John Richardson

[A P Tomlinson]

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

Yeah, the original fence would have been about the height of the top baton on the photo shown. Maybe a little more, but not much.

[A P Tomlinson]

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




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.

Is there any way Hair Bear might fashion a composite of Ronald Reagan sitting on the middle step facing the house with his feet up in the door way?
Maybe that's what Richardson meant?
No?
No...
I need a drink...

[Wickerman]

...
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.

Another superb post my friend, not that it is likely to change anything.
Fishy chooses to not listen to reason.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have yet to read a convincing explanation as to how rigor mortis could have begun to set in so quickly in this case.

As I pointed out on another thread some time ago, the estimate that rigor mortis starts to set in after two hours or more, to which doctor Phillips adhered, has not changed since 1888.

[JeffHamm]

I have yet to read a convincing explanation as to how rigor mortis could have begun to set in so quickly in this case.

As I pointed out on another thread some time ago, the estimate that rigor mortis starts to set in after two hours or more, to which doctor Phillips adhered, has not changed since 1888.

Hi PI,

As mentioned before on those threads, rigor mortis can set in very quickly, and the onset time is highly variable between cases. Moreover, detection of rigor mortis is not an objective measurement, it is a subjective call, and so had the doctor examining Annie been someone else it is possible they would not have made the same call (obviously, though, maybe they would have - there's no way to know what would have happened under different circumstances).

In short, similar to estimating ToD from body temperature readings, the error of the estimate for the ToD from rigor mortis is highly unreliable due to the fact it's onset, progression, and relaxation profiles are highly variable. In short, there's nothing about the onset of rigor mortis being noted at 6:30ish to preclude death occuring after Richardson's visit, or even during Cadosche's loo trips.

Same applies for the noting of some food in her stomach.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

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.

A.P ...I'm not sure your paying any attention to the witness testimony and what it says in plain English .

Save your long drawn out post that have nothing to do with Richardson claims regarding the steps and what he did or didn't do . Your boring me with off topic drivel. Move on

[FISHY1118]

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?

Only when people are being a smart A#@.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks for your reply, Jeff, but I cannot agree with you that detection of rigor mortis is in any way subjective.

I honestly cannot imagine two doctors examining the same body and disagreeing about whether a certain limb has started to stiffen.

The question I haven't seen answered by those who favour a later time of death is why rigor mortis set in within an hour in this case, and the body was almost completely cold, whereas in Mitre Square, about 42 minutes after death, no rigor mortis was detected and the body was still warm.

I have seen two explanations given: that in Hanbury Street the morning was cold and the victim had a lung disease.

In Mitre Square, however, weather conditions were similar and the victim was noticeably thinner than the earlier victim.

There is therefore no reason to expect rigor mortis to set in much earlier in Chapman's case.

It seems to me that it is accepted that it did set in much earlier in order to accommodate the witness testimony - and not on the strength of the medical evidence.

[FISHY1118]

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.

More smart A#@ comments i see ,

Thats ok I'm a big boy ,no skin off my nose mate .

The dangling of his feet over the steps was just a term used to suggest vwhat he was doing. Anyway no big deal .

But your problem is how did Richardson get to the paving stone standing at the too of the cellar step if he said this to Chandler " he told me he did not go down the steps" ? Did he jump with one big leap from the back door clearing the steps with one mighty bound.?

Like others your ignoring conflicting evidence. .

[FISHY1118]

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

Why ? This is the conflicting evidence you pretend doesn't matter, or doesn't mean what it plainly says .

It should be and will continue to be posted until you at least admit that there is conflict with witness testimony.

[A P Tomlinson]

A.P ...I'm not sure your paying any attention to the witness testimony and what it says in plain English .

Save your long drawn out post that have nothing to do with Richardson claims regarding the steps and what he did or didn't do . Your boring me with off topic drivel. Move on

No Fishy, I'm just not laser focused on ONE part of it.
You still haven't come up with any sort of reconcilliation for the inquest accepting Richardson's statements and your assertions to the contrary, beyond what amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "sorry didn't hear that" by way of saying that the jury didn't question or comment, (which I kind of showed you they did, along with Baxter's fairly consistent badgering of the witnesses over details that weren't mentioned in initial statements, and no concession on your part, obviously.)

[FISHY1118]

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

Your general tone in your responses just like this one are nasty .

Proven.

[FISHY1118]

I’ve thought this for a while now AP.

You thought wrong then didn't you .

Because I'm discussing evidence and testimony in regards to the Chapman murder ,God knows what your doing .

Oh yes thats right ,ignoring conflicting evidence and testimony that supports an earlier .t.o.d.

[FISHY1118]

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.

There the same reports of the same event reported differently ,

Great you just proved my point , look at all the press reports there conflicting as to what was really said .

You wanted to use the daily news as the one you said we should trust this befor other,

So you deal with pal.

[FISHY1118]

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

Chapmans body is in the wrong spot.