Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[Rosella]

If you take the TOD to 4:30 am or earlier then that discounts completely Albert Cadosch and Mrs Darrell's testimony. So, it is either go with Phillips' estimate and point the finger at Richardson because Annie's body would have had to have been present at 4:30 am by the latest, or discount Dr Phillips as having made a miscalculation and opt for a later death of about 5:30am in order to accommodate the two witnesses. You take your choice, therefore, and mine is to go with the slightly later time of death.

[Fisherman]

Dr Phillips only estimated the time of death by touch though, didn't he, and he later qualified his estimate by acknowledging at the inquest that the cold morning may have led him astray. He didn't take any internal body temperatures.

This is something I have often discussed, and itīs time to do so again, I think!

To begin with - yes, Phillips estimated the TOD by way of touch. And yes, that can be hard to do, since we sometimes have cold hands etc although we are very much alive. So the doc can fail to feel the underlying core temperature.

But in the Chapman case, Phillips DID feel the core temperature. She was totally cut up, and Phillips actually felt INSIDE her. The only small remaining warmth he could find was under the intestines. Otherwise, she was cold. On the inside!

Phillips never qualified his estimate by acknowledging that he could be wrong. That could perhaps have happened if he had been criticized by the coroner or something like that, asking him if he had really gotten it right.

But there was not a living soul who questioned him. Here is what was said:

Coroner: How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?

Phillips: I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

So what Phillips says is that she MAY - just may - have been dead as short a time as two hours, but he actually believed that she had been dead longer than so.

The "but" he uses (what you call a qualification) relates to his take that Chapman MAY - just may - have been dead for two hours only. BUT in all probability, she died earlier than that.

If we are to believe that Phillips allowed for Chapman to have been dead for just one hour or less, then we must accept that Phillips went into the inquest room and said, basically:

I am dead certain that she could not possibly have been dead any shorter time than two hours. Not a chance.

However, if you ask me, she has been dead for a significantly longer time than two hours only!

But hey, I am probably totally out. It may well be that I should not have suggested these timings at all. Maybe she had only been dead for an hour. Or less. Why listen to me, what do I know? Next witness!

The mere suggestion is a tad ridiculous, right?

It was cold. She was very cut up. So although Phillips would not recommend it, the circumstances ruled that he needed to allow for Chapman having been dead for a much shorter time then he would have opted for with a non-cut up victim in warmer conditions. Therefore, he was ready to accept that in spite of the signs (like rigor) pointing away from it, maybe she had only been dead for a meagre two hours.

The key here is to realize that Phillips advices against a time of two hours only, by saying that it was probably more. From that, you donīt move towards a shorter time - you move towards a LONGER one.

[Rosella]

No but he said he was sitting on the bottom step with his feet on the ground cutting his boot with a knife. So he would have been bent over. Now if Chapman was killed at the time the doctor estimated, she would have been there when Richardson was out in the yard. If he was stealing her ring, considering her head was 6" out in front of the bottom step, would the best position for John to remove the ring been him sitting on the bottom step and holding her arm while prying the ring? I know you always say no one saw Richardson so he had no reason to come up with an excuse for being by the steps. But you never seem to take into account the idea that Richardson could have been paranoid that one of the neighbors or even a tenant of 29 saw him out there by the steps. What position was the killer in while mutilating chapman? Where would he have been standing when he cut her throat? There doesn't seem to be much room between the steps and Chapman's body to stand.

Dr Phillips only estimated the time of death by touch though, didn't he, and he later qualified his estimate by acknowledging at the inquest that the cold morning may have led him astray. He didn't take any internal body temperatures.

Jack throttled Annie into unconsciousness after grabbing her chin. As she fell or was lowered one or the other of them knocked against the fence. If he knelt beside her with his back to the house and to the right of her head then with his right hand he could have slashed her throat from left to right in two strokes with the knife in his right hand. Blood splatter went on the fence to the left. There would have been enough room I think.

