John Richardson sitting on the step

[Ginger]

Paradoxically, one of the things that convinces me of Richardson's innocence is the fact that at the inquest the man plainly and blatantly lied about the knife that he'd used to trim his boot leather, but no-one, not the coroner, nor the jury, nor the police, called him on it. Why would that be?

It's obvious from accounts written at the time that the rusty table knife he produced, and for the provenance of which he told such an unlikely story, couldn't have trimmed his boot. That would have been as obvious in 1888 as it is to us today. As a market porter, he would almost have certainly owned and commonly carried a clasp knife with a strong blade to use in his job, and he probably kept it razor sharp.

I don't know enough about inquest procedures to say for sure (perhaps someone else can speak to this), but had he produced a sharp clasp knife, and admitted to having it at the murder scene, it seems likely to me that it would have been siezed as evidence, and not returned for some days at least. He was a poor man, and this was a tool without which he'd have difficulty earning his living.

This is complete speculation on my part, but I'd not be surprised to learn that he'd shown the actual knife off the record to the police and/or coroner before he gave his testimony, they'd concluded that it wasn't the murder weapon and he wasn't the murderer, and let him give his **** and bull story to avoid the regrettable necessity of taking his good knife from him, the replacement of which might have represented a substantial expense for a man of his station in life.

[RockySullivan]

Paradoxically, one of the things that convinces me of Richardson's innocence is the fact that at the inquest the man plainly and blatantly lied about the knife that he'd used to trim his boot leather, but no-one, not the coroner, nor the jury, nor the police, called him on it. Why would that be?

It's obvious from accounts written at the time that the rusty table knife he produced, and for the provenance of which he told such an unlikely story, couldn't have trimmed his boot. That would have been as obvious in 1888 as it is to us today. As a market porter, he would almost have certainly owned and commonly carried a clasp knife with a strong blade to use in his job, and he probably kept it razor sharp.

I don't know enough about inquest procedures to say for sure (perhaps someone else can speak to this), but had he produced a sharp clasp knife, and admitted to having it at the murder scene, it seems likely to me that it would have been siezed as evidence, and not returned for some days at least. He was a poor man, and this was a tool without which he'd have difficulty earning his living.

This is complete speculation on my part, but I'd not be surprised to learn that he'd shown the actual knife off the record to the police and/or coroner before he gave his testimony, they'd concluded that it wasn't the murder weapon and he wasn't the murderer, and let him give his **** and bull story to avoid the regrettable necessity of taking his good knife from him, the replacement of which might have represented a substantial expense for a man of his station in life.

That involves of quite a bit if imagination in order to let richardson off the hook. Why suppose the police would let Richardson give false testimony (perjury) in order to save him the cost of a knife? And would the coroner and jury be in on the conspiracy as well? In fact it was stated that the coroner viewed Richardson as suspicious. What's more not only did he lie about the knife, he changed his story many times (nearly every time he spoke), :

here's justa refresher of Richardson testimony:

"John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] 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. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. 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. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. 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.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
[Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.
At this stage witness was despatched by the coroner to fetch his knife.

John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.
The Coroner: I think we will detain this knife for the present.


So he says" After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up" and then he says "He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market". Clearly two conflicting accounts as Richardson apparently is a terrible liar who couldn't keep his story straight.

[Rosella]

Well, the police at the time weren't using their imaginations to get Richardson off the hook. They questioned him and his story stood up to their satisfaction. To have Annie murdered before 5am, when the Spitalfields Market opened and Richardson began work, the testimony of Albert Cadoche and Mrs Darrell/Long would have to be dismissed, as they talk of a time later than five.

If I had an elderly mother living in a large house in Hanbury St and heard some garbled story of a woman done to death in that same street, I'd be leaving work as well and coming back to see that she was OK!

Very little is known about John or Francis Tyler (other than he wasn't very punctual!) What makes you think he lodged with John Richardson and his family, Rocky?

[jason_c]

That involves of quite a bit if imagination in order to let richardson off the hook. Why suppose the police would let Richardson give false testimony (perjury) in order to save him the cost of a knife? And would the coroner and jury be in on the conspiracy as well? In fact it was stated that the coroner viewed Richardson as suspicious. What's more not only did he lie about the knife, he changed his story many times (nearly every time he spoke), :

here's justa refresher of Richardson testimony:

"John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] 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. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. 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. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. 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.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
[Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.
At this stage witness was despatched by the coroner to fetch his knife.

John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.
The Coroner: I think we will detain this knife for the present.


