John Richardson

[Lewis C]

As we have pursued this discussion I have been noticing some facts about John Richardson. White male about 35, brown moustache, absent father, works for mother who is deeply religious, regularly has a problem with prostitutes using his mother's premises as their "office", lives and works near a profiling hotspot. I think he has advanced a notch on my persons worthy of further consideration scale.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Are you saying that working for his mother makes him seem more worthy of further consideration as a suspect, or his mother being deeply religious does, or both?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now that I take a look at the woman more closely I think you may be spot on. The man's attire is a bit more timeless. Because he is an older gentleman perphaps he's had those clothes for many, many years.

I have a lot of Stones and AC/DC graphics' Tees so I think we share the same kind of 'sophistication' when it comes to fashion.

Great bands Harry.

As you say, the older man isn’t going be interested in fashion unlike the younger woman (difficult to tell her age but possibly a daughter or granddaughter) I just dropped in at my mom’s and showed her the picture and she suspects 60’s too for the woman’s dress

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Are you saying that working for his mother makes him seem more worthy of further consideration as a suspect, or his mother being deeply religious does, or both?

Hi LC,

Neither. These are just items from the profiler lists from the likes of Bond and the FBI - dominant mother figure, religious mania.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Hi LC,

Neither. These are just items from the profiler lists from the likes of Bond and the FBI - dominant mother figure, religious mania.

Cheers, George

I think that religious mania would be on the part of the killer, not his mother. Not that I think that would be a factor either way in this case.

[JeffHamm]

Given Richardson's statement he could see the padlock from the backdoor steps, and Chandler's statement that Richardson viewed the lock from the top of the cellar steps, combined with the covering over the steps, it seems that Richardson stood somewhere in the orange "splotch" I've added to the photo of the mock up that George posted (I added the backdoor stairs as well for clarity).

By standing roughly in that area, he can easily say, with hand on heart, he can see the lock from the backdoor steps - he's in the immediate vicinity of the backdoor steps which is what people mean when they say such things. He is also in a location that Chandler can accurately describe as being "at the top of the cellar steps", because again, from that location one is looking down the steps, and is in the immediate vicinity of the top of the cellar steps. Both descriptions are accurate for that location, and that location puts him in a position where the canopy would not obscure his view of the lock on the door at the bottom. It also means he is in the position where sitting on the steps is entirely convenient with regards to fixing his boot. It also is a location that makes it impossible for him not to have seen Annie, if she was there.

Moreover, Richardson saying he didn't "go out into the yard" is also accurate, that location doesn't require one to go out into the yard. The people in the image have gone "out into the yard", but Richardson stepping just off the back steps to look down to the cellar has not gone "out into the yard". Note, going "out into the yard" is a phrase that doesn't quite translate to "being outside in the yard", and part of the confusion, I think, is that technically one could say even being on the backdoor steps means you're in the yard, but that's a slightly different concept from going "out into the yard". As Wickerman points out above, "going out into the yard" requires going into the main area (i.e. where the people in the image are), so staying beside the stairs doesn't constitute going out into the yard. The "border", of course, is pretty fuzzy and it's not like there's a strict line one would draw, but I think someone who exited the house and went straight down to the cellar could honestly say they "didn't go out into the yard, they just went straight to the cellar.", but someone who went to the loo (the water closet) would have to say they went out into the yard to get there.

In short, that rough orange region is the only location that is consistent with all of the various descriptions we have of where Richardson was when he viewed the lock, it removes the issue of how he could see it with the canopy, it is consistent with his statement that he "did not go out into the yard", and him standing there easily flows into him sitting on the middle step with his feet on the flagstones.

Remember, the idea is to try to make sense of the information we have rather than finding ways to make the information we have look like nonsense.




- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

There is a simple explanation Richardson gave his evidence on day 2 of the inquest after giving his evidence and his recovery of the knife he would no doubt have been released by the coroner which meant he could leave the proceedings

Chandler gave his evidence on day 3 and so would not have been privy to what Richardson had said on day two. That is why we have the question asked of him about Richardson's movements.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are these wrong?

Daily Telegraph, reporting on Day 2.
(2nd Witness) James Kent said - I work for Mr. Bailey, of 23a Hanbury street, Spitalfields. I go to my work at six o'clock. On Saturday I got to work about ten minutes past six o'clock. Our employer's gate was open. I generally wait a few minutes until some of our men come up. While I was waiting there, an elderly man, named Davis, I believe, who lives two or three doors off, called to me. He came out of his house into the road, two or three yards off, with a belt off his waist in his hand. I went with a man named James Green, who was standing with me. There were more than two of us standing together. I went to 29 Hanbury street and through the passage. I did not go into the yard, but stood at the top of the steps.

