John Richardson The Killer?

[Harry D]

Richardson was definitely a dodgy character. He said that he stopped to cut his boot with an old table-knife, but when he retrieved said knife and it was clearly in no condition to do the job, he said that he'd in fact borrowed another one from the market. Something that he'd neglected to mention in his original testimony. He's a man who was at the murder scene within the TOD, with a knife, who couldn't keep his story straight. Richardson would've been conscious of those first two points, and perhaps in his efforts to avoid suspicion he inadvertently made himself look more guilty. That doesn't mean that he was guilty, however.

[Natasha]

I don`t think it`s him, but a reasonable scenario would be that things got out of hand trying to remove Chapman from the premises.

Hi Jon

What do you mean, when she was already dead?
Why would he, unless he was guilty. If she was already dead and he didn't do it, why not just alert the police?

[Jon Guy]

The deerstalker wearing man Long saw was 5'4 which is quite short but i'm not sure how tall John was..

Richardson was described in the newspaper as a big man, which might not necessarily mean he was tall, but possibly stout, or broad shouldered.

[Jon Guy]

If the tod is correct we could be looking at the murderer, Richardson. Though tbh I haven't a clue to motive. If anyone is buying this what do you think?

I don`t think it`s him, but a reasonable scenario would be that things got out of hand trying to remove Chapman from the premises.

[Natasha]

Natasha,

Neal Shelden did some genealogy on him here.

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

Hi all
I did use Neal's ID info to track a possible military record for Richardson. There aren't many surviving militia records but there are pension records for the regular army and I did find a John Richardson born the right year and in Lambeth in those pension records but there was nothing in them to positively say it was the same man, and I did find there were two other men named John Richardson born in Lambeth within a similar time frame.
The pension record showed the soldier John Richardson was epileptic and was discharged on account of that.

Thanks for your help guys

would Elizabeth Long have known Richardson by sight? If she did surely in her statement she would have said i saw victim with the bloke whose mum lives at 29.Also if you are with a lady of the night do you really take her back to mum's?

I would say yes, seeing as her and her husband were cart minders in the market. Something fishy about her account of things in comparison to Cadosch. Was she in cahoots with Richardson? Also as I keep saying TOD says Chapman died about 4.30, the time Richardson places himself near the scene. And just to make things interesting tho I did say he might have implicated himself on purpose I would like to retract that, cause he wouldn't have had a scooby do about body decomposition etc. If the tod is correct we could be looking at the murderer, Richardson. Though tbh I haven't a clue to motive. If anyone is buying this what do you think?

[RockySullivan]

would Elizabeth Long have known Richardson by sight? If she did surely in her statement she would have said i saw victim with the bloke whose mum lives at 29.Also if you are with a lady of the night do you really take her back to mum's?

The deerstalker wearing man Long saw was 5'4 which is quite short but i'm not sure how tall John was. I think it's been suggested the hallway/backyard may have been used for prostitution so it's not unreasonable to suppose Richardson could bring a prostitute there. I wonder if Richardson was the one who took the rings from Annie's fingers and that's he was on those steps with a knife and denied seeing the body.

[dixon9]

would Elizabeth Long have known Richardson by sight? If she did surely in her statement she would have said i saw victim with the bloke whose mum lives at 29.Also if you are with a lady of the night do you really take her back to mum's?

[Debra A]

Natasha,

Neal Shelden did some genealogy on him here.

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

Hi all
I did use Neal's ID info to track a possible military record for Richardson. There aren't many surviving militia records but there are pension records for the regular army and I did find a John Richardson born the right year and in Lambeth in those pension records but there was nothing in them to positively say it was the same man, and I did find there were two other men named John Richardson born in Lambeth within a similar time frame.
The pension record showed the soldier John Richardson was epileptic and was discharged on account of that.

[jerryd]

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

[Natasha]

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

[RockySullivan]

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

[Joshua Rogan]

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."

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

[RockySullivan]

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

[GUT]

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.