Lechmere versus Richardson.

[MrBarnett]

The name of the medical officer who examined 14th Foot JR was Surgeon Major W. S. Chapman.

Just thought I’d mention it.

[MrBarnett]

The name of the medical officer who examined 14th Foot JR was Surgeon Major W. S. Chapman.

Just thought I’d mention it.

And he was finally discharged at Netley.

[Debra A]

I’m having doubts about both the soldiers we have looked at. The age is wrong for the Lambeth soldier, he was 22 years and 6 months when he was discharged in May 1873, which would make his DOB late 1850 while our JR was born in early 1852. There was another JR who was born in Lambeth in Sept Q 1850. Also, when he was discharged he gave his intended place of residence as Kentish Town (NW London) which doesn’t gel with our JR.

Gary, I had the same doubts about the Lambeth soldier when I looked at him and posted this (on a similar themed thread)
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...395#post541395

I think being described as a Militia man in 1881 perhaps meant he was in a volunteer corps rather than the regular army and not many Militia records have survived.

[MrBarnett]

Gary, I had the same doubts about the Lambeth soldier when I looked at him and posted this (on a similar themed thread)
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...395#post541395

I think being described as a Militia man in 1881 perhaps meant he was in a volunteer corps rather than the regular army and not many Militia records have survived.

Thanks, Debs.

As you suggest, there was a world of difference between a part-time militia man and a regular soldier. Lacking the attestation records we have only the name and DOB to go on.

Over on JTRF, RJ has posted an interesting infirmary record of a John Richardson brought into the Whitechapel infirmary by a PC. Have you seen that?

[MrBarnett]

At times it seems that there’s no point in looking into this stuff. It’s all been found before and discounted.

[Debra A]

At times it seems that there’s no point in looking into this stuff. It’s all been found before and discounted.

It's always worth looking at things again. I only pointed the old thread out because I have wondered about the soldiers record for a few years (no one else was interested back in 2016, you may have noticed?) and it was nice to see other opinions on whether it was him or not, at last!

RJ's find is very interesting.
I think Richardson's behaviour was pretty odd that morning. Only the other day I read for the first time that he claimed he had been cutting a carrot at home and must have accidentally put the knife in his pocket afterwards as he didn't usually carry it. I've never come across that before but someone else probably has.

[rjpalmer]

Gary, I had the same doubts about the Lambeth soldier when I looked at him and posted this (on a similar themed thread)
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...395#post541395

I think being described as a Militia man in 1881 perhaps meant he was in a volunteer corps rather than the regular army and not many Militia records have survived.

All true, but where is John Richardson in 1871? No one can seem to find him--not in England, Scotland, or Wales. I'd be more comfortable dismissing the soldiers if Richardson could be located.

[GBinOz]

Shall we just review the testimony from the inquest:

John Richardson:
[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.

Mrs. Richardson, recalled, said she had never missed anything, and had such confidence in her neighbours that she had left the doors of some rooms unlocked. A saw and a hammer had been taken from the cellar a long time ago. The padlock was broken open.

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.

Joseph Chandler:
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
he Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

Richardson initially tells Chandler that he just opened the door to check on the cellar that had been broken into, according to his mother, "a long time ago". At the inquest he augments his testimony adding that he sat on the step and succeeded in removing the leather from his boot with a knife that he did not normally carry. When ordered by the coroner to produce the knife he presents a knife that was obviously not fit for the purpose of trimming leather or carving up Chapman, and he changes his story about when he succeeded at trimming the leather. Seems like a poorly thought out attempt to provide himself with an alibi by discrediting the TOD provided by the doctor. He is coincidentally supported by Cadosch, who was unsure where the "no" originated and considered the paling thump not unusual, and by Long who answered the coroner's question "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking?" with "Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning".

I think that there is ample evidence to put both Lechmere and Richardson in the category of Persons of Interest. Whether there was enough to obtain a conviction is an entirely different matter.

Cheers, George

[Debra A]

All true, but where is John Richardson in 1871? No one can seem to find him--not in England, Scotland, or Wales. I'd be more comfortable dismissing the soldiers if Richardson could be located.

