John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are juggling with the facts to suit your theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unbelievable!!

You’re imagining a lie with no basis in fact and you have the nerve to accuse Jeff of juggling with the facts!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can I also point out another obvious fact. An omission is not lie. It shouldn’t be assumed as an indicator of dishonesty but that exactly what is being assumed here. And it’s being assumed as part of a deliberate attempt to discredit a witness. Jeff has made the obvious, but nonetheless well worth making point that information doesn’t always come out in a first interview. This can be down to memory but it can also be down to the nature of the questioning. Question - “Why didn’t you mention X?” Answer - “Because you didn’t ask me about it.”

Its often suggested, when discussing various aspects of the case, that a particular police might have been mistaken or that they might have lied. Trevor suggests that Robinson and Hutt were mistaken when they said that Eddowes was wearing a white apron when she was arrested. It’s been suggested by some that PC Long might have been mistaken when he said that the apron wasn’t there when he first passed. It’s been suggested that Harvey might have been less than honest by not actually bothering to go down Church Passage to look into Mitre Square. On a more senior level Anderson and Macnaghten are often called liars. So I have to ask why do we have to assume that Chandler was correct when he said that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair? It’s possibly only four words after all. “I sat on the step to repair my boot….” How do we know that Chandler wasn’t criticised by his superiors in some way for not questioning Richardson more closely so he tries to cover his backside by hinting that Richardson wasn’t very forthcoming with information? I’m not claiming any of this as a fact but it’s certainly interesting that, when it suits, a particular officer becomes an infallible, paragon of virtue. So…

Richardson saying something like “I went to check the lock. I sat on the back step and couldn’t possibly have missed a body,” isn’t an example of dishonesty and it’s quite possibly what he’d said.

Richardson saying something like “I went to the back door to check the lock and I could see all of the yard and couldn’t possibly have missed a body,” isn’t an example of dishonesty and it’s quite possibly what he said.

Both of these suggestions are infinitely more believable and neither are in any way far-fetched. But still some prefer to imagine Richardson scheming for no reason. Deliberately lying about the boot repair for some inexplicable reason and then spilling the beans to the Press less than 48 hours later when he’s had plenty of time to come up with something else. Come on all!! It’s utter nonsense. Richardson was clearly telling the truth.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I leave you to do the juggling as you are the one with the theory. I see in your last coverage of what Richardson said he did you dropped some key balls though.

- Jeff

I have said all along that I believe in an early TOD based on my assessment and evaluation of all the facts and the evidence. You and others clearly disagree which is your prerogative. I have documented many times how I arrived at the earlier TOD.

All we are left to work with are a plethora of different newspaper reports all with each differing accounts of what was done or said by Richardson. We are never going to know for sure but we can analyse those reports because somewhere within them there lies the truth.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I cannot attribute fault to anyone in this discussion. I think that while we assume a common language, Nova Scotian and Australian seem to have evolved in slightly different directions.

While I feel that some of Richardson's statements are not supportive of others, the primary area of disagreement is:
Chandler said:
"Witness (Richardson) told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

My comprehension of this statement is that, while the backdoor steps lead to the cellar, he did not go down those steps to the cellar, he only needed to go to the top of the backdoor steps and look down to see the lock. I also observe that this is a single report that conflicts with all other reports.

As I commented to Fishy, as an Australian I would have said there was only one step, with the nominated "top" step being part of the house floor and the bottom step being part of the flagging. But the coroner was not an Australian, the fact of which I am sure he was eternally grateful.

So I can say that while you have been admirably able to convey what you've been meaning, and why, and that I am gratified with our continued amicable discussions, I regret to have to add that I still don't buy it.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

It's fine, I don't see the objective as getting you, or anyone, to agree with me, but rather to ensure that what I am suggesting is understood - acceptability can only be determined after the idea itself is understood after all. I felt I hadn't done a good job of it, and was too focused on the yard, making it sound like the steps and so forth are not part of the yard, which of course they are, but Richardson use of the phrase "going into the yard" is not the same thing as simply being somewhere in the yard. I think Richardson himself makes that quite clear when he's asked about checking the lock and defends himself by clearly saying "yes but you do not have to into the yard to see it ..." (I don't have his quote quite right, but this is just to point to the bit in his testimony). I think it is clear he is not trying to deny being outside and so technically "in the yard", he's pointing out he didn't have to go further out into the interior of the yard (he didn't go "into" the yard). It's the "into" that subtly changes what he means from being "in the yard, as in outside" to "the interior area of the yard, excluding the edge regions". Where exactly the edge becomes the interior is not exactly defined in measurements like x number of cm, obviously.

