Lechmere versus Richardson.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Frank,

I think that JtR would have made assessments of risk mitigation and in daylight he was more identifiable to the larger audience of potential witnesses who were rising to start their day. His M.O. seemed to be to operate in darkness when most people were asleep.

For me Cadosch lost some credibility when I discovered that his original story contained only one trip to the toilet and only later at the inquest did it bifurcate into two separate events 3 to 4 minutes apart. In his original evidence he also said that he heard a scuffle and something fall heavily against the fence, but this was also absent from his inquest testimony. I tend to place a question mark over witnesses whose evidence evolves over time.

While JtR may have been driven by urges that were left unsatisfied by his efforts with Nichols, there was no shortage of potential victims plying their trade in the streets. Unless he had singled out Chapman as a specific, rather than a random, target I can't see why he would have left it until the onset of unfavourable light and witness conditions rather than picking up a victim earlier in that night, or earlier in the week.

Best regards, George

Can i just ask if thats ok, where does cadosch have an ''original story''that differs from his inquest statement? Doesnt he mention two trips to the yard ? Again just asking, not tryin to be a smarta/ss or anything

[GBinOz]

Can i just ask if thats ok, where does cadosch have an ''original story''that differs from his inquest statement? Doesnt he mention two trips to the yard ? Again just asking, not tryin to be a smarta/ss or anything

Hi Fishy,

His original story was the interview he gave to police after he returned home from work and heard about the murder. By the time he came to testify at the inquest his story had changed. If you wish to learn more about Cadosch and his evidence there is an excellent dissertation by Gavin Bromley here:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-cadosch.html

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

His original story was the interview he gave to police after he returned home from work and heard about the murder. By the time he came to testify at the inquest his story had changed. If you wish to learn more about Cadosch and his evidence there is an excellent dissertation by Gavin Bromley here:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-cadosch.html

Cheers, George

Hi George ,yes im aware of that article and have studied it at lenght over the years . Heres the problem one has when trying to ascertain what actually happened that morning , one may choose the press report over the actual inquest ,which one ? .We have the same problem with Richardson when he claimed he sat on the step to trim the leather of his boot ,where as Chandler said he made no mention of this event when he interviewed him on the morning of the murder! ,one might argue that if this was the case then Richardson may well have just stood on the step and looked only at the lock while holding the door open then turned around and went back inside missing Chapmans body lying there . Possible ? thus giving an earlier T.O.D , either one its just a futile arguement as both sides of would claim to be right in there opinion of what they think happen, which they would be entiltled to do so of course .

Unfortunaly this seems to be an all to common problem when discussing anything at all to do with the Ripper Murders of late , things would go a lot smoother if people allowed each other that courtesy in the above senario, but anyway . Cheers Fishy .

[Newbie]

Could a witness in the case have actually been the Ripper and how difficult is it to put together some kind of ‘case’ against him? It’s happened with Charles Lechmere so what about John Richardson for example.


We can place him at 29 Hanbury Street but flatly denying that there was a body there.

His testimony is contradicted by the medical evidence as Phillips stated that Chapman was already dead by the time that Richardson had arrived at the yard. So according to the Doctor, Richardson was lying.

He had a reason to have been there if seen leaving.

He could easily have been at the scene earlier than he’d stated giving him ample time to have killed Chapman, cleaned up and headed off to work.

He claimed that people used the location for immoral purposes so perhaps he did too?

His statement that he’d sat on the back step directly conflicted with Chandler who said that he hadn’t said that.

He said that he’d cut a piece of leather from his boot but as far as we know no piece of leather was found in that yard.

He actually carried a knife but when he was sent to get it he came back with one that appeared to have been too blunt for the job of. So did he leave his ‘killing knife’ at home and just present the police with an old and blunt one?


I’m sure that with further thought and with contributions from others we could easily get a wagon rolling on this. So do I think that John Richardson was the ripper? No, of course I don’t but I think that he actually has more going for him than Lechmere and this is my point. I think that things have simply got out of hand with Lechmere; as soon as you get people thinking on a suspect then it’s fairly easy to keep coming up with ‘possibles’ in terms of potential guilt; the waggon starts rolling downhill, gathering pace. So…


We can’t claim that Lechmere was at the scene earlier than stated but he could have been. Ditto Richardson.

