Lechmere versus Richardson.

[rjpalmer]

I don't think there is any question that Richardson was born in Lambeth. The registration lists 'John Finell Richardson' and that's the name he signs on his marriage certificate. He signs one of his children's marriage banns as "John Phenell Richardson" and lists his occupation as a packing case maker.

There is a high likelihood that the two-time deserter was Richardson. It looks like the standard punishment was two pounds or two months with hard labour.

[MrBarnett]

I did see those, RJ and wondered whether it was our guy. I don’t have Fold3 either these days. Perhaps I should sign up for it again, I’ve got other military stuff that I’m looking for.

I must admit, I thought the St Luke’s in question would have been the Old Street one - north of the City. One of the most common mistakes on censuses is the erroneous use of the place of residence as the POB. I suspect that’s what happened here.

Edit: I’ve just noticed the Lambeth birth registration, so perhaps I’m wrong.

Lambeth it was.

[MrBarnett]

Was John Richardson a two-time military deserter? I don't have a subscription to Fold3 so I have no further details, but two entries look interesting.


UK, Military Deserters, 1812-1927

John Richardson

20

Abt 1851

Lambeth, Surrey

24 Jun 1871

Chester

21 Jul 1871

1242

14th Foot

John Richardson

23

Abt 1852

St Luke

12 Apr 1875

Hounslow

11 Jun 1875

7891

4th Middlesx

Richardson is listed as a militiaman in the 1881 UK Census. His birth was registered 1Qt 1852 in Lambeth. The 1861 census has his birth in St. Lukes (Lambeth) He gives his age as 22 in 1873.

I did see those, RJ and wondered whether it was our guy. I don’t have Fold3 either these days. Perhaps I should sign up for it again, I’ve got other military stuff that I’m looking for.

I must admit, I thought the St Luke’s in question would have been the Old Street one - north of the City. One of the most common mistakes on censuses is the erroneous use of the place of residence as the POB. I suspect that’s what happened here.

Edit: I’ve just noticed the Lambeth birth registration, so perhaps I’m wrong.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks, Paddy!

I’m glad you raised that ‘index’ because I’ve just realised something about it that hadn’t occurred to me before.

I’ll respond to your question shortly, although I obviously can’t answer on Mark’s behalf.

First things first. Although it says in the A-Z that the 25th October document was an index to ‘papers on the Nichols murder in the Home Office files’, I wonder whether it wasn’t just an index to Swanson’s 19th October report.

As for the house to house in Buck’s Row, Swanson’s report mentions it as having taken place, so it would seem the coroner’s recommendation was indeed acted upon.

I hope that answers your question, Paddy.

[rjpalmer]

Was John Richardson a two-time military deserter? I don't have a subscription to Fold3 so I have no further details, but two entries look interesting.


UK, Military Deserters, 1812-1927

John Richardson

20

Abt 1851

Lambeth, Surrey

24 Jun 1871

Chester

21 Jul 1871

1242

14th Foot

John Richardson

23

Abt 1852

St Luke

12 Apr 1875

Hounslow

11 Jun 1875

7891

4th Middlesx

Richardson is listed as a militiaman in the 1881 UK Census. His birth was registered 1Qt 1852 in Lambeth. The 1861 census has his birth in St. Lukes (Lambeth) He gives his age as 22 in 1873.

[MrBarnett]

I find it close to impossible believe that he could have missed the body but I know that Fish for one thinks it perfectly plausible.

The issue with Chandler was that he said that Richardson said nothing about sitting on the step. So you have Richardson and Chandler directly contradicting each other.

