John Richardson

[GBinOz]

I can understand Davis saying there are three steps, as to get from the landing to the flagstones you would have to take 1 - 2 - 3 steps (three strides). You would also need to take three going back. I understand George's point of view also, that there is one step - that big thing in the middle. But for me there are clearly two steps, as in two blocks that are on two different levels. Going from the yard, the first one is not very high, two or three inches, but it is nonetheless a step.

Regarding where exactly Richardson stood - at the top of the yard steps, at the bottom of the yard steps (my guess, since that would be the natural thing to do) or at the top of the cellar steps, as all what really matters is his "I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then".

Hi Hair Bear,

Great photo presentation, but where is the flagging. My guess is that when it was in place it was level with that very short bottom step, thereby eliminating it as a step.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello George,

I don’t understand why you’re asking that question. Flagging means slabs. The read line going down the steps ends on a slab.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I still think that a lot of the confusion we are experiencing over the use of "into the yard" can be explained by what that phrase meant to the men and women who lived in places like Hanbury Street in 1888.
As far as I can find none of the newspapers that carry any sort of transcriptions of the depositions, mention any other activity from Cadosche and Davies beyond going "into they yard" neither elaborate on what they were doing. That's because no one asks them. Which suggests, to me at any rate, that that term was understood by everyone there, including Wynne Baxter, who probably had the luxury of indoor plumbing.
I don't see anyone picking holes in Albert's or John's statements for lack of specificity, because a straight forward understanding of the reason someone would go "into the yard" at that time in the morning exists.
It's like if you are out camping or hiking in the woods and say something like, "Can we stop a minute, I need to nip behind that tree" no one in their right mind is going to ask, "Why? What's behind the tree?"

When Baxter asks "Did you go into the yard?" Richardson is likely to have thought he was simply asking if he'd been to the privvy, thereby crossing the yard to the farthest corner.
So "No... I opened [the door] and sat on the doorstep..." [dicked about with his boot for]...about two minutes at most..." [visibility?] "...it was getting light but I could see all over the place."
He's NOT balancing in the doorway, pefroming gymnastic feats to see round a corner and under a canopy wihle determinedly avoiding glancing to his left by keeping the door firmly at an acute angle.
NOTHING suggests that. Beyond convolution.
So unless you want to dig into the deeper darker motives of John Davies and Albert Cadosches "avoidance of the truth" by not giving specifics of their purpose "in the yard" at such times of the morning with the same levels of forensic analysis... do Richardson the same courtesy.
Try and understand what HE meant, not what the grammar and syntax can be twisted into.

Edit to add: That looks like I'm taking a swing at Wick... That is certainly not my intention. That last bit is a general comment to people trying to morph something out of his obvious behaviour.

Hi AP,

That is a very good observation. Can't say I'd thought of it that way myself, and off the top of my head I don't think anyone else did, but it makes sense when you spell it out. Certainly worth a thought, particularly as it's in direct comparison to examples from the same inquest. Maybe we've missed the context at our remove in time?

[GBinOz]

Right, I'm well aware of all the sketches, but there's no evidence the roof of the canopy was flat.

If you know of any evidence then show me - I'm a show-me type person, go ahead, show me.

Hi Jon,

Referring to the excellent photo provided by Hair Bear, there is no doubt that the staining on the wall indicates that there was a curved canopy in place at one time. However, there is also a semi-circle of brick that has been chipped out between the staining and the door jamb, suggestive of a support point for a different type of canopy, and of course the photo shows another version, that being no canopy.

The other thing that is clarified is the location of the top of the cellar stairs. Any canopy coming out level with its fixing points on the wall to the top of the stairs would appear to provide very limited access. The sketches address this by shortening the length of the cellar steps and raising the height of the canopy. My thought is that it may have been an awning and only covered the door and a very small area of the stairs. Any suggestions?

Finally, the other point of interest is the small hole in the wall in the cellar which appears to me to be an attachment point for the jamb of the cellar door, and indicates to me that the door was in fact flush with the brickwork at the rear of the house, as shown in the sketches.

Cheers, George

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Regarding where exactly Richardson stood - at the top of the yard steps, at the bottom of the yard steps (my guess, since that would be the natural thing to do) or at the top of the cellar steps, as all what really matters is his "I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then".

Hi Hair Bear,

Couldn't agree more. If the yard visit story is to be believed, he couldn't miss Annie. And given that Richardson was extensively investigated, I like to think the Met of 1888 could find any glaring errors in his story with their access to a whole lot more information than the few news reports we have.

[Wickerman]

Do we think that the two holes just below the window sill could have been anything other than connected to the canopy?

Here's a suggestion, my house is a 1900'ish, brick built house.
At the rear there used to be an extension I removed, and built a deck in it's place, but the extension was attached to the house using wooden bricks.
Instead of anchor bolts or rawl plugs, as we would today, they remove a few house bricks and replace them with wooden bricks to attach the wooden frame of the extension room.

Here's a pic of one.



Those two holes we see beneath the kitchen window at 29 Hanbury, could be where a wooden brick was installed to attach the frame of the canopy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here's a suggestion, my house is a 1900'ish, brick built house.
At the rear there used to be an extension I removed, and built a deck in it's place, but the extension was attached to the house using wooden bricks.
Instead of anchor bolts or rawl plugs, as we would today, they remove a few house bricks and replace them with wooden bricks to attach the wooden frame of the extension room.

