And to me therein lies the answer. Davis sees it off the top step, Richardson doesn’t, most logical reason being ???
Not only that, GUT, but Davis was not a young man and his eyesight was probably not wonderful. He was about 56, but was described as 'an elderly man with a decided stoop' and as 'an old and feeble man with a slightly humped back'.
In contrast, Richardson was twenty years younger and could easily spot in the darkness whether a padlock was closed and keeping the cellar secure. Yet we are being asked to believe that while Davis saw Chapman's body 'directly' on opening the door, Richardson could well have missed it.
Richardson would have known if he had kept his eyes and body turned strictly to the right, in the direction of the padlock, from the moment he began opening the door, and would have known if it had failed to open fully and stay put, all the while he was there. But in that case, he'd also have known how he could - just possibly - have innocently missed seeing the body, which, as he later learned, was on the ground to his left, possibly obscured by the partially open door. Why he didn't simply say so, if this accurately reflects his experience, is for Fish to explain. There would have been no shame in saying he couldn't be 100% certain the woman wasn't there, because his attention was all focused in another direction.
The obvious explanation is that Richardson, like most people on the planet, including Davis, was looking straight ahead as he opened the door and, like Davis, would have seen the body immediately had it been there.
__________________ "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Question away. I cannot say more than this: it is a sad thing when criticism must start from a point of how something presented by an expert in a docu should not be believed, especially when no evidence whatsoever can be presented that this was so.
It goes hand in hand with the allegations of me not being truthful or only pointing to different matters because I am infatuated with lechmere.
If you can´t shoot down the message, shoot the messenger instead. If you do not like what an expert says, lead on that he or she has been misinformed, bribed or threatened.
That´s how we work out here, right?
No, we expect an expert to base an opinion after hearing both sides.
Now you might find that unfair of course......
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
1.He lived in the area, during the entire period of the murders.
Well, he lived "next door" strictly speaking, in Bethnal Green as opposed to Whitechapel. Although only a 12 minute walk away from the Nichols murder, make that 20 minutes for Chapman, 22 minutes for Stride, 28 minutes for Eddowes and 25 minutes for Kelly (approximate timings based on Google Maps). Not insurmountable times or distances by any means, but not particularly conducive for a killer on foot, either.
If he was prepared to venture West for up to 28 minutes in search of a victim, one has to wonder why nothing remotely like the Ripper murders happened within a similar radius to the North, East or South of Doveton Street. Unless he only felt the urge to kill whilst en route to work or his mother's residence; rather unlikely on both counts, I'd suggest.
On the contrary, someone confident enough to kill whilst a fair distance to the West of his home could easily have struck at any time and in any direction - particularly given the fact that, once at work and sat behind his horse, he could have extended his reach so much further.