Gary, I don’t understand all of this talk about ultra-efficient cops? No one, as far as I’m aware, has ever said that they were ultra efficient. All that I’ve said is that we shouldn’t assume that they were incompetent or dishonest. And so I can’t see an issue with merely suggesting that they might have been in possession of information that we’re unaware of. In fact I’d say that it’s a certainty that they did but we can’t know if it was important or not. But this is just conjecture of course but we surely can’t assume that the police were too stupid to do such basic things like checking alibi’s? Or that someone like Abberline might not, further down the line, have considered having a closer look, or more of a look, at someone like Lechmere? We can’t claim it of course so it’s purely hypothetical and worthless when looking at the pro’s and con’s of Lechmere’s guilt or innocence. That’s all that I’ve ever said about the Police.

Re the cops, there are those who insist that Lechmere must have been thoroughly investigated, despite there being no evidence that he was. You aren’t one of them, but I do like to highlight any evidence of the police being less than efficient whenever it surfaces.

I suspect he was taken at face value as one of two innocent working men who found the body. Paul got under their skin somewhat by giving his Lloyds interview, but Lech flew under the radar.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, looking at those steps it’s hard to imagine him missing the body. But people do sometimes overlook stuff that is right under their noses.

As for the knife, perhaps he initially didn’t feel the need to elaborate. ‘I sat down on the step to cut a piece of leather from my boot’ is pretty much the same as saying, ‘I sat down on the step with the intention of cutting a piece of leather from my boot.’

No doubt the ultra efficient cops were able to track down the lender of the sharp knife to corroborate his claim.

I find it close to impossible believe that he could have missed the body but I know that Fish for one thinks it perfectly plausible.

The issue with Chandler was that he said that Richardson said nothing about sitting on the step. So you have Richardson and Chandler directly contradicting each other.

Gary, I don’t understand all of this talk about ultra-efficient cops? No one, as far as I’m aware, has ever said that they were ultra efficient. All that I’ve said is that we shouldn’t assume that they were incompetent or dishonest. And so I can’t see an issue with merely suggesting that they might have been in possession of information that we’re unaware of. In fact I’d say that it’s a certainty that they did but we can’t know if it was important or not. But this is just conjecture of course but we surely can’t assume that the police were too stupid to do such basic things like checking alibi’s? Or that someone like Abberline might not, further down the line, have considered having a closer look, or more of a look, at someone like Lechmere? We can’t claim it of course so it’s purely hypothetical and worthless when looking at the pro’s and con’s of Lechmere’s guilt or innocence. That’s all that I’ve ever said about the Police.

[MrBarnett]

Possibly. He also had a young sister named Amelia, though. Someone by the name Amelia or Emilia (?) Richardson signed her name with a mark.

Thanks, RJ, I thought I’d seen that. As you say, it could have been his sister who was the witness. I

Did you or someone else recently mention the pub John Chaffey ran?

[MrBarnett]

Certainly, it's post 115 of this thread.

Thanks, Paddy!

I’m glad you raised that ‘index’ because I’ve just realised something about it that hadn’t occurred to me before.

I’ll respond to your question shortly, although I obviously can’t answer on Mark’s behalf.

[rjpalmer]

I can’t recall whether there is any evidence of Amelia’s literacy or lack thereof. Was she a witness to John’s wedding?

Possibly. He also had a young sister named Amelia, though. Someone by the name Amelia or Emilia (?) Richardson signed her name with a mark.

[Paddy Goose]

Certainly, it's post 115 of this thread.

[MrBarnett]

Gary,

Good, you're here manning the Lechmere desk today,

I asked you a question in this post -



Please reply at your convenience

‘Manning the Lechmere desk’?

Very droll, Paddy. :-)

Apologies, I sometimes can’t arsed to scroll back to see what has built up since I last logged in. Could you help with the post number. (I’m a lazy bugger.)

[Paddy Goose]

Gary,

Good, you're here manning the Lechmere desk today,

I asked you a question in this post -

Mark, Gary, both of you said to me ...