Good point. I still haven't decided if it was Richardson or not in army records.
FWIW, I seem to have mentioned the epilepsy in 2012 because I was wondering whether the form of epilepsy Richardson might have could have an impact on his ability to remember events accurately, judge time etc.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...e16#post315403

[Trevor Marriott]

Shall we just review the testimony from the inquest:

John Richardson:
By the Jury[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR]: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Cheers, George[/FONT]

I think this adds weight to corroborate Dr Phillips estimated TOD

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

I think this adds weight to corroborate Dr Phillips estimated TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I agree. If Richardson just opened the left swinging door to check the cellar, as he originally told Chandler, then he could have missed the body in the yard. So why do you think he subsequently augmented his testimony with the boot cutting story which effectively denied Dr Phillips estimated TOD?

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I agree. If Richardson just opened the left swinging door to check the cellar, as he originally told Chandler, then he could have missed the body in the yard. So why do you think he subsequently augmented his testimony with the boot cutting story which effectively denied Dr Phillips estimated TOD?

Cheers, George

The obvious reason is that he might have thought he would have looked somewhat silly for not seeing the body, even more so when he was made aware of cadosh`s testimony which also makes him look silly but that a pure guess on my part.

My own personal opinion is that he missed the body on the same basis as the jury member who raised the same point.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Trevor,

I agree. If Richardson just opened the left swinging door to check the cellar, as he originally told Chandler, then he could have missed the body in the yard.
Cheers, George

If you look at the well known photo of 29 Hanbury you can see the door opens to the left but also because of the steps there is a good foot/foot and a half clearance. If the body was there I don't see how the door would obscure anything. There looks to be a gap behind left side of the steps (between the steps and the fence), and even if Chapman's head lay up in that corner, and feet alongside the fence, she still would have been obvious, surely?

Also, if Richardson is trimming his boot, does that not suggest some source of light to enable the task, and make it more likely he would have seen something?

I think if you take the couple standing by 29 Hanbury Street, the 'no' and sound of a fall by the fence, the most logical conclusion is those noises were Chapman (IMO).

I think this is a bit like the Kelly ~4 am scream of murder. I can imagine screams of murder around pub closing time were common, but at 4 am were they that common, and a murder was committed that night? In both cases, I think the simplest explanation is probably the better option.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We had a long drawn out discussion about Richardson not too long ago. Trevor and Fish favoured the Doctor’s time whilst I was more in favour of the witnesses. In general I agree with Wulf in that I find it almost impossible to believe that he could have missed a mutilated corpse, part of which would have been around a foot (if I recall correctly) from his feet as he’d sat on the step. The issue of course is that Chandler said that he hadn’t mentioned sitting on the steps to mend his shoe.

So if Chandler wasn’t mistaken (and I think that it’s quite possible that he was) why the lie? Trevor’s suggestion of him being embarrassed at missing the body is possible of course but if all that he was doing there was checking the cellar all that he’d have needed to have done was to say that he’d opened the door a foot and looked toward the cellar doors making easier to have missed the corpse. But by mentioning the boot work on the steps he’d being insistent that he saw the whole of that yard. He could have denied being there at all but he might have been seen by someone. Did he make up the story because, if he’d been seen, he’d have known that he couldn’t have said that he’d just looked into the yard and left so he had to have ‘done’ something? If he had lied we would have to ask why he made up a lie invoking a knife? Why not just say “I sat on the back step and smoked my pipe for a while?” There’s nothing straightforward.

[Abby Normal]

Shall we just review the testimony from the inquest:

John Richardson:
[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.

Mrs. Richardson, recalled, said she had never missed anything, and had such confidence in her neighbours that she had left the doors of some rooms unlocked. A saw and a hammer had been taken from the cellar a long time ago. The padlock was broken open.

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.

Joseph Chandler:
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
he Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

Richardson initially tells Chandler that he just opened the door to check on the cellar that had been broken into, according to his mother, "a long time ago". At the inquest he augments his testimony adding that he sat on the step and succeeded in removing the leather from his boot with a knife that he did not normally carry. When ordered by the coroner to produce the knife he presents a knife that was obviously not fit for the purpose of trimming leather or carving up Chapman, and he changes his story about when he succeeded at trimming the leather. Seems like a poorly thought out attempt to provide himself with an alibi by discrediting the TOD provided by the doctor. He is coincidentally supported by Cadosch, who was unsure where the "no" originated and considered the paling thump not unusual, and by Long who answered the coroner's question "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking?" with "Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning".

I think that there is ample evidence to put both Lechmere and Richardson in the category of Persons of Interest. Whether there was enough to obtain a conviction is an entirely different matter.

Cheers, George

bingo. good post.