John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

Richardson was asked about why he felt the need to deal with the problem, he replied:
"-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough."

Isn't that "addressing the problem", in your view?

Cut some leather off - wear them for a few hours, then cut more off if required?

Then why did he not cut the boot as soon as he put it on that same morning? or the day before if it was still hurting him

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

No problem George. He’d have walked around the house though and even after a few yards he could have felt that the boot was causing him discomfort.

But isn't that exactly what is being suggested by Trevor?

[JeffHamm]

Then why did he not cut the boot as soon as he put it on that same morning? or the day before if it was still hurting him

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You would have to ask him those questions Trevor. Then, when he filled in the details, you could dismiss him for changing his story.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

Hi LC,

That is a very interesting notion. Suppose Richardson cut the initial leather from his boot at home with a very sharp knife, and slipped that knife into his pocket to effect more repairs if necessary. The boot still hurts his toe and he sits on the step to try to remove some more leather. I don't believe that, having already tried to remedy the boot problem at home with a sharp knife, and failed, that he would even have contemplated trying again with a blunt, broken, rusty knife. He sits on the step, sees the body and thinks Oh #&@*, if I'm caught here, or if someone has seen me come in, or I have been seen in the yard so near the body, I could swing for murder. So he goes to the market and borrows a knife to support his boot repair story. He doesn't tell Chandler about the boot repair because he thinks that Chandler might search him and find the sharp knife, but he tells Chandler that he is sure the body wasn't there. When he falls under suspicion, and the coroner asks him to fetch the knife, he brings back a different knife that obviously could not have been used to kill Annie. Nothing can be proved against him because he didn't actually kill her....or did he?

Cheers, George

George, the problem that I have with that scenario is that if the first part of it had happened, by far the most sensible thing for Richardson to have done after leaving the yard would have been to have ditched the knife somewhere. You said in another post that he lived very close to the yard, so he could easily have dropped the knife off at his home before going to work, or he could have taken it to work and left it there. Either of those would make more sense than keeping the knife with him all the way up to meeting with Chandler, but then lying to Chandler out of fear that Chandler would search him and find the knife, when he knew that by going back to Dutfield Yard, he would be encountering policemen.

[GBinOz]

George, the problem that I have with that scenario is that if the first part of it had happened, by far the most sensible thing for Richardson to have done after leaving the yard would have been to have ditched the knife somewhere. You said in another post that he lived very close to the yard, so he could easily have dropped the knife off at his home before going to work, or he could have taken it to work and left it there. Either of those would make more sense than keeping the knife with him all the way up to meeting with Chandler, but then lying to Chandler out of fear that Chandler would search him and find the knife, when he knew that by going back to Dutfield Yard, he would be encountering policemen.

Hi LC,

Yes, I see your point. If he were thinking straight at that stage the best option was to ditch the knife. If it were found it could not be connected to him. So then, under this scenario, he would be just telling Chandler the minimum to establish that he had a reason for being there that morning. Perhaps the worry that he may have been seen in the yard came over the next couple of days. All pure speculation of course, but at least it is a new theory and not part of the discussion merry-go-round.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

You would have to ask him those questions Trevor. Then, when he filled in the details, you could dismiss him for changing his story.

- Jeff

The whole of Richardon's account from when he said he left home to when he later returned to No 29 does not stand up to close scrutiny.

He cannot be dismissed because he was called as a witness after giving a police statement but the flaws in his account have been highlighted and in my opinion, these should have been addressed by the coroner at the time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But isn't that exactly what is being suggested by Trevor?

Trevor’s asking why Richardson didn’t attempt the repair while he was still at home?

[JeffHamm]

The whole of Richardon's account from when he said he left home to when he later returned to No 29 does not stand up to close scrutiny.

He cannot be dismissed because he was called as a witness after giving a police statement but the flaws in his account have been highlighted and in my opinion, these should have been addressed by the coroner at the time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But there aren't any real flaws in his testimony. There are, of course, flaws in the information we have available, as most of the news reports are summaries, and not transcripts. Even the transcript versions have different wording, with some including questions asked, others appearing to have omitted minor sentences, and so forth.