So he says" After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up" and then he says "He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market". Clearly two conflicting accounts as Richardson apparently is a terrible liar who couldn't keep his story straight.

They are not conflicting accounts. Everyone and I mean everyone from the most skilled artisan to the most incompetent DIY'er has done a half assed job of DIY at some stage of their lives. We have all used(or attempted to use) a piece of equipment that just wasn't up to the job adequately. Very little "imagination" is needed to clear Richardson on this point.

[RockySullivan]

They are not conflicting accounts. Everyone and I mean everyone from the most skilled artisan to the most incompetent DIY'er has done a half assed job of DIY at some stage of their lives. We have all used(or attempted to use) a piece of equipment that just wasn't up to the job adequately. Very little "imagination" is needed to clear Richardson on this point.

How did Richardson cut the leather if the knife wasn't sharp enough? What about the man who accosted Richardson with the reporter who Richardson claimed was the ripper? There are way too many suspicious things about Richardson but everyone is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt

[RockySullivan]

Well, the police at the time weren't using their imaginations to get Richardson off the hook. They questioned him and his story stood up to their satisfaction. To have Annie murdered before 5am, when the Spitalfields Market opened and Richardson began work, the testimony of Albert Cadoche and Mrs Darrell/Long would have to be dismissed, as they talk of a time later than five.

If I had an elderly mother living in a large house in Hanbury St and heard some garbled story of a woman done to death in that same street, I'd be leaving work as well and coming back to see that she was OK!

Very little is known about John or Francis Tyler (other than he wasn't very punctual!) What makes you think he lodged with John Richardson and his family, Rocky?

And in order to accept the later murder time one was dismiss the expert opinion of the Doctor Phillips...
I thought I remember reading in a press report that Tyler and Richardson lived together on John street

[RockySullivan]

Richardson decides to stop and check the padlock ok that's reasonable. Why does he sit on the step on the step to cobble his boot in the yard with no light and a knife that isn't sharp enough? He is in the same spot where a murder takes place within 15-20 minutes of ETOD and hes cutting something at his feet with a knife. You believe two separate people randomly decided to cut something at their feet within minutes of each other in the exact same spot(a dark corner of an empty yard)? No unrealistic and improbable.

[RockySullivan]

Don't forget the leather apron and how mrs R makes not at the inquest of the untouched pale of water. Now if the ripper had blood on him why wouldn't he take advantage of a bucket of water to wash his hands? Doesn't make sense. I suspect the water was changed and fresh water was put out.

[Rosella]

Deimschutz may have had a knife in his possession when he discovered Liz, so might Paul and Cross when they came across Polly's body. Just because people are associated with a crime scene before, during or after a body has been discovered doesn't mean they're murderers, whether they have knives on them or not.

The difference with Richardson is that Annie was found in the back yard of where his mother was living, and that he reported at Annie's inquest, of his own accord unprompted by others, that he was cutting his boot with a knife near where a body was found. It would be a very stupid Ripper (or murderer of any kind) to behave in the way Richardson said he did. And stating that he only spoke about his knife because others might have been looking out of windows at the time and seen him doesn't wash as no other person came forward.

Yes, Dr Phillips was a very experienced and competent police surgeon. Even today, however, estimating the time of death is a very inexact science and I doubt that it could be narrowed to an hour or so of a person's demise unless there was other evidence.

[RockySullivan]

Deimschutz may have had a knife in his possession when he discovered Liz, so might Paul and Cross when they came across Polly's body. Just because people are associated with a crime scene before, during or after a body has been discovered doesn't mean they're murderers, whether they have knives on them or not.

The difference with Richardson is that Annie was found in the back yard of where his mother was living, and that he reported at Annie's inquest, of his own accord unprompted by others, that he was cutting his boot with a knife near where a body was found. It would be a very stupid Ripper (or murderer of any kind) to behave in the way Richardson said he did. And stating that he only spoke about his knife because others might have been looking out of windows at the time and seen him doesn't wash as no other person came forward.

Yes, Dr Phillips was a very experienced and competent police surgeon. Even today, however, estimating the time of death is a very inexact science and I doubt that it could be narrowed to an hour or so of a person's demise unless there was other evidence.

Hi Rosella

Just because no one came forward as seeing Richardson from their window doesn't mean Richardson wasn't worried someone might've. He didn't know if someone would come forward later and if someone said they saw Richardson on the ground with a knife in his hand he already had a story. And remember this wasn't Richardson's first version of the story, in the first version there was no sitting on the steps or cobbling. So he may have become worried and come up with this as a preemptive defensive.

