Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Mark J D]

Yes they were both present at a murder scene around the time the murders took place.

Personally, I am quite happy to see all these seeming witnesses examined as closely as Lechmere; alas, anti-Lechmerians don't seem to be interested in doing it.

I'd love to see if the geographical evidence against any of these passers-by was as striking as that against our carman -- with that astonishing concentration of locations in the small rectangle that takes in the Pinchin Street archway; his mother's 1888 house in Maryann Street; Stride's murder scene in Berner Street; his mother's 1889 house in Cable Street; and Lechmere's early 1888 house in James Street...

Where would dear old John Richardson have likely been found in the wee hours of his day off...? I think we should be told...

M.

[John Wheat]

Yes they were both present at a murder scene around the time the murders took place.

If they had committed a crime in another country some considerable time afterwards, they might be considered prime suspects for the Whitechapel murders. Being there at the time rules them out completely.

They are being both witnesses. I find it highly unlikely the Police at the time didn't do due diligence and look into them to though. It's worth noting that numerous files on the Whitechapel murders have been lost.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s face it, who’s behaviour was more ‘suspicious?’

Lechmere comes across a body on his way to work. He waits for another passer by to arrive and together they go in search of a Constable.

Richardson is in the yard, alone, at a time when Phillips claims that Chapman was dead, yet he denies seeing the body there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hey herlock

…….why is lech a better suspect than richardson? for me its because he was seen standing near a freshly killed victim and very well could have been her killer..

Hi Abby,

True enough, but if Phillips is believed (and let’s face it, Fish himself believes that Phillips was correct and that Richardson just didn’t see the body) then Richardson was in the yard, alone, with the body and not only that he might have been lying about not seeing it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How big a piece of leather might he have trimmed from his boot? Would the H Div CSI guys have bagged it as evidence?

I’m just saying that it’s a question that could have been asked. Some detective officer might have put Richardson on the spot by saying “are you sure that’s what you did because looked all around and I didn’t see any piece of leather?”

[MrBarnett]

No Richardson is a better suspect than Lechmere. However they are both terrible suspects in my opinion.

Yes they were both present at a murder scene around the time the murders took place.

If they had committed a crime in another country some considerable time afterwards, they might be considered prime suspects for the Whitechapel murders. Being there at the time rules them out completely.

[John Wheat]

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?

No Richardson is a better suspect than Lechmere. However they are both terrible suspects in my opinion.

[MrBarnett]

How big a piece of leather might he have trimmed from his boot? Would the H Div CSI guys have bagged it as evidence?

[Abby Normal]

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?

hey herlock
interesting thread. as i just said to wiggins, suspects/ witnesses like richardson, lech and my personal favorite, hutch are exactly the type of people that need looking at. the police today would have looked very very closely at these chaps.

why is lech a better suspect than richardson? for me its because he was seen standing near a freshly killed victim and very well could have been her killer. That and theres strong corroberating witness evidence that chapman was killed well after richardson was there.

but i have richardson on my second tier of valid suspects nonetheless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[MrBarnett]

Another Lechmere thread?

You lot are obsessed with the man. ;-)

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?