You, of all people, should realise that what someone says to the police at the scene, when they are making themselves known as a person with information, is not going to include all of the details, particularly ones that to a witness would seem irrelevant. Richardson is not going to go through the minutia of his actions, but tell Chandler he was there at 4:50, he knows she wasn't because he checked the cellar locks. He's not going to go into fixing his boot, as that is such a trivial event that was just an after thought on his part - it's not why he went there (which was to check the lock).

And, with all the back and forth, wondering how Richardson could see the lock from the top of the backdoor stairs, given the roof over them, Wickerman has re-posted a news report that appears to be the most complete, where it clarifies that Richardson looked at the lock from the top of the cellar stairs, not the top of the stairs by the door. It is impossible for him to have missed the body in that case, but it makes absolute perfect sense of how he could see the lock from the top of the stairs - the cellar stairs not the backdoor stairs. And also, if that's what he did, the other versions also can be read that way, particularly if viewed, as Wickerman mentioned, as being the output after the story has been edited for space. He did check the lock from the top of the stairs, just not the back door stairs but the stairs that lead to the lock itself.

I know George finds Richardson's statement about not going into the yard difficult to reconcile with the idea of Richardson even being on the back steps, and so the idea of him being able to go to the cellar stairs and check the lock and still say he didn't go into the yard will be even more confounding for him. However, to me and how I would phrase things, it's perfectly sensible. "going into the yard" would mean going out where grass would grow, not just going to the steps to check the lock. The "yard" meaning the area where one would normally grow grass (though I think the backyard of Hanbury is described as having stones placed over it, rather than there being a lawn of any sort).

Anyway, given we know there was a roof over the steps to the cellar door where the lock was, a lot of the concern about Richardson's lock checking has come from wondering how he could even see the lock - while others, presuming he was at the top of the backdoor steps, have presumed the door somehow obscured his vision. But if he checked, as in the article by Wickerman, by standing at the top of and looking down the cellar steps (which is the most natural way to do it of course), then he is standing on the flags, turns and sits, takes a few moments to work on his boot again, and leaves. And the statements about not going down the steps refer to the cellar steps - he didn't go down to the lock, he could see it from the top of the steps - to the cellar not the steps from the back door.

There is nothing about the few moments of boot repair that he would think to relate to Chandler, and you know it. That detail would come out during a formal police interview, and it does not constitute him changing his story any more than if he could answer your questions about why he fixed his boot at that time would constitute him changing his story - he is providing details that would, to a witness, seem inconsequential.

If the report Wickerman has posted earlier is correct, and given it is the most normal sounding version of how he would check the cellar lock, and also how it solves the problem of how he saw the lock given the roofing, etc, it also would place him at a location where then sitting on the steps just means "he sat down more or less where he was" to give another go at that annoying bit in his boot, then his entire testimony sounds perfectly plausible, and entirely mundane and normal. Nothing to be at all suspicious about, nor is there any reason to doubt it. And most importantly, it would make it impossible for him to miss Annie if she was already there.

I know it is good to view things from multiple angles. We've been doing that for ages. But all of the "problems" that people have seen with regards to Richardson tend to vanish once we view his statement to Chandler for what it was (making contact with the police, not a formal statement in which all details emerge), and also consider Wickerman's post which places him at the top of the cellar stairs (and that clears up all the issues about how he could see the lock - he was looking right at it) and it also makes it impossible for him to not see Annie if she was there.

I know you want to argue for any alternative to any idea the police at the time had so you can be seen as the creative thinker, but there are plenty of areas where creative thinking would be usefully applied, but there are some issues where thinking creatively just looks like missing the entire scene by keeping the eyes shut.

Barring the long shot idea that an editor added the cellar stairs to Wickerman's post, then that report strongly tips the evidence in favour of Annie not being dead at 4:50 am. I think addition has to be viewed as a long shot because it would mean that Richardson checked the lock from a most unusual, and unnatural location (top of the backdoor steps; having to peer down under a roofing, etc) and the editor just happened to add words that place him in the most natural position from which to check the lock. A position which also just happens to entirely make sense of him sitting on the steps, and also justifies his certainty that Annie was not there.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

The whole of Richardon's account from when he said he left home to when he later returned to No 29 does not stand up to close scrutiny.

