John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

Fishy, how do you reconcile that with all the words that came out of his mouth before and after the word "No" at the inquest? What do you think it was about his testimony that gave all the people in the room cause to believe that he sat on the steps?

Ill just say that a lot that has already been said about the legitimacy of Richardsons boot cutting incident .

[FISHY1118]

He's just asking where you think Richardsons feet were when he sat on the steps.

You ARE using ALL the evidence right? Not ignoring the bit where he sat down? (A statemen that everyone at the inquest was perfectly fine with because they understood that when he said he didn't go into the yard, that sitting on the steps allowed for that to be an accurate statement.)

''Rather, it is the theory that emerges when one considers all of the information and tries to make sense of all of it combined''.

Your forgetting one thing , the bit where its been suggested that Richardson looked at the cellar lock while standing in front of the entrance of the cellar steps .!!In the yard , which when asked ''Not at all'' he went into .

[JeffHamm]

Exactly my point Jeff


''Rather, it is the theory that emerges when one considers all of the information and tries to make sense of all of it combined''.

Your theory of a later time of death is no more plausable under this statment than mine for an earlier time of death .

Hi Fishy,

My orange spot theory is a theory about where Richardson stood when he viewed the lock, it's not actually a theory about the time of death. That's a different question.

However, the implications of the orange spot theory, which places Richardson at the backdoor steps and looking down from the top of the cellar steps before he sits and works on his boot, does of course have implications with respect to going on and further evaluating the early vs late ToD theories. Given none of the alternative viewing locations that have been offered account for all of the information we have, and moreover introduce improbable actions (like stooping over to look under the canopy, when it would be far easier and more natural to take a step or two and stand in the orange spot), I do not see them as viable alternatives.

As such, I believe it is safe to say that Richadson stood at the orange spot. And, what follows from that, of course, is that it would be impossible for him to overlook Annie. And since he didn't see her, she wasn't there. That means, she must have been killed sometime after Richardson's visit, so after 5:00.

Now, that doesn't mean that Long had to have seen Annie, it is possible she was mistaken in her identification. Of course, it is also possible she wasn't. If she wasn't, then clearly that means Annie wasn't killed before Richardson's visit as well. In contract, if Long is mistaken, her mistake doesn't invalidate the fact that we know from Richardson that Annie wasn't there at 5:00, but of course, it would allow for Annie to have been killed before Long saw her couple.

Furthermore, the orange spot theory does not mean Cadosche could not be mistaken about the location of the "no", and there may be some alternative explanation for the noise against the fence other than people (if people, I think it would be safe to say then Annie and JtR, with the bumping against the fence most probably JtR himself). On the other hand, it is also possible that Cadosche was correct in his locating the "no" to the backyard of #29, and if so, that places people in that yard at the time of his first loo visit. Given the "no" was not said in any way to arouse his interest, though, that rules out the "unknown people finding the body before Davies" as such individuals would not speak in such a voice. It also rules out it being said by Annie as she's being attacked, as again, a distressed "no" would not be something that fails to rouse interest. And the fence noise, occurring during his second visit, would reflect the movements of at least one of those people, which in my view would most likely be JtR over the body, placing the attack and murder of Annie happening between those visits.

Those two witnesses could be right, or they could be wrong. If either are right, that alone places the murder after the time of their respective testimonies, which of course are both later than Richardson's visit to check the lock.

Without being able to conclusively prove either Long or Cadosche as being right or wrong, however, all we can really be sure of is that Annie was killed after Richardson's visit.

Unless a viable alternative to the orange spot theory can be offered, and it would have to be different from the current attempts, particularly those based upon far less detailed news reports than the one Wickerman produced, where Chandler's statement clearly indicates that Richardson indicated he viewed from the top of the cellar stairs, then I think the most we can conclude is that Annie was killed after 5:00. However, given it only requires either Long or Cadoche's testimony to be "correct" (which are both options still open), then the odds are that she was killed after their events.

