John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again we’re disappearing down a rabbit-hole of nitpicking caused by the varying versions that we have left to us. We can’t deduce at what point in the proceedings that morning that Richardson saw the body from a neighbouring garden but this in itself isn’t suspicious of course. Chandler said that he first spoke to Richardson at around 6.45 so 15 minutes after Phillips arrived so is it likely that he would have allowed Richardson into the yard whilst Phillips was at work? If he was concerned about his mother, which would have been entirely natural of course, it has to be possible that the police already knew that Mrs Richardson was alive and well and could have told him so. They could even have told him to stay where he was until an officer went inside and checked for him (before Chandler was ready to speak to him.) Then after his short conversation with Chandler he went to a neighbours yard for a look before the body was removed to the mortuary (at sometime around 7.00) Nothing about this is remotely suspicious unless we start imagining things.

Likewise the knife. It was clearly an old knife but why is this suspicious? We appear to be going down the “well if it was me I’d have….” road which is fraught with the potential for making erroneous assumptions. Richardson used it in the yard purely because it was the knife that he had on him at the time. Why are we reading so much into this entirely banal event. Richardson gave an entirely plausible explanation for why he had it and we don’t have any reason to dispute it. As we have seen, when we take a breath and stand back, John Richardson had absolutely no reason to lie. What kind of mind-boggling dimwit would have used this story just to prove that the body wasn’t there when he could have said “I stood on the step and pushed the door all the way back to the fence.” Game over. Or the other childishly obvious things that he could have said. But no, it’s being suggested that he made up the story about cutting up carrots, absent-mindedly putting the knife in his pocket, previously attempting to repair his boot and then making a second attempt on the steps. It beats me how anyone can make this claim. I’m sorry but it’s simply a case of getting carried away in an attempt to prove that a Victorian Doctors had medical skills that didn’t exist in 1888!

Richardson was transparently telling the truth and it’s absolutely certain that he couldn’t have missed a mutilate corpse had it been there. Look at the photo that Fishy posted recently. How can anyone, looking at that, try and claim that he could have missed a corpse? It’s a triumph of wish-thinking over reason, evidence and common sense.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

The backdoor steps and cellar steps are next to each other. So if he's looking down the cellar steps he is also at the backdoor steps, just at the bottom of them. And that location is not "going into the yard", "going into the yard" is like Cadosche, who has to cross the "yard" to get to the loo. Richardson just goes down the steps, he doesn't go "into the yard". One can debate the technicality of what constitutes "the yard", but people don't speak that way. Richardson going to the bottom of the backdoor stairs, so he can see from the top of the cellar stairs, is something that makes perfect sense to me when he says he didn't go "into the yard". It's a language use thing, which George and I have discussed before and for him simply going out of the door is what he thinks of as "going into the yard"; a subtle but important difference between Australian and Nova Scotian English in how he and I understand that phrase.

Basically, what I'm getting at, is that Richardson standing in a location at the bottom of the backdoor steps, and the top of the cellar steps, is the only location that makes sense of all the reports. They all fit with him standing in that location, and if we place him elsewhere, some reports continue to make sense and others do not. That means our placing him elsewhere becomes the source of the conflict between the reports - it is not the reports per se, it is our assumption that is the source of conflict. When we consider him where I'm suggesting, then there is no longer conflict, indicating that this placement is the most consistent with all of the reports - and it is one that doesn't not require unusual behaviour by Richardson to check the lock by bending way over. And because it is Chandler that describes the location as the top of the cellar steps, and Richardson references the backdoor steps, the difference in reference for this location comes down to different people describing the location itself. Which means if we place him on the backdoor steps we need to explain why Chandler "gets it wrong", but if we place him at the bottom of the backdoor steps, which is at the top of the cellar steps, all the reports are accurate.

He might only do that "bending over to check" if he was in a rush to get to work, but we know he wasn't because he takes the time to work on his boot. Checking from the bottom of the doorsteps at the top of the cellar steps is the simplest way to check the lock, it means by saying he can see them from the back door steps is accurate, and it also means if there were a problem he would be on his way to check if anything were stolen again.

Wickerman's post contains new information that needs to be used to re-evaluate things. The goal, after all, is to understand what happened, not find a way to continue to believe one way or the other. I've generally been open to the various ideas, and while the checking from the top of backdoor steps has always struck me as weird given the roofing over the cellar entrance, it seemed there were some arguments to continue to include it. However, Wickerman's find make that odd behaviour inconsistent with this new information, and at the same time, it resolves a lot of the other debates (as to how he could see the lock given the roofing, and so forth). When new information single-handedly resolves a number of issues, that is a good sign that that information is pointing to the actual events.

- Jeff

''Basically, what I'm getting at, is that Richardson standing in a location at the bottom of the backdoor steps, and the top of the cellar steps, is the only location that makes sense of all the reports.''



Not this one Jeff . Richardson himself indicates, he didnt do what you have suggested .



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.''!!!!!!!!!!


''From them'', Not at ''the botton'' of them.


If you are indeed correct with what you suggest Richardson did , the Richardson either lied to or misled the coroner.

[Trevor Marriott]

''Basically, what I'm getting at, is that Richardson standing in a location at the bottom of the backdoor steps, and the top of the cellar steps, is the only location that makes sense of all the reports.''



Not this one Jeff . Richardson himself indicates, he didnt do what you have suggested .



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.''!!!!!!!!!!


''From them'', Not at ''the botton'' of them.


If you are indeed correct with what you suggest Richardson did , the Richardson either lied to or misled the coroner.

