Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson The Killer?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John Richardson The Killer?

    He went to check if the cellar was still secure. Why that day in particular after a few months of it being robbed, seems odd.

    Also contradiction with his mother bout women on the 1st floor. She lives there he doesn't so how comes she's never heard bout this? Her son never told her either as she states in court, so he's lying.

    Also he doesn't mention to Chandler that he sat down to cut leather from his boot. He states it in court though. I believe killers enjoy putting themselves amongst the action, a way of implicating themselves slightly for a bit of fun like saying 'I'm pretty much saying I did it but you fail to see it, I'm smarter than you' a way of taunting the officials I guess.

    Also the time frame fits, the rigor makes sense if she was killed at the time Richardson puts himself at the scene of the crime

    What do you lot think?

  • #2
    I think the police liked him a lot as a suspect, but they couldn't find a drop of blood anywhere on him, so they eventually ruled him out.

    He doesn't come across as very bright, with his changing stories about the boot and the knife, but maybe that was part of his plan. Perhaps he normally wouldn't have killed in a yard with a connection to himself, but found Annie asleep there and couldn't resist the temptation. Then had to talk his way out of it. Maybe...
    Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
    ---------------
    Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
    ---------------

    Comment


    • #3
      i'm interested in Francis Tyler, the man who worked for Mrs. Richardson. As I've said many times before, Richardson claimed he was on the exact spot of Annie's murder with a knife in his hand right around the esitmated TOD. If someone saw him, like one of the neighbors looking out the window, he could have claimed to be in that position with a knife in his hand at his feet cutting his boot as a cover story. He didn't know whether anyone saw him or not for sure. And if they were looking they might not have seen annie. What position was the killer in? Was his sitting on the steps turning to his left when he pried the ring from Annie's finger?

      Richardson's reason for checking the cellar was his story that the cellar had been broken into and tools stolen. But when Mrs. R was asked about this at first she didn't remember anything about it. That seems strange to me. And the bowl of clean water. That seems strange to me as well. Wouldn't the killer atleast dip his hands in the water if it was right there? Unless the Ripper wore gloves, which I surely would...but I suspect he might like to touch those organs with his bare hands. It does seem crazy not to use gloves though.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Natasha View Post
        He went to check if the cellar was still secure. Why that day in particular after a few months of it being robbed, seems odd.

        Also contradiction with his mother bout women on the 1st floor. She lives there he doesn't so how comes she's never heard bout this? Her son never told her either as she states in court, so he's lying.

        Also he doesn't mention to Chandler that he sat down to cut leather from his boot. He states it in court though. I believe killers enjoy putting themselves amongst the action, a way of implicating themselves slightly for a bit of fun like saying 'I'm pretty much saying I did it but you fail to see it, I'm smarter than you' a way of taunting the officials I guess.

        Also the time frame fits, the rigor makes sense if she was killed at the time Richardson puts himself at the scene of the crime

        What do you lot think?
        Another Lechmere type of suspect. No connection to other murder sites.

        Regards, Pierre

        Comment


        • #5
          Seems like witnesses-turned-suspects have become the flavour. I'd probably put Richardson before Lechmere but behind Hutchinson in those stakes.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pierre View Post
            Another Lechmere type of suspect. No connection to other murder sites.

            Regards, Pierre
            personally i agree with you on the issue of Richardson.

            Steve

            Comment


            • #7
              I guess that unless some you were famous or a witness, we probably don't know your name and that's why some want to turn witnesses and famous people into suspects.

              At least they've got a name, not just Mr Nobody.
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yea but there's a difference between Richardson and the other witness/suspects that most people don't seem to grasp. He claimed to have a knife in his hand (and was using it on the ground at his feet) in the spot where a murder took place at the estimated time of death.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                  Yea but there's a difference between Richardson and the other witness/suspects that most people don't seem to grasp. He claimed to have a knife in his hand (and was using it on the ground at his feet) in the spot where a murder took place at the estimated time of death.
                  And was stupid enough as the killer to admit it.
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GUT View Post
                    And was stupid enough as the killer to admit it.
                    Gut, you are ignoring the possibility that Richardson had thought someone had seen him out there on the steps with a knife, in which case his excuse would give an explanation for what he was doing. He didn't know whether anyone saw him or not, if he said "I was never there" he'd be ****ed if someone had seen him, but if he said " I was there" (and changed his story each time he told it, probably because he was making it up as he went a long) atleast he had some kind of chance

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Natasha View Post
                      He went to check if the cellar was still secure. Why that day in particular after a few months of it being robbed, seems odd.
                      Because it was a market day?

                      "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."

                      On non-market mornings he would have been working at no. 29 anyway.

                      Also contradiction with his mother bout women on the 1st floor. She lives there he doesn't so how comes she's never heard bout this? Her son never told her either as she states in court, so he's lying.
                      If John routinely turned up very early in the morning, this would be a more likely time to find people loitering about, either prostitutes or dossers. Also, as the formal tenant of the building (subletting it by the room) Mrs Richardson may have felt at risk of prosecution if she admitted she knew the premises was used for immoral purposes. So it may not have been her son who was lying.

                      Also he doesn't mention to Chandler that he sat down to cut leather from his boot. He states it in court though.
                      Perhaps Chandler didn't ask the right question, but the coroner did?

                      I believe killers enjoy putting themselves amongst the action, a way of implicating themselves slightly for a bit of fun like saying 'I'm pretty much saying I did it but you fail to see it, I'm smarter than you' a way of taunting the officials I guess.
                      I believe most killers would want to draw as little attention to themselves as possible, especially when being found guilty meant death.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        John Davies, the lodger who first discovered Annie in the backyard, seems to say that John's mother knew of women using the building for sleeping or whatever;

                        "[Coroner] Have you ever seen women in the passage? - Mrs. Richardson has said there have been. I have not seen them myself. I have only been in the house a fortnight."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                          John Davies, the lodger who first discovered Annie in the backyard, seems to say that John's mother knew of women using the building for sleeping or whatever;

                          "[Coroner] Have you ever seen women in the passage? - Mrs. Richardson has said there have been. I have not seen them myself. I have only been in the house a fortnight."
                          Did Mrs R contradict herself about that? I think she did about the stolen tools. The most important thing about John is the accosting in the streets by the man he claimed was the ripper with the reporter. When you add this to his lies and presence at murder with weapon i thibk we aren't getting the full story and are missing important information

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The TOD implicates Richardson as a poss' suspect. I wonder if anyone can find out more info bout him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Natasha View Post
                              The TOD implicates Richardson as a poss' suspect. I wonder if anyone can find out more info bout him.
                              Natasha,

                              Neal Shelden did some genealogy on him here.

                              http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=12973

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X