Deimschutz, Cross or Paul may have had a knife on them, but they did not have a knife (the murder weapon) out in their hand nor were they cutting something on the ground where the murder occured. If when Paul walked up to Cross was hunched over in the middle of the street and he had his knife out in hand and then said he was fixing his boot and hadnt even seen the body right next to him...would you view him suspiciously? What if it took him multiple stories to come up with that version?

[Rosella]

Hi Rocky,
Richardson wouldn't need to come up with a story if someone later told the police that they had seen him with a knife and a woman in the yard. He would have just simply denied it and stated that he had checked his mother's cellar and then gone off to be ready for work at the market.

It would have been one person's word against another. It would only have been serious if someone had looked out of their window and commented to another person at the time (a back-up witness) as to what they saw, or if they had gone to the police with their story at the time the body was found, that Richardson would have been in strife.

I think you're inclined to believe that no-one becomes muddled in their account or frightened in the middle of a murder enquiry, that people, even when they've had little to do with the police, always come up with their story first time and don't deviate from it. That just isn't so. Richardson seems to have been a person of good character and the police believed his account of his movements.

Phillips intimated that he may have made a mistake in his first estimate of time of death in that it was a cool morning and so the body cooled more rapidly. If the murder occurred after 4:55am then Richardson wouldn't have seen anything because there was nothing to see.

[Sam Flynn]

And in order to accept the later murder time one was dismiss the expert opinion of the Doctor Phillips...

To do the contrary is to dismiss the testimony of three independent witnesses, whose stories are all - without exception - compatible with the later time of death.

[RockySullivan]

Hi Rocky,
Richardson wouldn't need to come up with a story if someone later told the police that they had seen him with a knife and a woman in the yard. He would have just simply denied it and stated that he had checked his mother's cellar and then gone off to be ready for work at the market.

It would have been one person's word against another. It would only have been serious if someone had looked out of their window and commented to another person at the time (a back-up witness) as to what they saw, or if they had gone to the police with their story at the time the body was found, that Richardson would have been in strife.

I think you're inclined to believe that no-one becomes muddled in their account or frightened in the middle of a murder enquiry, that people, even when they've had little to do with the police, always come up with their story first time and don't deviate from it. That just isn't so. Richardson seems to have been a person of good character and the police believed his account of his movements.

Phillips intimated that he may have made a mistake in his first estimate of time of death in that it was a cool morning and so the body cooled more rapidly. If the murder occurred after 4:55am then Richardson wouldn't have seen anything because there was nothing to see.

I'm not so sure Richardson was a person of good character...for instance the story of the man who accosted him where he Richardson claims the man is the ripper. In fact he seems like quite a looney tune from that account.

If someone spotted Richardson with a knife out he wouldn't be off the hook just because he denied it, or two could have seen him. He didn't know who had seen him. And why was the water untouched?

[Michael W Richards]

To do the contrary is to dismiss the testimony of three independent witnesses, whose stories are all - without exception - compatible with the later time of death.

Why is it in these cases that many people are willing to question very reasonable statements made by people who clearly had the proximity and time exposure to enable a sound observance Sam? Ive always wondered why people choose to believe Mrs Long over Cadosche for example...because clearly his statement is the only one worth any salt. He was there at the site, he had the proximity, he heard a female voice and a thud....and he heard them at 5:15am. That statement places a woman in that yard by the fence at 5:15am. Its obvious the event Cadosche heard wasn't happening while standing over a gutted dying woman, obvious as well that the couple would have fled that yard screaming if that body had been seen there when they arrived.

Richardsons statement fits very well with the Cadosche statement, which negates the Long sighting, and provides us with a murder time between 5:15am and 5:30am. An approximate murder time is right there....clearly, affirmed by reasonable statements by reasonable people.

Which suggests that her killer did everything he did to her and fled before Davis came downstairs.

Which also suggests that the proclamation of killer knife skill and some anatomical knowledge is sound based on that short time period.

Cheers Sam

[RockySullivan]

Hi Michael richards, I think cadosh heard what he heard but not convinced it had to be chapman or long. First off I would go with Phillips as the most reliable. Now would the ripper have had blood on his hands? If so why would he not wash in the clean water sitting out in the yard? I think Phillips tod is more realistic...it's much less likely the ripper would be interrupted earlier and quite risky for him to choose such a late attack time. Chapman knew Richardson. Is it possible the thud was the moving of the body?