John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

There were two sets of steps in that yard. Why do you assume which set was meant?

[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work


Because Richardson told him he ''came to the back door and looked down to the cellar'', that means he was on the back steps of the house !


By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Which steps do you think they meant? . Seriously do i even have to ask .

[FISHY1118]

Who suggested that?

Wickerman

[FISHY1118]

I’ve said absolutely nothing nasty in the slightest. Not once.

Yer Right

[FISHY1118]

And you used the exact same phrase that Wickerman used in response to me. Are you claiming coincidence?

Fluke

[FISHY1118]

The irony.

Your M.O what did you expect.

[FISHY1118]

I don't want to break it to you too harshly but weighing up and coming to a conclusion sufficient to deliver a verdict based on the evidence presented to it, IS kind of the job of a jury.
And they accepted that he sat on the step.
Why?
They heard the actual evidence, not the newspaper reports. Which in my opinion gives them the edge. They looked him in the eye while he spoke, they saw him react to cross examination, they heard all the words that came out of his mouth. And understood EXACTLY what he meant when he made his statments that he sat on the steps but did not go into the yard.

And still swerving the point of how you account for the sitting on the steps part being perfectly acceptable to alll of them, most of us, but not to you, when the level and quality of evidence you keep quoting is of exactly the same standard as the part where he sat on the steps.

I wonder how many members of the Jury had corroborating the early ToD firmly on their agenda when trying to decide the veracity of the witnesses?
Not enough it seems.

Who said they accepted it ? They ony listen to it . As far i i can see no one was ever challenge or cross examined regarding their testimony as to form an opinion when the evidence was conflicting. . Move on .

[A P Tomlinson]

Who said they accepted it ? They ony listen to it . As far i i can see no one was ever challenge or cross examined regarding their testimony as to form an opinion when the evidence was conflicting. . Move on .

Anyone who looks at the reports and understands that if they didn't accept it they would have questioned it.

If they didn''t understand what he meant, and didn't accept that it was wholly accpetable to say that he sat on the steps but didn't go into the yard, they would have been faced with an insoluable issue that would create a massive conflict. The one YOU think you've uncovered. They were able to intervene with comments and questions. I;m not sure Baxter was particularly keen on it, but they DID

Are you trying to suggest that they would have simply ignored all that?
You've made FAR more posts than me, so clearly have read more than me... at any point have you come across Wynne Baxter?
The coronoer who accepts in his summing up that the body wasn't there when Richardson was there.
Who said they accepted it???
HE DID!
By accepting it as part of his closing summary to the jury! None of whom chipped in with, "Hold on... maybe he was wrong and was standing right at the top of the steps and that bit about sitting down was a blundering lie of contradiction! What have we been doing here? Is there peyote in the water? Has someone been piping opium into the room? How did we MISS THAT???"
Or... they simply, and straightforwardly accepted and understood that when he said he didn't go into the yard, but he sat on the steps just makes sense.
The Jury then accepted it, demonstrable by them not discounting it.

As far as you not being able to see something goes, that only holds water if you LOOKED.
(Thouands more posts than me... you MUST have seeen this stuff...)
Every time in those reports the phrase, "By The Jury" appears, it refers to a juror asking a question. One of them even chips in with a bit of a "Moral High Horse" on day 2.
And for Gods sake that's pretty much all Wynne Baxter DID for four days, ask questions, and challenge people. THAT was how he was able to summarise it all on Day 5!
He challenged Richardson to the point of sending him home to fetch a piece of evidence. If he as the cornoer felt a piece of evidence was flawed or inadmissible he would have instructed the jury to discount it.
He DIDN'T!
Your argument is getting to the point of being so thin, Channel Five will soon be inviting it to appear on a reality TV show about eating disorders.

Fishy... I'm not sure if you are just taking the piss now.

[Hair Bear]

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.

Cheers, George

"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'm assuming you can only mean like this, George? I reiterate that to get into this position Tricky would have to stand 'in the yard' where his feet are and lower himself backwards. Do you agree this? Yes, I know that it isn't your theory, as you don't believe Richardson sat down, but can we agree that if he did sit down then it would have been more than likely that he would have seen the body had she been there?

[Trevor Marriott]

Anyone who looks at the reports and understands that if they didn't accept it they would have questioned it.

