John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’ve thought this for a while now AP.

[Wickerman]

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.Joseph Chandler, ''He told me he did not go down the steps.''


Richardson lied or Chandler lied . Period.

You pretend to use all the evidence, but you are not, so who's really lying?


Why don't you use the Daily News:
"Witness 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".

You keep using the Daily Telegraph:
"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".

Or, why not use the Morning Advertiser:
"Richardson only told me that he went to the top of the steps and looked down into the cellar. He said nothing about having sat on the top step".

You have the answer right in front of you, but you choose to ignore the sources that prove you wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

You’ve hit the nail squarely on the head Wick. This isn’t reasoned thinking that we’re dealing with here as we can see from posting history. This is someone who is so desperate to try and ‘prove’ an earlier ToD that he’s willing to clutch at any straw. He’ll ignore evidence, reason and common sense. He’ll ignore press report after press report after press report only to focus on the one that appears to support the point that he likes. He’ll suggest quite openly for example that if Cadosch expressed caution over the ‘no’ then we should assume doubt over the sound that he’d heard. This is what passes for logic.

Does he have a reason to ‘need’ an earlier ToD? Yes he does. Fishy is a real ripperological rarity. He’s probably the only living, breathing person who believes that the Knight/Sickert theory is true and that the ripper was a 71 year old multiple stroke victim. So naturally he needs a cover of darkness to allow Sickert and Netley to carry Annie’s corpse from the carriage to the back yard. Hence he favours that a Victorian Doctor had skills and knowledge that he couldn’t possibly have had. And he favours this over three witnesses. And he does this by taking a manipulative and highly selective approach to assessing evidence…..as you can see here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Have you been talking to Andrew over on the Stride thread RD? He once suggested that Mrs Richardson was running a brothel from the cellar of number 29 (which I named The Pink Pussycat)

[A P Tomlinson]

Have you been talking to Andrew over on the Stride thread RD? He once suggested that Mrs Richardson was running a brothel from the cellar of number 29 (which I named The Pink Pussycat)

I love this!
This makes a better story than the mundane fiction over at The House of Stow and Holmgren.
I now imagine John went there on market days to make sure none of the punters/workers had... "escaped" overnight.
I wonder how depraved that cellar was?
This has "Blumhouse: Straight to Streaming" written all over it!

[Wickerman]

"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?

The only difference I see is that the door will have closed behind him, which is why he is not sat on the top step.

[Hair Bear]

The only difference I see is that the door will have closed behind him, which is why he is not sat on the top step.

Hi Wick, I believe it is possible he let the door close behind him, then did his boot, stood up, turned, then opened it and, holding the door open, went through the doorway, allowing the door to close on its own accord when he pulled his hand away (rather than pulling the door to - as he said, it shut itself). But I also believe that he may have kept the door against himself. These mock ups suggest to me that he was not too far beyond the door when in a standing position for this to happen.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Wick, I believe it is possible he let the door close behind him, then did his boot, stood up, turned, then opened it and, holding the door open, went through the doorway, allowing the door to close on its own accord when he pulled his hand away (rather than pulling the door to - as he said, it shut itself). But I also believe that he may have kept the door against himself. These mock ups suggest to me that he was not too far beyond the door when in a standing position for this to happen.

That's not quite in proportion as the fence only went up to Mason's shoulders, who was 5ft 11"

The fence was shorter than Mason by around 5 inches.

Although IF Richardson was 5ft 6" then this is actually pretty accurate in terms of dimensions


RD

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick, I believe it is possible he let the door close behind him, then did his boot, stood up, turned, then opened it and, holding the door open, went through the doorway, allowing the door to close on its own accord when he pulled his hand away (rather than pulling the door to - as he said, it shut itself). But I also believe that he may have kept the door against himself. These mock ups suggest to me that he was not too far beyond the door when in a standing position for this to happen.

Hi HB

Yes, it could be either.
Regardless of which, anyone sat on the middle step could not miss a body on the ground beside their left foot.

[Wickerman]

Does he have a reason to ‘need’ an earlier ToD? Yes he does. Fishy is a real ripperological rarity. He’s probably the only living, breathing person who believes that the Knight/Sickert theory is true and that the ripper was a 71 year old multiple stroke victim. So naturally he needs a cover of darkness to allow Sickert and Netley to carry Annie’s corpse from the carriage to the back yard. Hence he favours that a Victorian Doctor had skills and knowledge that he couldn’t possibly have had. And he favours this over three witnesses. And he does this by taking a manipulative and highly selective approach to assessing evidence…..as you can see here.

Thanks Herlock, I didn't know any of that.
I can't believe anyone still believes in the Stephen Knight theory - even Knight doesn't believe it. He admitted as much decades ago.

[Wickerman]

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.

Beyond that red line is where I argue the "yard" truly begins.
The cellar steps and the entire foundation are all one, the steps are part of the house foundation.
Therefore, whatever lies beyond the extreme end of the cellar steps is the yard.



Which means the paving stones at the bottom of the house steps are not truly the yard, although some can & do refer to them as such.

Beyond the red line (towards the bottom right corner) is where Richardson said he did not go.
However, he did place his feet on the slab at the bottom of the house steps, whether he views this as part of the yard or not is often a personal thing.