As for the above, I think it is important to remember that in that quote it is Chandler that is speaking, and he is talking about what Richardson said on the day of the crime. Up until now we have only had different newspaper coverage of the same event, what Richardson said at the inquest. Here we are getting information about what Richardson said on a different occasion through Chandler. This is why this report is, I believe, so much more useful than more coverage of the inquest, which would be just another version of the same event.

Chandler describes the location as being at the top of the cellar stairs, and that new description puts constraints on the interpretation.

See, Richardson's inquest statement about seeing the lock from the back door steps could, as many have argued, be interpreted as Richardson being on the steps, but of course people will say such things if they are in close vicinity to the foot of the steps/stairs. So we have a fairly large area to consider, on the steps or at the foot of them. However, Chandler's description of the location is not consistent with the theory that Richardson was standing on the backdoor steps, but it is consistent with the other interpretation of Richardson's statement, that he's at the foot of them.

Now, if there were no location that fit both descriptions, then I would agree, the version attributed to Chandler being a muddled version by the reporter. However, given the cellar steps and backdoor steps are right beside each other, the location at the foot of the backdoor steps puts on at the top corner of the cellar steps, giving one a clear view to the lock. And given there's only 1 or 2 steps to the backdoor, it is perfectly normal for one to view the lock from that location. We know Richardson isn't in a rush as he also takes time to work on his boot, so there's no need for him to do a quick open, glance, and dash, and then lie about having a knife and working on his boot. I don't buy that for a moment. The lie idea just doesn't fly straight for me.

Because we have new information that covers not what Richardson said at the inquest (the same event yet again), but covers the information Richardson gave to Chandler at the crime scene, it is an entirely new source of information, and the constraints it puts upon our interpretations limits the location where Richardson viewed the lock from for us. It has to be a location that is both at near the backdoor steps and near the top of the cellar steps. That's why I highlighted the orange region, as that roughly looks to satisfy all of the information. It's the common overlap.

That's just my reasoning and why I think this statement by Chandler is so important, but as I say you don't have to buy into it. I personally don't like to dismiss information, particularly on the grounds it may have been misrecorded (anything in the news papers may have been misrecorded after all), when there is an interpretation that is entirely viable, which I think that orange region would be.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I have said all along that I believe in an early TOD based on my assessment and evaluation of all the facts and the evidence. You and others clearly disagree which is your prerogative. I have documented many times how I arrived at the earlier TOD.

All we are left to work with are a plethora of different newspaper reports all with each differing accounts of what was done or said by Richardson. We are never going to know for sure but we can analyse those reports because somewhere within them there lies the truth.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

That's fine. We have both stated our lines of reasoning and how we've ended up at the suggestions we've made. Given the quality of the information we have to work with, it is hardly surprising people prefer different options.

As for the newspapers, it is hoped there is truth in there somewhere at least, otherwise there's no chance for us at all.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have said all along that I believe in an early TOD based on my assessment and evaluation of all the facts and the evidence. You and others clearly disagree which is your prerogative. I have documented many times how I arrived at the earlier TOD.

All we are left to work with are a plethora of different newspaper reports all with each differing accounts of what was done or said by Richardson. We are never going to know for sure but we can analyse those reports because somewhere within them there lies the truth.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And here is that truth:

[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.

[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.

[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.

[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then


That should be the end of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And then coincidentally we get the Hanbury Street poltergeist banging against a fence followed by an Annie Chapman lookalike talking to a random bloke just outside the door of number 29.

Anyone would think that there was a plot afoot?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Basically Richardson is being portrayed as this chap.

[FISHY1118]

No Fishy, Richardson says he did not go into the yard, which means he did not go beyond the edge of it and into the interior area. The orange zone is at the edge, and so Richardson is correct when he says he didn't go "into" the yard. Yes, he is "in" the yard, but he hasn't gone "into" it, which is a subtle, but important difference in meaning.

Also, the orange zone is a small area of space that can both be described as viewing from the backdoor steps or as viewing from the top of the cellar steps. Being on the backdoor steps cannot be described as being at the top of the cellar steps, and being in the middle of the cellar steps is not properly described as viewing from the back door steps. That orange zone is where the two blur together, and we get both descriptions.

- Jeff

No Jeff , I think your over complicating the whole Richarsdon senario ,


Remembering its 1888 do you really think that John Richardson with his lowly standing meant anything else than what he plainly and simply and unmistakenable told the Coroner ???


Ive posted again what has yet has been shown to be incorrect or wrong .






Why would Richardson need to walk down the house steps and over to the cellar steps in the yard ?, if by his own testimony he said this to the coroner .

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



Now look again what the coroner says after he ask Richardson ''did you go into the yard'' ? ''No sir '' , i thought you went there to see the cellar was ok ?

