Tweet
Let´s take a look at John Richardson, and his claim to have sat on the second step of the staris leading into the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, cutting a piece of leather from his boot.
What has been uncovered is that Chandler said that Richardson claimed not to have gone down the stairs, and that he made no mentioning of any bootcutting.
In his excellent dissertation of the Chapman inquest witnesses, Wolf Vanderlinden also mentions that when Richardson spoke to the Star on the day of the murder, he mentioned nothing about the bootcutting either:
"This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure."
Vanderlinden goes on to point out that Richardson´s story had changed when he took the stand at the inquest. Now he suddenly says he sat on the stairs and cut off a piece of leather that hurt him in one of his boots:
"I sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot."
Richardson also adds that "after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market."
He therefore lays down that he succeeded to cut away the piece of leather. However, when he is asked to produce the knife, he admits when doing so that the knife had been too dull to cut the leather off, and he had subsequently borrowed another knife from a man at Spitalfields market to do the job.
We can see here that we are on very shaky ground. Richardson contradicts himself in a major way, and more than once too.
Here are four snippets from the press, commenting on the inquest:
Daily Telegraph:
Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long … After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself.
When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
The Times:
He lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. He did not go into the yard but went and stood on the steps. The back door was closed when he got to it. He stood on the steps and cut a piece of leather from off one of his boots. He cut it with a table knife about 5in. long. It was now at his house in John-street. It being market morning he put the knife into his pocket. He could not say why he put the knife in his pocket, and supposed he did so by mistake. After cutting the piece of leather off his boot he tied up the boot and went out of the house. He did not close the back door, as it closed itself.
Daily News:
Was the front door open on Saturday morning.
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.
What sort of a knife did you use?-One four or five inches long.
What do you usually use that knife for?-I had been using it to cut up a piece of carrot for the rabbit, and I afterwards put it in my pocket.
Do you generally keep it in your pocket?-No.
Why did you put it there on this occasion?-I suppose it was a mistake on my part.
When you had cut the piece of leather off your boot did you leave the house?-Yes. I tied my boot up and went out. I did not close the back door. It closes itself.
Morning Advertiser:
I found the front door shut, and I lifted up the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. I stood on the steps, but did not go into the yard. The back door was closed. I opened it and sat on the doorstep and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table- knife, about five inches long, which I brought from home ... When I had cut the piece of leather off my boot I tied my boot up and went out of the house to the market. I did not close the back door ; it closes itself. I closed the front door.
Did you sit on the top step? -No, sir, the second step.
Where were your feet? -On the flags of the yard, sir.
It is said in both the Times and in the Morning Advertiser that Richardson ”stood on the steps”, meaning that he stood on the top of the stairs, the way I understand it. In the Morning Advertiser he adds that he ”did not go into the yard”. But he says that his feet were resting on the flagstones of the yard. Which has me wondering, and which is where I´d like some input. If you have some stairs to use, it will facilitate the thinking process!
First question: Richardson would have taken one of his boots off, would he not? The hurtful leather piece would reasonably have been situated inside the boot.
So why did he sit on the second step while doing this? Why not on the top step? Surely the thing to expect would be that he only walked as far down on the steps as he had to. If we have a flight of stairs with ten steps, why would you go to the bottom step to cut leather off your boot?
Next thing: Richardson says that he sat on step number two, and that his feet were on the flagstones of the yard.
Here´s where the stairs in your home are useful: Sit down on stair number two, and put you feet on the ground. Then rise.
How do you do that? How do you rise? Do you lift your feet onto the first step and then rise? Or do you just put your hand on the stair you are sitting on and heave yourselves up?
When I tried his, I found that the logical thing to do was to rise up with your feet on the ground beneath the stairs. It is very awkward to pull your feet up under you on step one before you rise, and since your knees will end high up, it will be a much heavier lift to perform. Ergonomics will opt for rising with your feet on the floor.
So there you are! Surely you must have guessed what I am going on about by now?
No?
I´ll tell you, then.
Richardson says that he did not have to close the door as he left; it closed itself. It swung back on it´s hinges and slammed shut.
But if he rose to a standing position from a stance on the flagstones, then his body would not have hindered the door from shutting itself.
There is a police report that I have failed to find – please help out! - where the police speculate that Richardson need not have seen the body, since it would have been to a smaller or larger degree hidden from sight from him by the door.
This would mean that the police had established that the door was open and against Richardsons body as he – purportedly – sat on the second step.
But if he rose with his feet on the ground, this would have changed – the door would have slammed shut, and Richardson would undoubtedly have seen Chapman if she had been there.
I think Richardsons stroy adds up very poorly, if he had told the police that the door was open as he sat on the stairs. It seemingly was. He says that he did not have to close it as he left – since it closed itself.