You saw the woman? - I did, lying in the yard at the bottom of the steps leading from the back door. She lay between the back door steps and the partition between the yard and the next yard.

In which direction was her head lying? - Against the house. The whole of her body was on the ground; no part of it up against the house.

Inspector Chandler produced a plan of the yard, which the witness examined and pointed out the position of the body.

So he was there in the morning


The Echo, reporting on Day 2.
Mr. Wynne Baxter resumed the inquiry this afternoon, at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road, into the circumstances attending the murder of Annie Chapman, whose body was discovered in the back-yard of 29, Hanbury-street.

The police were represented by Inspector Abberline, Inspector Helson, and Inspector Chandler.

And there in the afternoon.

[A P Tomlinson]

Very interesting photo. Do you know roughly the year it was taken?

In the photo I see a bunch of wood blocking off the recess leading down to the cellar. It reminds me that sometimes there are horizontal doors leading down to cellars. In tornado ally in the U.S. these types of doors are used to go underground to take refuge from the storm. I have not seen this in real life but in movies.

Suppose for a minute that the newspaper sketches are a red herring. If the door to the cellar is horizontal to the ground as opposed to one affixed vertically to the house as we envision then perphaps the lock would be very visible from the top step.

Do any of the press reports mention a canopy or the orientation of the door?

Please note, I am not offering this possibility in a desperate attempt to cling to a personal theory of my own. I am just putting it out there.

Maybe the drawings were a red herring, but I really don't think so, since the sketch by Wick is based on the marks on the wall left by some sort of structure that seems to match the drawings. And while the drawings aren't anywhere near 100% reliable (the window frames are set too far out for instance) they have got the general geography pretty spot on.

The top of the doorway is above the height of the floor, so a flat stair shutter would practically act as a funnel for rain to pour down into the bottom of the stairwell.
Utterly useless.
Unless it is an angled one like the american style ones. In which case it also had walls making seeing the lock from anywhere other than right in front of the trap door, a physical impossibility and certainly Not without a light source at that time of the morning.
.
The cellar door itself WOULD have been framed at the same depth into the brickwork as the windows above.
The Georgian and Victorian architects and builders were pretty good at their jobs. Any lock on that door would not be visible from the top step. Not at dawn,not in direct sunlight, because the lock would either be too deep set behind the near edge of the framing wall (which is its most likely position as the hinges would be on the side where the door can open inward against the dividing wall between the two properties)
But on the off chance that it had been hung by an imbecile and opened directly into the cellar space, the lock would have been obscured by the roof of the lean-to.

All of this is easily reconciled by accepting that Richardson did exactly what he said he did and sat on the step. An act that would overcome any difficulty because his head would be both low enough to see UNDER the roof of the lean-to to the far side of the door, and far enough away from the building to be able to see the near side of the door.
It's THAT simple.

The reason people are desperately trying to force him back up the steps, pirouetting on the spot in order to avoid openeing the door, and giving him the ability to see round corners, is that by him sitting on the steps no one can argue against the idea that he would have been able to, (as he said himself,) have seen that body had it been there.
So we have to endure all manner of character attacks on him, with him being called a liar and saying that by elaborating and adding detail to his story when asked to elaborate and provide detail to the brief statement he had given on the morning of the murder, he was "changing" his story. All to attempt to pile doubt on a simple and obvious set of circumstances because if it IS that simple and obvious it takes a wrecking ball to a few pet theories.
As sauce goes... it's pretty weak.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe the drawings were a red herring, but I really don't think so, since the sketch by Wick is based on the marks on the wall left by some sort of structure that seems to match the drawings. And while the drawings aren't anywhere near 100% reliable (the window frames are set too far out for instance) they have got the general geography pretty spot on.

The top of the doorway is above the height of the floor, so a flat stair shutter would practically act as a funnel for rain to pour down into the bottom of the stairwell.
Utterly useless.
Unless it is an angled one like the american style ones. In which case it also had walls making seeing the lock from anywhere other than right in front of the trap door, a physical impossibility and certainly Not without a light source at that time of the morning.
.
The cellar door itself WOULD have been framed at the same depth into the brickwork as the windows above.
The Georgian and Victorian architects and builders were pretty good at their jobs. Any lock on that door would not be visible from the top step. Not at dawn,not in direct sunlight, because the lock would either be too deep set behind the near edge of the framing wall (which is its most likely position as the hinges would be on the side where the door can open inward against the dividing wall between the two properties)
But on the off chance that it had been hung by an imbecile and opened directly into the cellar space, the lock would have been obscured by the roof of the lean-to.