His telling Richardson that in his opinion the cellar door is in the yard ! . Richardson then confirms this to the the coroner with his next statement, he very well knows the cellar is in fact in the yard, thats why he told the coroner ''but you don't need to go into the yard'' to see that.
.

So Wick, Has not Richardson told the Coroner one thing and done another ?[what you have suggested] Is this not the very essence of what myself and others have been saying about witness testimony being uncertain , unreliable ,ambiguious and unsafe to rely on to confirm an accurate t.o.d one way or the other ?
Last edited by FISHY1118; 10-08-2023, 09:27 AM.

[FISHY1118]

Ambiguous
/amˈbɪɡjʊəs/

adjective

1. Open to more than one interpretation; 2 .Not having one obvious meaning.
   "ambiguous phrases"
2. • 3 .Not clear or decided.

John Richardsons picture should be next to this dictionary meaning

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And then coincidentally we get the Hanbury Street poltergeist banging against a fence followed by an Annie Chapman lookalike talking to a random bloke just outside the door of number 29.

Anyone would think that there was a plot afoot?

If you are suggesting that she really was Chapman and that the man with her was the murderer, then you should be looking for a foreign or Jewish man in his forties.

Please pass on this important information to Anderson and Swanson on the other side.

I imagine they would have considerable difficulty in proving that Chapman was their reluctant Jewish witness and that Kosminski looked some twenty years older than he actually was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you are suggesting that she really was Chapman and that the man with her was the murderer, then you should be looking for a foreign or Jewish man in his forties.

Please pass on this important information to Anderson and Swanson on the other side.

I imagine they would have considerable difficulty in proving that Chapman was their reluctant Jewish witness and that Kosminski looked some twenty years older than he actually was.

She didn’t mention Jewish. She only said that he was ‘dark,’ indicating a darker complexion than a native Englishman. So perhaps he looked Italian? Or perhaps he was a man that worked outdoors and so had darker skin? Some men do.

I’m not claiming that Long must have been right by the way. We know that this kind of witness identification can be mistaken but, that said, we can’t just assume that she was wrong when she might not have been.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ambiguous
/amˈbɪɡjʊəs/

adjective

1. Open to more than one interpretation; 2 .Not having one obvious meaning.
   "ambiguous phrases"
2. • 3 .Not clear or decided.

John Richardsons picture should be next to this dictionary meaning

Virtually every aspect of this case can be interpreted in more than one way Fishy. So I don’t know why you keep making a big deal of the word ‘ambiguous’ as if it’s somehow proof of anything. It’s no better than repeating ‘people make errors,’ or ‘witnesses can be mistaken’ or ‘Doctors can sometimes estimate a ToD correctly.’ These are simply general points and so unworthy of a repeat mention.

What you need to provide evidence for is that John Richardson ever said that he’d told Inspector Chandler about the boot repair on the morning of the murder. Without this you have absolutely no evidence of any conflict between the two (and this imagined conflict is your only point that implies might imply ambiguity) All that we have is Richardson mentioning the boot repair in the Press less than 48 hours after the murder and then, under oath, at the inquest. He never once mentions that he told Chandler about the boot repair that morning and yet you, and others, assume this as if it’s a fact. It’s not.

So to create ambiguity you have to invent a conflict. Why do you feel the need to do that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

She didn’t mention Jewish. She only said that he was ‘dark,’ indicating a darker complexion than a native Englishman. So perhaps he looked Italian? Or perhaps he was a man that worked outdoors and so had darker skin? Some men do.

I’m not claiming that Long must have been right by the way. We know that this kind of witness identification can be mistaken but, that said, we can’t just assume that she was wrong when she might not have been.

How could she have noticed that he had darker skin when she saw him only from behind?

She testified as follows:

I did not see the man's face

[Herlock Sholmes]

Remembering its 1888 do you really think that John Richardson with his lowly standing meant anything else than what he plainly and simply and unmistakenable told the Coroner ???

Last edited by FISHY1118; 10-08-2023, 09:27 AM.

It’s difficult to see what difference the year makes or Richardson’s ‘lowly standing.’ It doesn’t seem to bother you when he clearly stated that he’d sat on the steps and couldn’t have missed the body - under oath. So how likely would it have been for a probably poorly educated, simple man who might have been a bit intimidated at the inquest when facing an important man like a Coroner and with police in the room and a jury of respectable locals and after swearing under oath to have told a lie? I’d suggest that the lower classes in 1888 were far more deferential and wary of authority than we are today.

Its also glaringly noticeable that you are completely impervious to the fact that it was 1888 when you give Dr. Phillips a level of skill in forensics that a Victorian Doctor couldn’t possibly have had.