John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

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

ha ha! Now if you said a tall stout aardvark, that I could buy into!

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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)

Yah, that's roughly the size I was thinking too. Mind you, child labour wasn't so heavily restricted at the time, so ...

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

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?

Anything could have been attached to this doorway over the years, modifications and such. I did wonder myself that if the canopy was too long it would make coming down the steps very awkward, you would likely have to crouch to get under the canopy. So it needs to be short, but then the rain falls directly on the steps, which isn't good. It's a shame we cannot see the angle of the steps.

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.

The trouble I see with their being a door jamb at that point, there isn't any room to open the door towards the stairs. I imagine the door would hit the bottom step.
It would be highly unconventional for a door mounted flush with the outside wall, to open inwards.
My house has a cellar door just like this one we are talking about, and the door is mounted flush with the inside wall, not the outside wall. But the door jamb is wide, the house wall is about 12 inch thick, the door jamb is almost the same width.

[Indian Harry]

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

Thanks. Same could be said about about Zeppelin too of course. So cool that your mother weighed in as well.

[Indian Harry]

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.

Hi AP regarding the morning ritual of treking across the yard I actually chuckled at one point while reading through the press accounts of the inquest.

Here is what James Kent is reported to have said according to the September 13, 1888 edition of the Morning Advertiser:


"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 his belt in his hand."

Seeing how Davies already had his belt off we can safely guess his reason for wanting to enter the yard.

[GBinOz]

Star 10 Sep:
The series of murders which now even the police believe to be the work of one man, is engaging the attention of a large force of plain clothes detectives. At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities circulated a description of a man who, they say, "entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th." They give his age as 37, height 5ft. 7in., and add that he is rather dark, had a beard and moustache; was dressed in a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; and spoke with a foreign accent.

Has anyone seen this before? Comments?

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi AP regarding the morning ritual of treking across the yard I actually chuckled at one point while reading through the press accounts of the inquest.

Here is what James Kent is reported to have said according to the September 13, 1888 edition of the Morning Advertiser:


"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 his belt in his hand."

Seeing how Davies already had his belt off we can safely guess his reason for wanting to enter the yard.

Chasing cats?

I don't want to get into the pedantic semantics of it, because that's exactly the point I'm trying to make;
They don't clearly state UNDER OATH the reason WHY... So... why can we safely assume that they were going for a dump (wich they obviouslt were), yet every statement regarding Richardson is put through forensic analysis. (And... that's a rhetorical question... I know why...)

The people doing this say "It's not that we are trying to discredit HIM because he incoveniently stops our pet theories from working if his evidence is genuine, oh no siree... WE are diligent pursuers of the TRUTH! WE following the EVIDENCE, and the evidence says that HE didn't tell the full stiory! And OH... look at THAT... if he's a liar then WOW just by accident it also supports MY pet theory!!! Who woulda thunk it????"

They accept the inference, supposition and assumptions associated with some witness statements as "obvious", yet attack another with no less flimsy a story with surgical levels of analysis. Yet STILL pretend that its not in order to discredit him.

OF COURSE they were going "into the yard" to take a dump.
But then again were they? I believe Richardson, so maybe I'm just gullible?
I'll await the people who follow the evidence and demand more proof than one person's mildly vague statement to dig into them with the same degree of ferocity.
Because like they say.. its the evidence driving them... not an ever deepening desperation to discredit Richardson.

[A P Tomlinson]

That's what I meant too.

But again, we have a witness who does not explain exactly what he or she means.

If she had a view of part of his face, why did she not say so, rather than say that she did not see his face?

Because everyone understood exactly what she meant, or someone would have said, "I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean... Can you be more specific"
It was an inquest not a game show. They were allowed to ask follow-up questions.

[A P Tomlinson]

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.

Here is what Hair Bear did with some stills from it, (edited the post because I initially accidentally attributed it to Wick)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Star 10 Sep:
The series of murders which now even the police believe to be the work of one man, is engaging the attention of a large force of plain clothes detectives. At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities circulated a description of a man who, they say, "entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th." They give his age as 37, height 5ft. 7in., and add that he is rather dark, had a beard and moustache; was dressed in a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; and spoke with a foreign accent.

Has anyone seen this before? Comments?