All of this is easily reconciled by accepting that Richardson did exactly what he said he did and sat on the step. An act that would overcome any difficulty because his head would be both low enough to see UNDER the roof of the lean-to to the far side of the door, and far enough away from the building to be able to see the near side of the door.
It's THAT simple.

The reason people are desperately trying to force him back up the steps, pirouetting on the spot in order to avoid openeing the door, and giving him the ability to see round corners, is that by him sitting on the steps no one can argue against the idea that he would have been able to, (as he said himself,) have seen that body had it been there.
So we have to endure all manner of character attacks on him, with him being called a liar and saying that by elaborating and adding detail to his story when asked to elaborate and provide detail to the brief statement he had given on the morning of the murder, he was "changing" his story. All to attempt to pile doubt on a simple and obvious set of circumstances because if it IS that simple and obvious it takes a wrecking ball to a few pet theories.
As sauce goes... it's pretty weak.

[GBinOz]

Given Richardson's statement he could see the padlock from the backdoor steps, and Chandler's statement that Richardson viewed the lock from the top of the cellar steps, combined with the covering over the steps, it seems that Richardson stood somewhere in the orange "splotch" I've added to the photo of the mock up that George posted (I added the backdoor stairs as well for clarity).

By standing roughly in that area, he can easily say, with hand on heart, he can see the lock from the backdoor steps - he's in the immediate vicinity of the backdoor steps which is what people mean when they say such things. He is also in a location that Chandler can accurately describe as being "at the top of the cellar steps", because again, from that location one is looking down the steps, and is in the immediate vicinity of the top of the cellar steps. Both descriptions are accurate for that location, and that location puts him in a position where the canopy would not obscure his view of the lock on the door at the bottom. It also means he is in the position where sitting on the steps is entirely convenient with regards to fixing his boot. It also is a location that makes it impossible for him not to have seen Annie, if she was there.

Moreover, Richardson saying he didn't "go out into the yard" is also accurate, that location doesn't require one to go out into the yard. The people in the image have gone "out into the yard", but Richardson stepping just off the back steps to look down to the cellar has not gone "out into the yard". Note, going "out into the yard" is a phrase that doesn't quite translate to "being outside in the yard", and part of the confusion, I think, is that technically one could say even being on the backdoor steps means you're in the yard, but that's a slightly different concept from going "out into the yard". As Wickerman points out above, "going out into the yard" requires going into the main area (i.e. where the people in the image are), so staying beside the stairs doesn't constitute going out into the yard. The "border", of course, is pretty fuzzy and it's not like there's a strict line one would draw, but I think someone who exited the house and went straight down to the cellar could honestly say they "didn't go out into the yard, they just went straight to the cellar.", but someone who went to the loo (the water closet) would have to say they went out into the yard to get there.

In short, that rough orange region is the only location that is consistent with all of the various descriptions we have of where Richardson was when he viewed the lock, it removes the issue of how he could see it with the canopy, it is consistent with his statement that he "did not go out into the yard", and him standing there easily flows into him sitting on the middle step with his feet on the flagstones.

Remember, the idea is to try to make sense of the information we have rather than finding ways to make the information we have look like nonsense.




- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

We might have need of a geographical linguist. What you are saying is an acceptable description of "the yard" in Canada will receive some considerable objection by Australians. While we are both colonials of the mother land, in Australia, once the foot hits the flagging the person is "in" the yard. I would dare to say that most Australians would think that sitting on the steps also constitutes being in the yard, and that Richardson was contradicting himself when he stated that he sat on the steps but didn't go into the yard.

While I applaud the idea that we need to make sense of the evidence, perhaps the evidence is telling us that what Richardson was saying after he spoke to Chandler is contradictory and makes no sense. IMO, a single journalist, or his editor, from the Daily News fluffed a report in the edition of the 14th after getting it right in their edition of the 13th. Regardless of the conjecture regarding the shape, height, length, configuration etc of the cellar cover, the two witnesses who lived and worked there testified that the lock could be seen from the back door steps, with the single dissenter being the aforementioned journalist in his contradictory second report. Both Chandler and a member of the jury commented that from that position the door could have obscured the view of the body. Neither broached any possibility that the lock couldn't be seen from the back door steps.