Please reply at your convenience

[MrBarnett]

RJ,

As for Brick Lane, I suspect that may be the Back Church Lane suggested by Dusty’s FB person. I knew you wouldn’t misread a POB beginning with B. ;-)

What do you think is more likely, that a person who makes a show of kissing a bible and holds religious meetings in her home is likely to have read the bible, or that such a person would only countenance ‘folding’ the good book?

I can’t recall whether there is any evidence of Amelia’s literacy or lack thereof. Was she a witness to John’s wedding?

[MrBarnett]

Yes Gary, I took that entry to read 'Brick Lane'--I never said otherwise.

The Richardsons' connections were to Lambeth, and I don't see that the geography angle is relevant to the case against John. Not all suspects have the same strengths and weaknesses. If I was going to 'fit up' someone using the geographical angle, I'd ditch Richardson and resort to my old friend Alfred Crow.

Crow lived for at time in Baker's Row and grew up in the streets due north of Buck's Row. To use the standard cliche, Crow would have known the area of the Nichols murder 'like the back of his hand.'

Next Crow lived in Ellen's Court, SGE--just around the corner from Dutfield's Yard and closer to the Stride murder scene than Lechmere ever lived. He had siblings who attended the board school where Liz was seen loitering that night.

At the time of the Tabram murder, Crow was living in the very building in George Yard where Martha was found murdered. He stepped over her allegedly dead body, but never felt the need to alert anyone.

Aldgate? Crow was a cab driver and there was a rank of cabs in Aldgate day and night. He would have been familiar with Mitre Square, and --unlike Lechmere--his job kept him out in the streets during the 'killing hours,' 1:00-3:30 a.m.

I've recently discovered that Alfred Crow almost certainly wasn't the bloke who was convicted & imprisoned on Nov 5, 1888, so he has no alibi for the Kelly murder.

The 'evidence of innocence' against him is very bleak indeed.

Crow would spend the last years of his life living in Bethnal Green, but at the turn of the Century he made a still unexplained sojourn in Cardiff, Wales with his young wife. Perhaps Crow had a reason for being interested in Cardiff?

By the way, this may or may not interest you. Crow's father made (I believe) bird cages. Crow himself became a wireworker (he had at least one brother who also shared the occupation) and one census entry for Alfred looks like it reads 'parrots' next to his wire cage making. I believe you have some interest in menageries.




Actually, I never said anything about Amelia Richardson reading the Bible. I mentioned that she put on such a show in 'kissing the book' on being sworn in that a journalist thought it worthy of note. She then drops an entirely irrelevant allusion to her prayer meetings.

In two different census reports Mrs. Richardson is listed as a 'book folder.' Would it be too radical to suggest that she worked for some religious organization that peddled or handed out religious tracts?

As for the 'toothache,' it was abscessed and kept her in the workhouse infirmary for 9 days where she is listed as homeless in what was the middle of winter. I can't imagine too many people would find wandering the wintery streets of East London in January with an abscessed tooth deserving of your flippancy. The point is, all of her adult children had homes.

The 1901 Census has her in the workhouse again, and there are no less than 4 entries for her being in the workhouse infirmary between Jan 1899 and late 1903. Twice she is listed as homeless, yet, as I say, all her adult children had households in 1901. They weren't castles, of course, but not one of them could find room for Dear Old Mom?

In one instance, Amelia is in the infirmary between 27 July and Oct 30--three full months--for 'jaundice', which must mean liver disease. I suppose a teetotaler can get liver disease; she is elsewhere listed as rheumatic.

An 80-year-old woman, sickly and homeless, and none of her children could take her in? A case of 'move along folks--nothing to see here?'

On the other hand, if you find this attempt at novel writing unconvincing, you might begin to appreciate how some might view the efforts to turn Maria Lechmere into a sinister character.

Some very interesting stuff there RJ - including some impressive conjecture.

Thanks for the cage/parrot info. I’ll follow that up.

Have I tried to paint Maria as sinister? Strong, I would imagine and keen to prevent her son from becoming entangled in the seedy side of Tiger Bay, but sinister?