Here's a pic of one.



Those two holes we see beneath the kitchen window at 29 Hanbury, could be where a wooden brick was installed to attach the frame of the canopy.

It makes sense Wick. Is there anything else that those two holes could have been, situated where they are?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jon,

Referring to the excellent photo provided by Hair Bear, there is no doubt that the staining on the wall indicates that there was a curved canopy in place at one time. However, there is also a semi-circle of brick that has been chipped out between the staining and the door jamb, suggestive of a support point for a different type of canopy, and of course the photo shows another version, that being no canopy.

The other thing that is clarified is the location of the top of the cellar stairs. Any canopy coming out level with its fixing points on the wall to the top of the stairs would appear to provide very limited access. The sketches address this by shortening the length of the cellar steps and raising the height of the canopy. My thought is that it may have been an awning and only covered the door and a very small area of the stairs. Any suggestions?

Finally, the other point of interest is the small hole in the wall in the cellar which appears to me to be an attachment point for the jamb of the cellar door, and indicates to me that the door was in fact flush with the brickwork at the rear of the house, as shown in the sketches.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I was thinking the same thing with regards to the canopy. Given the staining on the brickwork where it used to be, and the length of the cellar steps, I can't see the canopy extending any real length beyond the doorsteps or going down the cellar steps would be difficult, and any appreciably shorter would seem to be pointless.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I can understand Davis saying there are three steps, as to get from the landing to the flagstones you would have to take 1 - 2 - 3 steps (three strides). You would also need to take three going back. I understand George's point of view also, that there is one step - that big thing in the middle. But for me there are clearly two steps, as in two blocks that are on two different levels. Going from the yard, the first one is not very high, two or three inches, but it is nonetheless a step.

Regarding where exactly Richardson stood - at the top of the yard steps, at the bottom of the yard steps (my guess, since that would be the natural thing to do) or at the top of the cellar steps, as all what really matters is his "I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then".

Using the attached image to prove a point if Richardson did stand on the top step and simply look to his right to check the cellar then this pic in my opinion proves that he could have missed the body. If you look at the picture where James Mason is standing and with the door being slightly positioned more towards Mason then he could have missed the body as his line of sight downwards would have been affected by the angle of the door and the first two steps,





www.trevormarriott.co.uk.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

I was thinking the same thing with regards to the canopy. Given the staining on the brickwork where it used to be, and the length of the cellar steps, I can't see the canopy extending any real length beyond the doorsteps or going down the cellar steps would be difficult, and any appreciably shorter would seem to be pointless.

- Jeff

I was just thinking the same thing as I looked at the photo again Jeff (as George has commented on) I’d guess that a canopy would have only stretched out to around the level of the bottom step (unless Mrs Richardson employed dwarves)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Using the attached image to prove a point if Richardson did stand on the top step and simply look to his right to check the cellar then this pic in my opinion proves that he could have missed the body. If you look at the picture where James Mason is standing and with the door being slightly positioned more towards Mason then he could have missed the body as his line of sight downwards would have been affected by the angle of the door and the first two steps,





www.trevormarriott.co.uk.

But Richardson didn’t stand just on the top steps. And even if he had done he’d have been fully aware if the door could have blocked his view of the corpse and he was certain that it couldn’t have. Just look at that gap. Look how far Chapman’s feet would have been past the edge of the door. Why are you trying so hard to make this ‘he could have missed her’ happen? No he couldn’t. It’s just not possible. Even the act of walking down three in itself would have required any person to have pushed the door open over 90 degrees.

This is so obvious Trevor. I’ve never understood the effort. Richardson tells us that he couldn’t have missed the body had it been there. That should be enough. Everything, absolutely everything tells us that Chapman wasn’t there at 4.45. I feel like I’m trying to convince someone that Thursday follows Wednesday yet they keep coming up with ever more unbelievable reason to claim otherwise.

There should be a law that no one is allowed to claim an earlier ToD. It’s the only way to end the madness.

[GBinOz]

I was just thinking the same thing as I looked at the photo again Jeff (as George has commented on) I’d guess that a canopy would have only stretched out to around the level of the bottom step (unless Mrs Richardson employed dwarves)

Hmmm, John Richardson a tall stout dwarf....that would explain everything.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Could Hairy Bear please tell us whether he knows when the picture he uploaded was taken?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Using the attached image to prove a point if Richardson did stand on the top step and simply look to his right to check the cellar then this pic in my opinion proves that he could have missed the body. If you look at the picture where James Mason is standing and with the door being slightly positioned more towards Mason then he could have missed the body as his line of sight downwards would have been affected by the angle of the door and the first two steps,

Have you seen the moving footage of James Mason's visit to the yard?

If so, I would be interested to know whether you think that when he descended the door steps and walked into the yard, he would have been able - before turning round - to see the body, had it still been there.

[Wickerman]

It makes sense Wick. Is there anything else that those two holes could have been, situated where they are?

Not really, you might notice the left side of the cellar doorway is not aligned with the left side of the kitchen window above. So the two holes appear to be aligned with the doorway, not the window. They look like anchor points to me, I can't think of any other use for them.

I did wonder if the arch-shaped stain over that doorway was caused by something else. Perhaps an Anderson Shelter in the second world war