While I fully appreciate your excitement regarding "new information", and regret having to adopt the role of Big Blue Meany, to use the Australian vernacular - No way mate.

Best regards, George

[Hair Bear]

This picture surely dispels any notion that someone would opt to sit on the top step, what with that big old second step hampering your boot-faffing. Look at all that space you have to work with when sitting on the second step.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What we certainly can see is this. That it’s extremely unlikely that Richardson would have stood on the top steps to see the locks because there is a very reasonable possibility (I would say strong probability) that he wouldn’t have been able to see the locks from that position. At the very least without having to hold on to the doorframe for balance and then bent double to look under the canopy while balancing on the edge of the step. That he would have done this rather than simply go down two steps is preposterous and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

We know that Mrs Richardson saying that he could have seen the lock from the steps is simply a confirmation that he could have seen them whilst sitting on the steps. She didn’t mention standing so why is it conveniently assumed? It’s madness to suggest that she wouldn’t have spoken to John and known that he’d sat on the steps that morning.

We know that the boot repair story was in the Press two days before Richardson testified at the inquest.

We know that Richardson had no reason to lie. Chandler was asking him if he could have innocently missed seeing the body so Richardson could easily and at no detriment to his self have said “well, it’s possible I suppose.” But no, either he’s so bloody minded that he pursues the matter by inventing a very poor lie (ignoring half a dozen easier and far more effective ones) that not only introduced the possibility, however remote, that the door could have blocked his view, but also puts a knife into his own hand. This is just not believable. So why do some prefer this option?

There are many press variations but we have to live with them but two things are abundantly clear. Absolutely nothing that John Richardson said that he did that morning is suspicious or unbelievable. He was clearly telling the truth. Secondly, all suggestions that he could have missed the body, whether sitting, standing, or kneeling down, in that tiny yard with a gap of just 3 feet between step and fence and a body lying with her knees splayed outward and her feet around 3 feet past the edge of the door, should be consigned to the rubbish bin of history. It’s not worth considering for a second.

Richardson told us what he did. No one would have made up the boot repair story. And he was 100% certain that the body wasn’t there.

He was clearly correct and Annie Chapman was killed at around 5.30. I don’t care about the light or the location or whether there were people in the street going to work or the times of the other murders. None of that matters. The EVIDENCE clearly….and I mean clearly….tells us that a later ToD outweighs an earlier one by a country mile. So much so that in reality it’s not worthy of discussion. It should simply be accepted.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Jeff,

We might have need of a geographical linguist. What you are saying is an acceptable description of "the yard" in Canada will receive some considerable objection by Australians. While we are both colonials of the mother land, in Australia, once the foot hits the flagging the person is "in" the yard. I would dare to say that most Australians would think that sitting on the steps also constitutes being in the yard, and that Richardson was contradicting himself when he stated that he sat on the steps but didn't go into the yard.

While I applaud the idea that we need to make sense of the evidence, perhaps the evidence is telling us that what Richardson was saying after he spoke to Chandler is contradictory and makes no sense. IMO, a single journalist, or his editor, from the Daily News fluffed a report in the edition of the 14th after getting it right in their edition of the 13th. Regardless of the conjecture regarding the shape, height, length, configuration etc of the cellar cover, the two witnesses who lived and worked there testified that the lock could be seen from the back door steps, with the single dissenter being the aforementioned journalist in his contradictory second report. Both Chandler and a member of the jury commented that from that position the door could have obscured the view of the body. Neither broached any possibility that the lock couldn't be seen from the back door steps.

While I fully appreciate your excitement regarding "new information", and regret having to adopt the role of Big Blue Meany, to use the Australian vernacular - No way mate.

Best regards, George

I think it's less obtuse than that George. Richardson obviously considers stepping out into the yard away from the steps as being different to sitting or standing at the steps. (That are technically in the yard.)
I don't think he was reckoning on linguistic pedantry of 21st century people speculating on his movements.

(Purely anecdotal...)
My "yard" or "side garden" as my far more cultured Mrs calls it has a set of 2 stone steps leading down from the side door. Immediately to the left of the door and steps is the fence and gate. If I came in through the gate walked up the (only a couple of.. ) steps and in through the door, for the sake of common understanding I wouldn't consider myself having gone into the yard. If someone asked me "Did you go into the yard, I'd say, "I just came through the gate, up the stairs and through the door." I'd consider going into the yard as actually stepping into the space. Even though, technically, architecturally, and geographically I would be "In The Yard" from stepping through the gate till I entered the house.
If she were to ever ask me "Were you in the side garden last night?" I'd reply, "No, like usual, I let the dogs out and sat on the step." If the dogs were being dicks and I had to walk into the middle and calll them from the back garden, then I would have gone into the yard.
I honestly think its just as simple as that. Because I don't see why it wouldn't be.

