn't give a different time, he doesn't change WHY he was there. Nothing is materially different. He simply adds more detail to the two minutes he spent there while NOT seeing a body at his feet.
Remember Chandler doesn't give the NAMES of the men who fetched him to the scene. And Baxter doesn't press him on it.

All Chandler had to do was look at the yard from the top of the steps to easily establish any level of doubt in Richardson's story.
The only person who expressed doubt was a jury member who hadn't seen the location of the body in relation to viewing it from the steps. Chandler HAD and he expressed no doubt at all. Given Philips' estimate of the time of death, any discrepancy would have been of great importance. Any doubt would have mattered. Chandler expressed none at all.
Because HE had stood on the steps and seen the body.

(John Davis: "Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the lefthand recess.")

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Jon,

That is in fact the single visit to the Loo story to which I was referring. In this version he is presented as returning to the house from the Loo, hearing a conversation and the word "No", followed by a scuffle and a noise of a falling against the palings. This is exactly what most would think happened to Annie - a short conversation, Annie realises she is in trouble, Jack kills her and she falls against the fence. Jack is unaware of Albert because the latter has been in the Loo, and only realises his presence when Albert reaches a point near the fence. So why didn't he stick to this uncomplicated story?

Come the inquest his testimony is sanitised, or watered down. Now there is no conversation or scuffle, just the word "No", and he is now in his doorway with the door closing between him and the yard so he is unsure of the direction of that exclamation. He testifies that he returned to the Loo after 4 minutes, and spent an un-stated length of time attending to his ablutions, before heading back to the house when he heard either a fall or a touch against the fence. He seems to have backed off a strong story in favour of a far weaker story, but that is what he testified under oath. His general demeanour at the inquest I found almost apologetic, in that he stated that he really didn't hear anything unusual, and even offered a possible reason for the noise against the fence.

So why the difference. Did he allow what he thought may have happened colour his early interview with the press, and did he then reflect on his actual experience and decide to water down his testimony? If we accept his testimony at the inquest we have to concede that Jack stuck with his task in daylight after a witness that had been within feet of the start of his attack, returned to the scene of that attack. Jack wouldn't have known how much Albert had seen or heard, and couldn't have anticipated that Albert would just ignore the situation and amble off to work.

Cheers, George

George. that's not HIS story.

"Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings, as if between two people. He caught the word "No," and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice and went to his work".

It's the summary of his statement to a reporter BY a reporter. The material points are the same as in the testimony except for the phrase "...fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle..."
If anything his statement to the effect, "...They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings..." suggests the noise was more than a slight brush against the fence.

I'm going to go away and have a long hard think about whether the reporter possibly amalgamated Mr C's two trips into one, (maybe for brevity) or whether Albert had any possible reason to not want to disclose the subject of his urinary tract situation to a member of The Fourth Estate...