I can’t say for certain George but this might be a perfect example of the problems we face having to rely on Press reports. Wick is very good on anything to do with Press reports so it would be good to get his opinion but this sounds like Long’s man to me although with obvious differences.

Similarities - Dark complexion, foreign, height, dark coat, felt hat.

Differences - Beard and moustache, age (at the inquest she said over 40), at 2am.

The two ages are similar of course but it’s hard to explain why we go from under to over 40 or why they didn’t just say ‘around 40?’

On the fact that it was said in The Star quote that he ‘entered the passage,’ I noticed in a few reports when I was looking into the Durrell/Long testimony that a few of them had Long saying that the couple disappeared quickly after she passed. So maybe this accounts for a press assumption? I don’t know.

[GBinOz]

I can’t say for certain George but this might be a perfect example of the problems we face having to rely on Press reports. Wick is very good on anything to do with Press reports so it would be good to get his opinion but this sounds like Long’s man to me although with obvious differences.

Similarities - Dark complexion, foreign, height, dark coat, felt hat.

Differences - Beard and moustache, age (at the inquest she said over 40), at 2am.

The two ages are similar of course but it’s hard to explain why we go from under to over 40 or why they didn’t just say ‘around 40?’

On the fact that it was said in The Star quote that he ‘entered the passage,’ I noticed in a few reports when I was looking into the Durrell/Long testimony that a few of them had Long saying that the couple disappeared quickly after she passed. So maybe this accounts for a press assumption? I don’t know.

Hi Herlock,

The similarity with Long's story also caught my attention. But the attributed source is Scotland Yard. While the Star didn't have a reputation for sage reporting, I'm not sure that we can just dismiss the report out of hand. I've filed it under interesting...but.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

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?

Im not inventing anything Herlock ,im simply useing the evidence that you and others use , how we interpret such evidence is were the problem lies.

You cant pick and choose what you want by using the evidence and say it means this or that, and claim your interpretation is somehow more correct. Then in the next breath not give others the same right just because you think its wrong ! At best you can can only disagree . So youve disagreed ,nothing more .

[GBinOz]

Star 10 Sep:
The series of murders which now even the police believe to be the work of one man, is engaging the attention of a large force of plain clothes detectives. At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities circulated a description of a man who, they say, "entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th." They give his age as 37, height 5ft. 7in., and add that he is rather dark, had a beard and moustache; was dressed in a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; and spoke with a foreign accent.

Has anyone seen this before? Comments?

Here is the same story in the Daily Telegraph 10 Sep:
At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities had come to a definite conclusion as to the description of the murderer of two, at least, of the hapless women found dead at the East-end, and the following is the official telegram despatched to every station throughout the metropolis and suburbs: "Commercial-street, 8.20 p.m. - Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m. the 8th. Aged thirty-seven, height 5 ft. 7 in., rather dark, beard and moustache; dress, short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; spoke with a foreign accent."

The Daily Telegraph didn't have the reputation as a sensationalist rag that was sometimes applied to The Star. The plot thickens?

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

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.

What botheres me is the this press report from the inquest


IF you accept Richardson sat on the steps and cut his boot ,then you have to also accept he did not go into the yard ,stand on the top of the cellar steps, and check to to see if the lock was ok ! Why do you feel the need to invent a conflict with what he told the coroner ?





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 ?

[FISHY1118]

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.

Otherwise, like a professional archaeologist you must look for what the remains actually indicate, regardless what is written or published about it.

[There are hundreds of drawings showing the lighthouse at Alexandria, but the remains of the real one lie at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. These remains show what the true lighthouse looked like]

The remains of the canopy at 29 Hanbury St. are the stained bricks beneath the kitchen window which distinctly show the canopy had a curved roof.
Put your 'professional' cap on, not your 'argumentative' cap.

It's a none-issue, there was a canopy regardless of it's shape, and the fact there was one, and it was installed beneath the window (a detail your two sketches did get correct) means the cellar door was not visible from the top of the house steps.
No, Richardson wasn't lying, it was the journalist taking down his testimony who got it wrong.

Well i would have thought the sketchers were the evidence the cellar cover was flat .

Its hard to imagine those two drawing, contemporary drawings of the day, could differ in such a way from the one you posted. Which btw may have been erected many years after the murder .