He cannot be dismissed because he was called as a witness after giving a police statement but the flaws in his account have been highlighted and in my opinion, these should have been addressed by the coroner at the time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes it does. The only problem that exists are imagined ones created in a vacuum caused by the absence of more information.

Richardson was having problem which was causing him discomfort - nothing problematic there.

Richardson made an unsuccessful attempt to repair it the previous day - nothing problematic there.

Richardson finds that the boot still hurt him when he put it on just before leaving for work and decides to have another attempt at repair when he gets to work - no problem there.

Just after leaving the house he puts a hand in his pocket and finds the knife that he’d used to cut up carrots which he’d put there intending to put it in the house, so he decides to have a quick go at a repair when he gets to number 29 - no problem there.

It’s possible that he usually stepped into the yard to check the cellar door but as he intended the repair job he knew that he’d have to do this while sitting and that he would be able to see the cellar door from a sitting position so he sits on the step - no problem there.

He attempts a repair as best he could but due to the bluntness of he knife he couldn’t do a sufficiently thorough job. Whether he realised that at the time or didn’t find out for certain until he continued his walk to work is unknown - no problem there.

He uses a sharper knife at work and completes the repair - no problem there.

He hears of the murder at work and returns to Hanbury Street where he’s spoken to in the passage by Chandler at around 6.45 - no problem there.

He tells Chandler, in a short interview, that he went to the back door and couldn’t possibly have missed the body had it been there. He tells him that the main reason that he went there was to check the locks but he doesn’t mention the reason that he’d sat on the steps because it wasn’t relevant and Chandler was only interested in knowing whether the body could have been there - no problem there.

He is question by a newspaper reporter on the 10th who wants more background info that Chandler did on the morning of the 8th. Richardson tells him the full story about his sitting on the step to repair his boot - no problem there.

Richardson repeats exactly the same story at the inquest on the 12th (knowing full well that Chandler would be there to give his version of events) - no problem there.

Chandler, when asked, says that Richardson hadn’t mentioned any reason for his sitting on the step (i.e. the attempted boot repair) As Richardson had been questioned earlier he couldn’t respond and so we have no way of knowing what he would have said but it’s entirely possible that he would have agreed that he hadn’t bothered mentioning the boot repair that morning - no problem there.

————————

Its only if we start from a position of Richardson being a liar that we can colour his version of events as sinister or suspicious. None of it can be disputed by evidence though. We can’t even label Chandler’s statement that he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair as a ‘conflict’ because we don’t know how Richardson would have responded. He very likely would have concurred with what Chandler had said. And although various suggestions and attempts have been made to try and show how he could have missed the body it’s clearly pretty close to i possible that he could have done so. Plus he was absolutely certain of this fact and he had no reason for lying (and even if he had lied he ignored half a dozen simple, obvious ways of proving that he couldn’t have missed a body in favour of one that didn’t, in itself, prove that he couldn’t have missed it and that actually could have drawn suspicion onto himself. How is it possible that anyone could have been so stupid?

We have no reason for doubting Richardson and as he himself said, he couldn’t possible have missed a corpse had it been there. Annie Chapman was very clearly still alive at 4.45. And she was found dead at around 6.00 so she was killed at some point between those two times. Cadosch ties it down to around 5.25/5.30. This is what the evidence tells us.

[FISHY1118]

But there aren't any real flaws in his testimony. There are, of course, flaws in the information we have available, as most of the news reports are summaries, and not transcripts. Even the transcript versions have different wording, with some including questions asked, others appearing to have omitted minor sentences, and so forth.

You, of all people, should realise that what someone says to the police at the scene, when they are making themselves known as a person with information, is not going to include all of the details, particularly ones that to a witness would seem irrelevant. Richardson is not going to go through the minutia of his actions, but tell Chandler he was there at 4:50, he knows she wasn't because he checked the cellar locks. He's not going to go into fixing his boot, as that is such a trivial event that was just an after thought on his part - it's not why he went there (which was to check the lock).