Any comments?
The best,
Fisherman
What has been uncovered is that Chandler said that Richardson claimed not to have gone down the stairs, and that he made no mentioning of any bootcutting.
In his excellent dissertation of the Chapman inquest witnesses, Wolf Vanderlinden also mentions that when Richardson spoke to the Star on the day of the murder, he mentioned nothing about the bootcutting either:
"This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure."
Vanderlinden goes on to point out that Richardson´s story had changed when he took the stand at the inquest. Now he suddenly says he sat on the stairs and cut off a piece of leather that hurt him in one of his boots:
"I sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot."
Richardson also adds that "after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market."
He therefore lays down that he succeeded to cut away the piece of leather. However, when he is asked to produce the knife, he admits when doing so that the knife had been too dull to cut the leather off, and he had subsequently borrowed another knife from a man at Spitalfields market to do the job.
We can see here that we are on very shaky ground. Richardson contradicts himself in a major way, and more than once too.
Here are four snippets from the press, commenting on the inquest:
Daily Telegraph:
Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long … After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself.
When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
The Times:
He lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. He did not go into the yard but went and stood on the steps. The back door was closed when he got to it. He stood on the steps and cut a piece of leather from off one of his boots. He cut it with a table knife about 5in. long. It was now at his house in John-street. It being market morning he put the knife into his pocket. He could not say why he put the knife in his pocket, and supposed he did so by mistake. After cutting the piece of leather off his boot he tied up the boot and went out of the house. He did not close the back door, as it closed itself.
Daily News:
Was the front door open on Saturday morning.
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.
What sort of a knife did you use?-One four or five inches long.
What do you usually use that knife for?-I had been using it to cut up a piece of carrot for the rabbit, and I afterwards put it in my pocket.
Do you generally keep it in your pocket?-No.
Why did you put it there on this occasion?-I suppose it was a mistake on my part.
When you had cut the piece of leather off your boot did you leave the house?-Yes. I tied my boot up and went out. I did not close the back door. It closes itself.
Morning Advertiser:
I found the front door shut, and I lifted up the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. I stood on the steps, but did not go into the yard. The back door was closed. I opened it and sat on the doorstep and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table- knife, about five inches long, which I brought from home ... When I had cut the piece of leather off my boot I tied my boot up and went out of the house to the market. I did not close the back door ; it closes itself. I closed the front door.
Did you sit on the top step? -No, sir, the second step.
Where were your feet? -On the flags of the yard, sir.
It is said in both the Times and in the Morning Advertiser that Richardson ”stood on the steps”, meaning that he stood on the top of the stairs, the way I understand it. In the Morning Advertiser he adds that he ”did not go into the yard”. But he says that his feet were resting on the flagstones of the yard. Which has me wondering, and which is where I´d like some input. If you have some stairs to use, it will facilitate the thinking process!
First question: Richardson would have taken one of his boots off, would he not? The hurtful leather piece would reasonably have been situated inside the boot.
So why did he sit on the second step while doing this? Why not on the top step? Surely the thing to expect would be that he only walked as far down on the steps as he had to. If we have a flight of stairs with ten steps, why would you go to the bottom step to cut leather off your boot?
Next thing: Richardson says that he sat on step number two, and that his feet were on the flagstones of the yard.
Here´s where the stairs in your home are useful: Sit down on stair number two, and put you feet on the ground. Then rise.
How do you do that? How do you rise? Do you lift your feet onto the first step and then rise? Or do you just put your hand on the stair you are sitting on and heave yourselves up?
When I tried his, I found that the logical thing to do was to rise up with your feet on the ground beneath the stairs. It is very awkward to pull your feet up under you on step one before you rise, and since your knees will end high up, it will be a much heavier lift to perform. Ergonomics will opt for rising with your feet on the floor.
So there you are! Surely you must have guessed what I am going on about by now?
No?
I´ll tell you, then.
Richardson says that he did not have to close the door as he left; it closed itself. It swung back on it´s hinges and slammed shut.
But if he rose to a standing position from a stance on the flagstones, then his body would not have hindered the door from shutting itself.
There is a police report that I have failed to find – please help out! - where the police speculate that Richardson need not have seen the body, since it would have been to a smaller or larger degree hidden from sight from him by the door.
This would mean that the police had established that the door was open and against Richardsons body as he – purportedly – sat on the second step.
But if he rose with his feet on the ground, this would have changed – the door would have slammed shut, and Richardson would undoubtedly have seen Chapman if she had been there.
I think Richardsons stroy adds up very poorly, if he had told the police that the door was open as he sat on the stairs. It seemingly was. He says that he did not have to close it as he left – since it closed itself.
Any comments?
The best,
Fisherman
Comment