[JeffHamm]

Beyond that red line is where I argue the "yard" truly begins.
The cellar steps and the entire foundation are all one, the steps are part of the house foundation.
Therefore, whatever lies beyond the extreme end of the cellar steps is the yard.



Which means the paving stones at the bottom of the house steps are not truly the yard, although some can & do refer to them as such.

Beyond the red line (towards the bottom right corner) is where Richardson said he did not go.
However, he did place his feet on the slab at the bottom of the house steps, whether he views this as part of the yard or not is often a personal thing.

Hi Wickerman,

My own take, which probably comes to more or less a similar "red line", is that crossing that red line (given how small the area is), would be moving far enough from the edge to constitute "going into the yard", while remaining on the house side of the red line, one hasn't gone "into the yard" but has remained only at the edge of the yard. The difference being that the "yard" as a word includes both the edge and the interior, but the phase "going into the yard" refers to having moved beyond the edge zone. As such, the red line would be a fairly wide and fuzzy thing, and how far from the edge it is depends upon the size of the whole thing (one has to walk further to have gone "into the forest", for example).

But I take your point. If, for example, instead of stairs and flags, it was a deck. I can see someone who was asked "did you go into the yard" respond with "No" if they only remained on the deck. I think that would be more likely as well if they had just clearly stated they were on the deck, and were then asked if they went into the yard - the natural presumption being that the questioner is asking if they came off the deck.

So when Richardson, after having said he checked the lock, was asked about going into the yard, his response could reflect that sort of thing as well, that the coroner's question implied to him that he was being asked if he went further on, which he didn't.

Language has a lot of weird aspects to it, and the meaning of a sentence is much more than just the sum of the dictionary definitions of each the individual words. This is often why interviews with witnesses are so long, and the same bits are gone over multiple times. It's not just to test consistency, but to try and ensure the exact meaning is understood and conveyed, and precision is not always easy with language (as this whole discussion topic is demonstrating).

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I can't believe anyone still believes in the Stephen Knight theory - even Knight doesn't believe it.

You mean on the other side?

[Hair Bear]

That's not quite in proportion as the fence only went up to Mason's shoulders, who was 5ft 11"

The fence was shorter than Mason by around 5 inches.

Although IF Richardson was 5ft 6" then this is actually pretty accurate in terms of dimensions


RD

The fence is not the original one. Everything else I have attempted to put into proportion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Although I realise that I’m wasting my time, I’ll try for clarity again in the vain hope that might have an effect.

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

Fishy is clinging on to two phrases as the Good Ship ‘Earlier ToD’ sinks beneath the waves. Those phrases are ‘into the yard’ and ‘from the back door steps.’

So….’into the yard.’

In the same newspaper article that he keeps referring to John Richardson says this:

“The Witness-No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot.”

So very clearly we can see that John Richardson didn’t consider putting his feet on the flags of the backyard of number 29 as going ‘into the yard.’ However hard Fishy tries to interpret it otherwise this must be the truth. In every single version of events we have him saying that he sat on the steps. So I’ll repeat……John Richardson didn’t consider standing on the flags of the yard (directly in front of the back door steps) as going ‘into the yard)

Next……’from the back door steps.’

We know for a fact that the cellar steps had a canopy over it. The two bricks missing from the wall indicate strongly that the canopy’s height was to somewhere around the window sill or probably just below it.

We know for a fact that the canopy couldn’t have extended to the end of the steps because an adult wouldn’t have been able to walk under it. So it only would have come part way (a reasonable estimate would be around half way although we cannot be exact in this)

We can see from the photographs that a canopy stretched half way out over the step would mean that the canopy would have ended roughly in line with Richardson’s feet as he sat on the middle step.

So when Richardson went down the steps and had both feet on the flags it would have been entirely natural and effortless for him to have glanced down the cellar steps to check the lock or to have glanced under the side of the canopy to do the same thing. He could have performed both simple actions without moving away from the steps and going further into the yard. After his quick check he simply sat down on the middle step (again…as he said)

How much clearer; how much simpler could this be?

The ‘problem’ about him not going down the steps has been clarified by Wick when pointing out the obvious fact that there were two sets of steps (the back door steps and the cellar steps) This caused some measure of confusion but what cannot be suggested under any circumstances is that in one breath Richardson said that he didn’t go down the back door steps whilst in the next he’s saying that he went down those steps so that he could sit on the middle one! This cannot and should not be taken seriously for a second. Obviously when Richardson answered that he didn’t go down the steps he meant that he didn’t go down the cellar steps. He couldn’t have meant anything else without contradicting himself in one sentence after another - and we see that not once did anyone pull him up on any such contradiction. And when he said that he could check the cellar from the back door steps he was being perfectly correct and perfectly truthful. From a position standing at the bottom of the steps (or from sitting on them) he could check the lock. Which is what he did.


The whole attempt to paint John Richardson as a liar is ridiculous, surreal fabrication. It’s past time that you let this nonsense go. Believe in whatever far-fetched, utterly disproven theory about who the ripper was that you want to, it’s a free world, but don’t try manipulating evidence and selective quotation to bolster that theory.