And, with all the back and forth, wondering how Richardson could see the lock from the top of the backdoor stairs, given the roof over them, Wickerman has re-posted a news report that appears to be the most complete, where it clarifies that Richardson looked at the lock from the top of the cellar stairs, not the top of the stairs by the door. It is impossible for him to have missed the body in that case, but it makes absolute perfect sense of how he could see the lock from the top of the stairs - the cellar stairs not the backdoor stairs. And also, if that's what he did, the other versions also can be read that way, particularly if viewed, as Wickerman mentioned, as being the output after the story has been edited for space. He did check the lock from the top of the stairs, just not the back door stairs but the stairs that lead to the lock itself.

I know George finds Richardson's statement about not going into the yard difficult to reconcile with the idea of Richardson even being on the back steps, and so the idea of him being able to go to the cellar stairs and check the lock and still say he didn't go into the yard will be even more confounding for him. However, to me and how I would phrase things, it's perfectly sensible. "going into the yard" would mean going out where grass would grow, not just going to the steps to check the lock. The "yard" meaning the area where one would normally grow grass (though I think the backyard of Hanbury is described as having stones placed over it, rather than there being a lawn of any sort).

Anyway, given we know there was a roof over the steps to the cellar door where the lock was, a lot of the concern about Richardson's lock checking has come from wondering how he could even see the lock - while others, presuming he was at the top of the backdoor steps, have presumed the door somehow obscured his vision. But if he checked, as in the article by Wickerman, by standing at the top of and looking down the cellar steps (which is the most natural way to do it of course), then he is standing on the flags, turns and sits, takes a few moments to work on his boot again, and leaves. And the statements about not going down the steps refer to the cellar steps - he didn't go down to the lock, he could see it from the top of the steps - to the cellar not the steps from the back door.

There is nothing about the few moments of boot repair that he would think to relate to Chandler, and you know it. That detail would come out during a formal police interview, and it does not constitute him changing his story any more than if he could answer your questions about why he fixed his boot at that time would constitute him changing his story - he is providing details that would, to a witness, seem inconsequential.

If the report Wickerman has posted earlier is correct, and given it is the most normal sounding version of how he would check the cellar lock, and also how it solves the problem of how he saw the lock given the roofing, etc, it also would place him at a location where then sitting on the steps just means "he sat down more or less where he was" to give another go at that annoying bit in his boot, then his entire testimony sounds perfectly plausible, and entirely mundane and normal. Nothing to be at all suspicious about, nor is there any reason to doubt it. And most importantly, it would make it impossible for him to miss Annie if she was already there.

I know it is good to view things from multiple angles. We've been doing that for ages. But all of the "problems" that people have seen with regards to Richardson tend to vanish once we view his statement to Chandler for what it was (making contact with the police, not a formal statement in which all details emerge), and also consider Wickerman's post which places him at the top of the cellar stairs (and that clears up all the issues about how he could see the lock - he was looking right at it) and it also makes it impossible for him to not see Annie if she was there.

I know you want to argue for any alternative to any idea the police at the time had so you can be seen as the creative thinker, but there are plenty of areas where creative thinking would be usefully applied, but there are some issues where thinking creatively just looks like missing the entire scene by keeping the eyes shut.

Barring the long shot idea that an editor added the cellar stairs to Wickerman's post, then that report strongly tips the evidence in favour of Annie not being dead at 4:50 am. I think addition has to be viewed as a long shot because it would mean that Richardson checked the lock from a most unusual, and unnatural location (top of the backdoor steps; having to peer down under a roofing, etc) and the editor just happened to add words that place him in the most natural position from which to check the lock. A position which also just happens to entirely make sense of him sitting on the steps, and also justifies his certainty that Annie was not there.
reposting
- Jeff

Hi Jeff , i going to disagree with you post , being that Wick chooses to use the Daily News inquest reporting instead of other sourses, so be it however you can see the problem.


Daily News
United Kingdom
13 September 1888

[Coroner,] Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?- [Richardson] Yes; ''but you don't need to go into the yard'' to see that. You can ''see the padlock'' of the cellar door ''from the back door steps.''!!!!!!!!!!