As such, while the theory she was killed earlier is "plausible" in the sense that there is nothing about the universe that prevents murders from happening before 4:30 am, the information we have makes that theory improbable to the point I'm not sure it is even worth considering as an option anymore. It's rare for me to actually close doors like that, but after some quite good discussions, where we've all poked and prodded at the different ideas, and having gone over testimony and various reports with a fine toothed comb, I do think we've made some headway. Wickerman's post, with the detailed coverage of Chandler's statements, provided the bit of missing information that allowed us to narrow down the location from which Richardson viewed the lock. I recognize not all will agree with me on that point, and certainly you will be one of those. But it is not my job to convince you, rather, you are free to assess as you see fit. But I don't agree with your view that an earlier ToD is as worthy of consideration as a later ToD. As I've said, I think, given Richardson's viewing location at the orange spot, the earlier ToD can be considered ruled out. And ruling anything out is not something I do very often.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Fishy has quoted the testimony at the inquest indicating that Richardson swore that he did not go into the yard, and that the lock could be seen from the back door steps.

The clairvoyants amongst us assure us that this was not possible due to the position of the canopy, thereby implying that both John and his mother were unreliable witnesses.

Jeff and Jon have come up with an alternative definition of the yard and the back door steps. They are both aware of the esteem in which I hold their opinions, but are prepared to accept my disparate view without resort to insult or disparaging remark. We are all here voluntarily to discuss these issues, preferably without a flame war, and determine a likely scenario. That said, I think I would be overly optimistic to expect a resolution in the foreseeable future.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Just a point of clarification. It's not "the yard" that is being re-defined, the yard is the yard is the yard. Rather, it is the phrase "did not go into the yard" that is being focused on. I think earlier I presented it as if "the yard" meant something different, as I was trying to understand why Richardson's statement about not going into the yard and yet being outside around the doorstep, still made sense to me. I understood what he meant, but had early on not really come to grasp with how to say it.

It's the phrase "to go into the yard" that has to be viewed as a whole to get the proper meaning, it's not a changing of the definition of the word "yard". To go "into the yard" is not just to be "in the yard", but to proceed "deeper into the yard than the edges". One might say the same about a forest, for example. I sat on the trees at the edge of the forest, but I did not go into the forest. Clearly, if one is under the trees at the edge of the forest one is technically "in the forest", but to say you did not go "into the forest" is to say you did not go to the interior region. Or, one might say "I went into the forest, but not very far", which again, indicates we're not talking about a phrase that is just a binary state of either being in, or not in, the forest, but there's a depth, or distance, aspect involved as well.

Richardson is just saying he didn't travel a distance into the yard, he just was at the edge, where the doorstep and the top of the cellar steps are located.

I know I've not been as clear on that at times, but it's not the definition of "yard" that is being discussed, rather it is the meaning of the phrase "... you do not have to go into the yard ..." etc that is important. It is why Richardson can be "in the yard" but still say he did not "go into the yard". They don't mean the same thing, so they don't contradict each other. To be "in the yard" is like sitting on the edge of the forest despite not going into the forest. Both can be true at the same time due to the "into" phrase invoking a distance of travel away from the edge.

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

Ill just say that a lot that has already been said about the legitimacy of Richardsons boot cutting incident .

But nothing of any substance, because it involves screaeming that he said he didn't go into the yard.
Simply relying on one statement to dispute not only what Richardson subsequently said, but the fact that everyone in the inquest understood what he meant and got on with it.

[A P Tomlinson]

Your forgetting one thing , the bit where its been suggested that Richardson looked at the cellar lock while standing in front of the entrance of the cellar steps .!!In the yard , which when asked ''Not at all'' he went into .

While you are focused like a lazer on ONE THING.
Please stop claiming that you are using ALL the evidence.
You use one element and apply it as an over-ruling factor to argue that not only was Richardson lying, but that everyone in the inquest missed this obvious lie, and you cannot acccept the simple reason as being they understood what he meant and you don't!