I have said the same thing time and again, he simply as stated he opened the back door looked to his right saw the lock was intact and then went on his way.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

I have said the same thing time and again, he simply as stated he opened the back door looked to his right saw the lock was intact and then went on his way.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Inspector Chandler made that perfectly clear under oath didnt he ?.

[Hair Bear]

We can’t deduce at what point in the proceedings that morning that Richardson saw the body from a neighbouring garden

"I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came"

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Richardson was transparently telling the truth and it’s absolutely certain that he couldn’t have missed a mutilate corpse had it been there. Look at the photo that Fishy posted recently. How can anyone, looking at that, try and claim that he could have missed a corpse? It’s a triumph of wish-thinking over reason, evidence and common sense.

That is, assuming he really was sitting on a doorstep at that time.

There was no need for him even to have gone down the steps if the purpose of his visit was merely to check the padlock, and if he left within two minutes of arriving then he could hardly have done much else than viewed the yard from the top of the steps.

[GBinOz]

This is a screen dump of the mock up of #29 done for the BBC documentary - Jack the Ripper - The Case Reopened.





It is interesting to see the small size of the actual yard.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have said the same thing time and again, he simply as stated he opened the back door looked to his right saw the lock was intact and then went on his way.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And that’s simply an invented scenario. Richardson sat on the step and, as he said, cannot possibly have missed the body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Inspector Chandler made that perfectly clear under oath didnt he ?.

No he didn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is, assuming he really was sitting on a doorstep at that time.

There was no need for him even to have gone down the steps if the purpose of his visit was merely to check the padlock, and if he left within two minutes of arriving then he could hardly have done much else than viewed the yard from the top of the steps.

He worked on his boot whilst sitting in the step. Exactly as he said at the Inquest and as was reported in the press on the 10th (2 days before he testified at the inquest)

[JeffHamm]

''Basically, what I'm getting at, is that Richardson standing in a location at the bottom of the backdoor steps, and the top of the cellar steps, is the only location that makes sense of all the reports.''



Not this one Jeff . Richardson himself indicates, he didnt do what you have suggested .



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.''!!!!!!!!!!


''From them'', Not at ''the botton'' of them.


If you are indeed correct with what you suggest Richardson did , the Richardson either lied to or misled the coroner.

Fishy,

Richardson's idea of "going into the yard" means "going out into the main area" not just going "outside". It's different.

and "from the backdoor steps" is entirely consistent with what people say if they are standing in the vicinity of the backdoor steps, it just indicates they mean "near", not "on", the steps. If I say "I can see the harbour from my house" it doesn't mean I have to be in my house, it just landmarks the area.

We have two people, one speaks to locate them in the vicnity of the backdoor steps, the other the cellar steps. The only location that satisfies both is at the bottom of the first and the top of the second. And that location doesn't allow for Richardson to have missed the body if it were there.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

This is a screen dump of the mock up of #29 done for the BBC documentary - Jack the Ripper - The Case Reopened.





It is interesting to see the small size of the actual yard.

Cheers, George

Makes it hard to imagine how Richardson could fail to see her under any circumstances doesn't it?

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

That is, assuming he really was sitting on a doorstep at that time.

There was no need for him even to have gone down the steps if the purpose of his visit was merely to check the padlock, and if he left within two minutes of arriving then he could hardly have done much else than viewed the yard from the top of the steps.

There was a canopy over the cellar steps which prevents anyone from seeing the cellar door from the top of the house steps.
So, he had to go forward away from the house a little in order to see the lock. It's the interview with Chandler that clarifies the issue in my view, for he says Richardson told him he did not go down the cellar steps, that he could see the lock from the top step.

The reporters taking down Richardson's testimony seem to have been confused between the house steps and the cellar steps.
The claim that he didn't go down the house steps is clearly an error due to the fact he sat on the middle step with his feet on the yard flags (stones). He had to go down the house steps to stand in the yard, in order to sit on the middle step.
And, the reason he could only sit on the middle step is, I believe, because the yard door closed behind him, closing off the top step, as verified by the photo.

When standing at the bottom of the house steps he is beside the cellar steps, in fact beside the top cellar step, where he can see the padlock of the cellar door without going down the cellar steps.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There was a canopy over the cellar steps which prevents anyone from seeing the cellar door from the top of the house steps.

Coroner: Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.

Richardson: I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-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.







Where exactly would the padlock have been?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Chandler said that he’d first spoken to Richardson at around 6.45.

Robert Mann said that he took possession of the body at the mortuary at 7.00. He didn’t say ‘around’ but of course I allow for a margin for error (but in this instant it’s not particularly important.) But given a 5 minute travel time between Hanbury Street and the mortuary we can estimate that the body was removed from the yard at around 6.55-7.00. Chandler got to the mortuary a few minutes after 7.00 to find the body already there.

We know that Richardson said that he’d seen the body from a neighbours yard but he didn’t say that he saw it being taken away - not conclusive evidence that he didn’t see it being taken away of course but you would think it the kind of detail that he might have mentioned had he seen it. All this would tell us, if correct, is what we already knew. That this was a short interview not conducted in the most favourable of conditions. He could have seen the body before seeing Chandler of course but it would seem likelier perhaps that he’d have gone to number 29 first.

What is also worth pointing out is that when Richardson spoke to Chandler it’s far from certain that he would have received Phillips ToD estimate yet. Phillips arrived at 6.30 and also checked the yard so we can’t be sure when he felt informed enough to have made his estimate. Added to this we can’t be certain that Chandler ever informed Richardson of Phillips estimate so it’s possible (even probable) that Richardson didn’t know of the estimation when he was questioned by Chandler. So why would he have needed to invent a story to prove that he couldn’t have missed the body.