I know that people will say otherwise and that "on the steps" IS "in the yard" and therefore Richardson is being deceitful, or changing his story or all manner of other excuses to put him on the top step IN the doorway with the door obscuring his view. But what he;s saying is simply that he didn't walk out into the yard and look round. Which, if he WERE being deceitful or fabricating a story to make himself look more important, when you consider that his absolute contention is that there was no body, not the he didn't see one... one wasn;t there to BE seen... IF he were lying... why wouldn't he emphasise that lie by saying he DID go out? It make no sense.

I think we are in danger of avoiding Occcams Razor on this stuff and applying what I can only think of refering to as "Fishy's Cheesegrater" in order to apply logic to the situation.

And still no one has answered why, when Richardson said "I could see all round the place" and reiterated his assurances that from his position seated on the step that he WOULD have seen the body had it been there then, no one at the inquest who would have known that he couldn't have (by virtue of having been at, and therefore seen, the crime scene) challenged him on it. All the police, the coroner, and even the jury who DID raise questions were satisfied with, and accepted, his story.
Chandler WAS there on day two, or are we approaching the point of "Maybe he went for a piss during his own witnesses evidence"??
We know he liked a drink, but...


EDIT TO ADD:
Something even simpler just struck me slap in the face, so I had a quick look at Cadosches and Davies' statements from the inquest. This may be different in other reports, but the ones I just quickly scanned tell a different story to what the term "Going into they yard" meant.
Why did Davies open the back dooor?
Where had Cadosche been?
Both simply state that they "Went into the yard".

Going "Into the yard" was a euphamism for "Going to the privvy!"

[FISHY1118]

What we certainly can see is this. That it’s extremely unlikely that Richardson would have stood on the top steps to see the locks because there is a very reasonable possibility (I would say strong probability) that he wouldn’t have been able to see the locks from that position. At the very least without having to hold on to the doorframe for balance and then bent double to look under the canopy while balancing on the edge of the step. That he would have done this rather than simply go down two steps is preposterous and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

We know that Mrs Richardson saying that he could have seen the lock from the steps is simply a confirmation that he could have seen them whilst sitting on the steps. She didn’t mention standing so why is it conveniently assumed? It’s madness to suggest that she wouldn’t have spoken to John and known that he’d sat on the steps that morning.

We know that the boot repair story was in the Press two days before Richardson testified at the inquest.

We know that Richardson had no reason to lie. Chandler was asking him if he could have innocently missed seeing the body so Richardson could easily and at no detriment to his self have said “well, it’s possible I suppose.” But no, either he’s so bloody minded that he pursues the matter by inventing a very poor lie (ignoring half a dozen easier and far more effective ones) that not only introduced the possibility, however remote, that the door could have blocked his view, but also puts a knife into his own hand. This is just not believable. So why do some prefer this option?

There are many press variations but we have to live with them but two things are abundantly clear. Absolutely nothing that John Richardson said that he did that morning is suspicious or unbelievable. He was clearly telling the truth. Secondly, all suggestions that he could have missed the body, whether sitting, standing, or kneeling down, in that tiny yard with a gap of just 3 feet between step and fence and a body lying with her knees splayed outward and her feet around 3 feet past the edge of the door, should be consigned to the rubbish bin of history. It’s not worth considering for a second.

Richardson told us what he did. No one would have made up the boot repair story. And he was 100% certain that the body wasn’t there.

He was clearly correct and Annie Chapman was killed at around 5.30. I don’t care about the light or the location or whether there were people in the street going to work or the times of the other murders. None of that matters. The EVIDENCE clearly….and I mean clearly….tells us that a later ToD outweighs an earlier one by a country mile. So much so that in reality it’s not worthy of discussion. It should simply be accepted.

Pure misrepresentation , misunderstanding, and misreading of the evidence to support a scenario that is flawed with inconsistencies, uncertainty and speculation,

[FISHY1118]

No he didn’t.

Yes he did

[FISHY1118]

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

Sorry Jeff, Richardsons testimony with the coroner that I posted doesn't fit your senario .

The coroner new what he was asking Richardson about the yard ,Richardson new he was taking about being on the steps to check the lock , it plain as that ,

People are hell bent on changing that conversation to fit a scenario of their own invention.