[A P Tomlinson]

Fishy has quoted the testimony at the inquest indicating that Richardson swore that he did not go into the yard, and that the lock could be seen from the back door steps.

StepS, plural. Not "Doorway"
Since Fishy also likes being very specific...

[FISHY1118]

But nothing of any substance, because it involves screaeming that he said he didn't go into the yard.
Simply relying on one statement to dispute not only what Richardson subsequently said, but the fact that everyone in the inquest understood what he meant and got on with it.

Everyone at the inquest hasnt had the opportunity to discuss it over 5000 post like us tho have they ? . Im sure you get my drift.

[FISHY1118]

While you are focused like a lazer on ONE THING.
Please stop claiming that you are using ALL the evidence.
You use one element and apply it as an over-ruling factor to argue that not only was Richardson lying, but that everyone in the inquest missed this obvious lie, and you cannot acccept the simple reason as being they understood what he meant and you don't!

What A load of Nonsense you last sentence is . How on earth do you know what everyone at the inquest understood,? Nothing had been proven at that time as far as witness testimony goes, one way or the other .


Seeings how you only have 124 post ill let you off the hook for your blind misgivings regarding the topic of the thread .

It was i who started it and if youd like to go right back to the start youll see ive being focusing on the whole topic regarding t.o.d .If i happen to be harping on one thing atm, its because its in relation, and extends to the entire point of the topic.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Hair Bear,

Thanks Hair Bear. I am now seeing the graphics.

My opinion is that Richardson did what he told Chandler. However, if the boot cutting story is to be promulgated, I would adjust Tricky Dicky's position a little in an anti-clockwise direction (from his perspective) and have the door resting on his left arm.

I should again emphasis that we are looking at an inquest, the brief have been to determine the circumstances of the death. In a trial the witnesses would have been more thoroughly questioned. We are virtually the jury, and as such each person has to assess the credibility of each witness, the relevance of the medical opinion and the circumstances surrounding the timeline.

I will not repeat my opinions on Long and Richardson, but cite an example on Cadosch. Many years ago when my wife and I were running a small business, our neighbour was returning a borrowed wheelbarrow to our home. We suddenly got a call from him saying that there was someone in our house. He positioned himself where he could see both entrances and I called the police and jumped in the car to drive home. I arrived the same time as the police and we went inside. There was no one there, and there was no sign that anyone had been there. When the police questioned my neighbour he said that he had heard sounds of someone walking around inside the house. Enough said.

As well as each juror making a personal assessment of the evidence of each witness, there is the medical testimony and the surrounding circumstances to consider. Phillips "caveat" refers to the effect of temperature and blood loss on the formula for body temperature loss. There is also the rigor and stomach content to consider. One can say that the techniques of the time were inaccurate but (given the comparison with Eddowes), how inaccurate? That is for each juror to consider.

What about the circumstances? How probable is it that Annie wandered about in a neighbourhood where she was well known for 3 1/2 hours without any report that she had been seen by anybody. There was a report that she was seen drinking in a pub at 5am, but that was investigated and could not be substantiated. How likely is it that Annie could not find a client in 3 1/2 hours of darkness, but picked up a client in the daylight of early morning? How likely is it that Annie would have taken that client into the yard (was she found in the yard?) in daylight when she could have used the landing where Richardson said he found many couples engaged in such activity. How likely is it that Jack would risk a daylight murder with a witness only feet away on two occasions, and an amphitheatre of potential witness arising to begin their new day? He had succeeded previously in finding a victim in the hours of darkness. Why did his fail on this occasion?

These are some of the factors to be considered by we, the jurors, in each person's formulation of the preponderance of evidence. It seems obvious that we have a hung jury. It would ill behove us each as individuals to adopt the position of the Lee. J. Cobb character in Twelve Angry Men.

Cheers, George

Clear ,concise, right on the money

[A P Tomlinson]

What A load of Nonsense you last sentence is . How on earth do you know what everyone at the inquest understood,? Nothing had been proven at that time as far as witness testimony goes, one way or the other .