[Coroner]And that was the sole object you had in going there?-Yes, sir.



Now lets use the inquest testimony from the Daily Telegraph 13th Sept [You know the ''source'' that nobodys want acknowledge has any real bearing on the case ]


Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - [Inspector Chandler] 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.



John Richardson did not go down the house steps into the yard to check the lock on the cellar door .

Nor was he standing at the top of the cellar steps ''in the yard'' when he was checking the lock .


Richardsons testimony is indeed full of uncertainty and is definately unreliable in determining an accurate time of death .

[The Rookie Detective]

Richardson COULDN'T have PHYSICALLY checked the lock to cellar VISUALLY, WITHOUT going down the steps.

And so he EITHER PHYSICALLY went down the steps and checked the locked before going back up the steps and into the house...the body wasn't there.

OR

He DIDN'T VISUALLY check the lock at all and lied, meaning he COULD have remained on the steps and POTENTIALLY MISSED the body.

You can't have both.


IF he DID check the lock as he said, then Chapman wasn't there because he couldn't have missed her IF he checked the lock by moving FROM THE TOP STEP to VISUALLY SEE THE LOCK at the bottom of the cellar steps.

BUT

IF he didn't actually check the lock and lied, then he may have stayed on the top step and somehow missed the body.


I can't see how those who favor an earlier time of death can also believe he also visually checked the lock.


He EITHER...
LIED about visually checking the lock (Stayed on stairs, missed the body, earlier TOD possible)
OR
LIED about not going down the house steps to check the lock (went down into the yard, looked down and visually checked the lock, then went back up the steps and inside the house (went down steps, body not there, later TOD)



In other words,
Richardson couldn't have been completely honest, because he couldn't have checked the lock without moving down the house steps.

Unless he was a contortionist.


RD

[Wickerman]

Then why did he not cut the boot as soon as he put it on that same morning? or the day before if it was still hurting him

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because, in the real world Trevor, some discomfort only grows after several hours of rubbing in one spot.
It's like buying a new pair of shoes, walking up & down the store is not always sufficient to know whether they will rub after continuous use.
Why do I have to explain life issues to a grown man?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because, in the real world Trevor, some discomfort only grows after several hours of rubbing in one spot.
It's like buying a new pair of shoes, walking up & down the store is not always sufficient to know whether they will rub after continuous use.
Why do I have to explain life issues to a grown man?

Welcome to my world Wick

[Wickerman]

Anyway, given we know there was a roof over the steps to the cellar door where the lock was, a lot of the concern about Richardson's lock checking has come from wondering how he could even see the lock - while others, presuming he was at the top of the backdoor steps, have presumed the door somehow obscured his vision. But if he checked, as in the article by Wickerman, by standing at the top of and looking down the cellar steps (which is the most natural way to do it of course), then he is standing on the flags, turns and sits, takes a few moments to work on his boot again, and leaves. And the statements about not going down the steps refer to the cellar steps - he didn't go down to the lock, he could see it from the top of the steps - to the cellar not the steps from the back door.

- Jeff

Thankyou Jeff, also, as he says he sat on the middle step, which initially struck me many years ago as odd, most people would normally sit on the top step - but, like everyone else I let it go.

Now, it falls into place, if you remember he said the door closed by its self.
This is why he couldn't sit on the top step, the door had closed behind him closing off the top step.
This happened because he walked over to the top of the cellar steps, the house door closed shut.
He looked down the cellar steps to check the lock, and returned to the house steps, to turn around and sit on the only step available - the middle one.

You can see in this pic. that the door when closed would conceal the top step, leaving the middle step as effectively the highest step to sit on.

[Wickerman]

Richardson COULDN'T have PHYSICALLY checked the lock to cellar VISUALLY, WITHOUT going down the steps.

Hi RD, I think you missed the point.
There are two sets of steps. He went down the house steps, and stood at the top of the cellar steps, that are beside the house steps. He did not need to go out into the yard.
From the top of the cellar steps he could easily visually check if the lock was intact. And, he couldn't possibly have not seen the body over against the fence.