The so-called blood evidence only shows that Nichols wouldn’t have been killed very long before Lechmere arrived at the scene but the medical evidence of Phillips calls Richardson a flat out liar.

There is the disputed conversation with Mizen. Ditto Richardson and Chandler though Richardson’s is less fanciful and we don’t need to assume that a second person somehow ended up out of earshot.

We have no evidence that Lechmere carried a knife but we know that Richardson did and it could be suggested that his actions in regard to that knife was suspicious when he returned to the Inquest with a blunt one.

We have to suggest that Lechmere refused to flee the scene at enormous and pointless risk to himself and stood waiting for a figure in the dark to arrive. No such issue with Richardson as he’d have had ample time being alone at the scene.

And if Phillis was correct on the TOD then Richardson had no rush to get to work on time.

And again, if Phillips was correct then the murder occurred around half an hour or so after the time that Lechmere apparently began work.


So I’ll ask again…..how is Charles Lechmere a better suspect than John Richardson?

Well, you have a start.

Johns never lie to authorities about visiting a prostitute; and picking the sharpest knife in your residence and happily handing it
over to an active murder investigation might not be a wise choice.

Give some plausible reason or half baked evidence that might place him at any of the other murder scenes in a timely fashion,
and you will be rolling.

Looking forward to you keeping us informed with further research on this individual.

[Dickere]

Isn't the obvious difference that old Lech was found at the scene with a not yet quite dead body whilst Richardson was not, hence he must be a better suspect.

[Pcdunn]

She was not "not yet quite dead"! Both witnesses have indicated she was dead. Cold, in fact.

[Abby Normal]

lechmere, richardson and hutchinson all make intriguing suspects imho. all could have been nichols, chapman and kellys killers respectively and had other red flags. considering how bad the police jacked it up and all had different suspects, could it might be the killer was under their noses the whole time? at least we know they were physically near the victims, unlike chapman, druitt and tumblety who have no actual physical connection to the case.*I think theres a good chance one of these dudes might have been the ripper.

*id throw koz in that category too but at keast there is a possible id.

[John Wheat]

lechmere, richardson and hutchinson all make intriguing suspects imho. all could have been nichols, chapman and kellys killers respectively and had other red flags. considering how bad the police jacked it up and all had different suspects, could it might be the killer was under their noses the whole time? at least we know they were physically near the victims, unlike chapman, druitt and tumblety who have no actual physical connection to the case.*I think theres a good chance one of these dudes might have been the ripper.

*id throw koz in that category too but at keast there is a possible id.

I disagree largely with what you are saying Abby. I don't think any witnesses you name make intriguing suspects. I think Hutchinson should be a suspect though purely because of his overly detailed description of Astrakhan man. However I agree Chapman, Tumblety and Druitt aren't particularly strong suspects and neither is Koz. As you know I think Bury was the Ripper. But I think Kelly is the next best suspect.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

I disagree largely with what you are saying Abby. I don't think any witnesses you name make intriguing suspects. I think Hutchinson should be a suspect though purely because of his overly detailed description of Astrakhan man. However I agree Chapman, Tumblety and Druitt aren't particularly strong suspects and neither is Koz. As you know I think Bury was the Ripper. But I think Kelly is the next best suspect.

Cheers John

and thats the rub isnt it? all the men police suspected have no actual physical connection to the case, and tje men they didnt, did.

although i do think hutch was briefly suspected because abberline said he interrogated him.
and yes i do also have kelly in my top tier of suspects.

[John Wheat]

and thats the rub isnt it? all the men police suspected have no actual physical connection to the case, and tje men they didnt, did.

although i do think hutch was briefly suspected because abberline said he interrogated him.
and yes i do also have kelly in my top tier of suspects.

Hi Abby
It's important to note that some witnesses may have been investigated by the Police at the time but records of this may have been lost.

Cheers John

[Dickere]

Hi Abby
It's important to note that some witnesses may have been investigated by the Police at the time but records of this may have been lost.

Cheers John

True of course, but 'may have happened but evidence lost' could be used to explain or argue against everything. We can only go on the information actually available.

[John Wheat]

True of course, but 'may have happened but evidence lost' could be used to explain or argue against everything. We can only go on the information actually available.

I agree Dickere. But I guess as there is very little evidence against anyone there is a lot of speculation.

Cheers John