Seeings how you only have 124 post ill let you off the hook for your blind misgivings regarding the topic of the thread .

It was i who started it and if youd like to go right back to the start youll see ive being focusing on the whole topic regarding t.o.d .If i happen to be harping on one thing atm, its because its in relation, and extends to the entire point of the topic.

Fishy, they were at a ruddy inquest.
If his statements conflicted, and if they had misunderstood, they would have said so.
Baxter was a bit of a stickler in that regard...
Clearing up confusion and elaborating on brief statements given to Police to get the full picture were a fairly important part of that process.

They would have asked him to elaborate on how he could have sat on the steps and been in a position to see the space where the body was, or how he could "see all over the place" if he never went into the yard. IF they hadn;tt simply understood that "the steps" and "the yard" are being used exclusively.

You can clear it all up by explaining how you account for the coroner and jury NOT being confused and accepting that he sat on the steps, while maintaining your assertion that he remained in the doorway.
Were all the Police Inspectors, cornoner and jurists too dumb to pick up on a monumentally stupid lie, or did they simply understand that when he talked about going into the yard that he quite clearly did not include the area of the steps in that description?

How do you account for THAT?
Is your answer seriously going to be that they didn't have the chance to hear YOUR side of the argument amidst 5000 internet posts, when they had the witness in front of them and a clearer understanding of what was said, rather than what was subsequently reported in the papers?

[FISHY1118]

Fishy, they were at a ruddy inquest.
If his statements conflicted, and if they had misunderstood, they would have said so.
Baxter was a bit of a stickler in that regard...
Clearing up confusion and elaborating on brief statements given to Police to get the full picture were a fairly important part of that process.

They would have asked him to elaborate on how he could have sat on the steps and been in a position to see the space where the body was, or how he could "see all over the place" if he never went into the yard. IF they hadn;tt simply understood that "the steps" and "the yard" are being used exclusively.

You can clear it all up by explaining how you account for the coroner and jury NOT being confused and accepting that he sat on the steps, while maintaining your assertion that he remained in the doorway.
Were all the Police Inspectors, cornoner and jurists too dumb to pick up on a monumentally stupid lie, or did they simply understand that when he talked about going into the yard that he quite clearly did not include the area of the steps in that description?

How do you account for THAT?
Is your answer seriously going to be that they didn't have the chance to hear YOUR side of the argument amidst 5000 internet posts, when they had the witness in front of them and a clearer understanding of what was said, rather than what was subsequently reported in the papers?

Ask Trevor Marriot what the purpose of an Inquest is . Then get back to me .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Stop the shannanigans herlock ,

Your like a magician with the 3 cup and ball trick ." Nothing to see here folks ,but wait is over here" . We all know the game herlock ,i just wish you'd stop playing it.

The conflict is with Richardsons testimony as whole. Period.

There are no shenanigans Fishy. I’m simply stating a truth. All that you are doing is pointing to one version of what was said and then using the wording to try and create doubt so that you can dismiss a witness. It’s very noticeable from my viewpoint Fishy how personal this is with you. My opinions on this aligns exactly with those of Jeff, Wickerman, Hair Bear, AP and Lewis and yet it’s only me that you get angry with. This seems to indicate that your main focus is to try and ‘beat’ me in an argument rather than examine the evidence. I often get the impression that if I suddenly said that I now believe the Knight/Sickert theory you would change your mind just so that you could disagree with me.

The only one playing games here is you Fishy. You should stick to looking at the evidence as a whole.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clear ,concise, right on the money

Further evidence that you’re simply playing games Fishy.

[A P Tomlinson]

Ask Trevor Marriot what the purpose of an Inquest is . Then get back to me .

It's to provide sufficient evidence to establish the name of the deceased and the circumstances of their death.

Any answer to how you account for the people who heard the testimony accepting the sitting on the steps and being able to see the yard statements lining up with your doorway theory yet?
Was he telling two completely conflicting stories in the space of half a dozen sentences, and they were just too dumb to see it, or did they simply understand what he meant?