John Richardson The Killer?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Joshua Rogan]

I don't find Richardson's story dodgy, myself. If he changed details of his story as he went along, then yes that would be suspicious. But he didn't change them; he added more detail, which isn't the same thing as not keeping his story straight.
The fact that his gaiter steel was found in the yard lends credence to the idea that he was having trouble with his boot, as he would likely need to remove the gaiter before trying to make his boot more comfortable.

I think Jon Guy is saying that Richardson might have come across Chapman sleeping in the house, or using it for immoral purposes, and tried to eject her. If she refused to go and tempers flared, a shoving match might escalate into something more deadly. Personally, I can't see this happening without a bit of shouting and scuffling first, and those nearby swore they would have heard any commotion.

[Harry D]

I don't find Richardson's story dodgy, myself. If he changed details of his story as he went along, then yes that would be suspicious. But he didn't change them; he added more detail, which isn't the same thing as not keeping his story straight.

"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."

That was Richardson's original testimony. He clearly says that he cut the leather off his boot with the table knife. He didn't say that the knife was too dull for the job, so he used a better one at the market place. It was only after the coroner saw the condition of the table-knife and questioned its efficacy for the job that he said that.

[Joshua Rogan]

True enough, I can see why you have your view. But the fact that he cut some leather off later at the market doesn't mean he didn't on the step in the yard. Perhaps he thought something that happened later wasn't relevant, until prompted.
Incidentally, I can only find this second cutting at the market recorded by The Daily Telegraph (from which the Casebook entry seems to be drawn), are there any other mentions? Other papers, such as the Daily News say things such as "When did you first think your boot wanted cutting?-It hurt my toe and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough."

For what it's worth, the same paper implies that the Coroner was initially suspicious of his story, or at least his presence;
"John Richardson, the young man already alluded to, was closely examined as to his business in the yard on the morning of the murder. Richardson's appearance and his hoarse voice were not altogether prepossessing, and the Coroner appeared to think the circumstances of his visit required explanation"
But it goes on to say ".....but he came on the whole very well out of his cross-examination."

[Joshua Rogan]

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

Well, Mrs Richardson was careful not to say that she knew people used the house for immoral purposes, although others - including her son - did admit as much.
It seems from this press report that she did contradict herself about the stolen tools, although this could be due to forgetfulness (she was 69, I think), or that she didn't consider the cellar as part of the house;

John Richardson;
"The Coroner-Do you go every morning to see if the cellar is secure?-No; only on market mornings, when I am out early and there's a good lot of people about. I have done so for some months. Is that all you went for?-Yes, sir.

A Juror-His mother said there had been no robberies.

The Witness-She forgot. If you will ask her, you see that it is right.

Mrs Richardson, recalled in her son's absence, said she had never had anything stolen from her house.

The Coroner-Have you ever lost anything from the cellar?

The Witness-Oh, yes; I have missed a saw and a hammer, but that is a long time ago. They broke the padlock of the cellar door at the time. My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market."

[Joshua Rogan]

Rocky, can you point me to the newspaper report about Richardson and the reporter. I know I've read it before sometime, but can't find it now and can't remember who accosted who.

[Pandora]

Rocky, can you point me to the newspaper report about Richardson and the reporter. I know I've read it before sometime, but can't find it now and can't remember who accosted who.

Hi Joshua,

I suspect you mean the following excerpt from the 16 September 1888 article in the Lloyds Weekly News.

“Passing afterwards through Spitalfields with John Richardson, a curious incident occurred. A rough demented-looking fellow came from a group, grinning, and, with clenched fist, muttered some threat to John Richardson. In answer to the question “Who is he? What does he mean?” Richardson then replied: “That is a man who they say is mad. A great many of the women and people around our house think that he is the most likely man that they know of to commit a murder. In fact many of them say that he is the real ‘Leather Apron’ When asked to go back to inquire what the man meant, Richardson said “You had better not, for he would be most likely to spring upon you and knock you down at once, without a word. I shall not stop to speak to him, for he is very dangerous; and a great many of the women think that he is the murderer.”

I too, have found this interaction rather suspicious. It definitely begs the question, what did this so called "mad man" threaten John Richardson with, and why did he stop the reporter from attempting to find out? The reporters "What does he mean?" is very suggestive too, almost sounds like the mad man was accusing John Richardson of something.

And more importantly, why was he so eager to accuse this “fellow” and mention the fact so many people in the area considered him the real ‘Leather Apron’ – yet no more ever came of this accusation?

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Pandora, yes that's the article.
Whilst I can see why you and Rocky feel it makes Richardson look suspicious, it seems fairly understandable if taken at face value - I wouldn't want to face the demented fellow again if he really was dangerous. He certainly sounds a lot more like a 'leather apron' type than the seemingly meek Pizer.