If they didn''t understand what he meant, and didn't accept that it was wholly accpetable to say that he sat on the steps but didn't go into the yard, they would have been faced with an insoluable issue that would create a massive conflict. The one YOU think you've uncovered. They were able to intervene with comments and questions. I;m not sure Baxter was particularly keen on it, but they DID

Are you trying to suggest that they would have simply ignored all that?
You've made FAR more posts than me, so clearly have read more than me... at any point have you come across Wynne Baxter?
The coronoer who accepts in his summing up that the body wasn't there when Richardson was there.
Who said they accepted it???
HE DID!
By accepting it as part of his closing summary to the jury! None of whom chipped in with, "Hold on... maybe he was wrong and was standing right at the top of the steps and that bit about sitting down was a blundering lie of contradiction! What have we been doing here? Is there peyote in the water? Has someone been piping opium into the room? How did we MISS THAT???"
Or... they simply, and straightforwardly accepted and understood that when he said he didn't go into the yard, but he sat on the steps just makes sense.
The Jury then accepted it, demonstrable by them not discounting it.

As far as you not being able to see something goes, that only holds water if you LOOKED.
(Thouands more posts than me... you MUST have seeen this stuff...)
Every time in those reports the phrase, "By The Jury" appears, it refers to a juror asking a question. One of them even chips in with a bit of a "Moral High Horse" on day 2.
And for Gods sake that's pretty much all Wynne Baxter DID for four days, ask questions, and challenge people. THAT was how he was able to summarise it all on Day 5!
He challenged Richardson to the point of sending him home to fetch a piece of evidence. If he as the cornoer felt a piece of evidence was flawed or inadmissible he would have instructed the jury to discount it.
He DIDN'T!
Your argument is getting to the point of being so thin, Channel Five will soon be inviting it to appear on a reality TV show about eating disorders.

Fishy... I'm not sure if you are just taking the piss now.

The coroner made this comment in his summing up

"The evidence is now on the records of this court, and could be used even if the witnesses were not forthcoming"

Was that comment made because of the conflicting testimony?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

Okay...so just to throw a curve ball here...


Is there a chance within the realm of possibility that BOTH sides are right in some way?


Could Richardson have missed the body...because she wasn't there... AND her having been killed earlier?


The break-in of the cellar a month earlier

The man who was seen loitering on the steps in the hallway


Could Chapman have been drawn into a trap?


By a couple?


Who killed her and then moved her body into the cellar/outside toilet.


Then Richardson is outside and doesn't see the body because the body isn't there...

And then after he leaves, the couple then places the body into the position she was later found.



It's pretty thin but there you go.


Ha ha


RD

[A P Tomlinson]

The coroner made this comment in his summing up

"The evidence is now on the records of this court, and could be used even if the witnesses were not forthcoming"

Was that comment made because of the conflicting testimony?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I took that to mean the witnesses who knewmore about the incident (such as "the Pensioner"/Ted Stanley) hadn't come forward.
If he considered that witnesses that had spoken before the inquest had witheld information he would have made more of it at the time, and instructed the jury which witnesses he felt were of questionable status. He certainly uses Richardson's testimony as a marker for the ToD without any such caveat.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that how your interpreting it ? Arnt my opinions less valid in your mind because they dont align with yours ?

You mentioned the number of posts AP had made.

Do you think it a matter of pride to dispute every single thing Fishy? So are you saying that you just randomly mentioned the number of posts that he’s made?

[Wickerman]

Let me get this right, are you suggesting that because Richardson sat on the step and his feet were dangling touching the ground that somehow this constitutes him going into the yard ?

How do you mean "dangling", are you saying he's a dwarf now?

Anytime you sit on outdoor steps, you walk down the steps and stand on the ground, don't pretend you don't know that. He admits his feet were in the yard.
The paving stone his feet are on is in the yard.

So, Richardson stands in the yard at the bottom of the house steps (before he sits down), even though he tells the coroner he did not go "into the yard".
His claim to not going "into the yard" is immediately questionable, he is clearly thinking of something else.

You seem to be struggling to understand the difference, although I suspect the truth is, you are refusing to accept there is a difference.
If you give in then you loose your "early t.o.d." argument.

Richardson did not go out into the yard away from the house, but he did stand on the paving stones between the house & cellar steps. Which was all he needed to do to see down the cellar steps.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Richardson sat on the steps ''No he is not in the yard ,whether his feet are over the edge of the step touching the ground or not .

I dont think it could be made any simpler Herlock. How is this press report Nitpicking ?



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



1. Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir

2.[Richardson] Yes; ''but you don't need to go into the yard''

3.You can ''see the padlock'' of the cellar door ''from the back door steps.''!!!!!!!!!!

Will you stop re-posting that same quote!!! (which you focus on, ignoring all others)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yer Right

Re-post anything that I’ve said that was nasty. I’m tired of hearing your inventions Fishy. Prove it or shut up.