I read ages ago a newspaper article in which the Richardsons were interviewed, (after the inquest I think), and there were lots of things in the article I should have noted. Amelia believing that she knew Annie, John and Amelia disagreeing again about people taking refuge in the landings and stairs, and also John Richardson asserting that the police had investigated when he had got to Spitalfields Market that morning, who he had worked for and with from 5am and people who had seen him there. Why can't I track it down!

[Fisherman]

Richardson himself states at the exact spot bending over with a knife in his hand and he himself states he is there at the exact time of death estimated for Annie Chapman. I don't see how Cross is "more guilty" since he doesn't freely admit to crouched at the murder spot with a knife in his hand.

Lechmere is proven to have had the opportunity to kill Nichols.

Richardson is not proven to have had the opportunity to kill Chapman.

It really is that simple.

[harry]

SuspectZero,
It would certainly help if the killer was aquainted with the layout,and customs of the inhabitants of the building,but the unexpected might still happen,and that risk alone,even if he was a first timer,had to be accepted.

Would the killer be so consumed that all reason deserted him.Could be,but I think the risk would have been apparent the moment he entered the passage.
Regards.

[harry]

Wickerman,
The envelope with the regimental crest.

[Fisherman]

The police described this killer as mad, when in reality he very likely was nothing of the sort, and that assumption would necessarily lead them down the wrong path. So in some instances we are allowed to know better than the police of the day. We might still be wrong, but we would be coming from a better informed place than they were.

This is - at least to my mind - one of the most important matters to look at whan we ask ourselves wy the police did not catch the killer. And when we ponder it, it is important to note that one can be at fault in more than one respect.
One can be wrong in realtion to the truth.
And one can be wrong in relation to what society rules is the truth, on incomplete grounds.

The victorian police were, generally speaking, doing what they were supposed to do, and thinking along lines the were supposed to think along.
Itīs just that there was a lack of understanding what makes a serial killer tick, and a belief that anybody who would do what the Ripper did must be apparently mad.

A hundred years from now, we can be reasonably certain that those who follow us will laugh at how uniformed we were in 2016. But we at least have much finer tools to work with than the victorians did. We are, just as Errata says, much, much better equipped to cath the killer.

As for my suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, it is met by assertions that if he so very obviously presented a viable bid for the killers role, the police would never have missed him.
But all we have is clear pointers to how he was never even investigated. Which is totally in line with how I think the victorian police went about the hunt for the Ripper.

And Richardson? Well, he did say that he was there and he did say that he handled a knife, and the knife was fetched and examined. And then they decided not to follow the Richardson trail, in spite of how that trail was strewn with inconsistencies as regards the testimony he offered. The right decision, based on the wrong grounds.

[RockySullivan]

Probably yes. Annie's head was 'about 6" in front of the level of the bottom step'.., according to Phillips. (That's a bit confusing, as Annie lay to the left of the step, near the crummy fence.) But Richardson wasn't seen by anyone standing or sitting crouching over the body with knife in hand, nor did he say (obviously) that he was doing that himself.

No but he said he was sitting on the bottom step with his feet on the ground cutting his boot with a knife. So he would have been bent over. Now if Chapman was killed at the time the doctor estimated, she would have been there when Richardson was out in the yard. If he was stealing her ring, considering her head was 6" out in front of the bottom step, would the best position for John to remove the ring been him sitting on the bottom step and holding her arm while prying the ring? I know you always say no one saw Richardson so he had no reason to come up with an excuse for being by the steps. But you never seem to take into account the idea that Richardson could have been paranoid that one of the neighbors or even a tenant of 29 saw him out there by the steps. What position was the killer in while mutilating chapman? Where would he have been standing when he cut her throat? There doesn't seem to be much room between the steps and Chapman's body to stand.

[Rosella]

Hi Rosella, wasn't Chapman's body found in the space between the stairs and the fence? Judging from the photos I've seen the isn't much space between the stairs and the fence. Richardson was sitting with his feet on the flagstones of the yard. Would he have been able to touch Chapman's body from his seat on the bottom step?

Probably yes. Annie's head was 'about 6" in front of the level of the bottom step'.., according to Phillips. (That's a bit confusing, as Annie lay to the left of the step, near the crummy fence.) But Richardson wasn't seen by anyone standing or sitting crouching over the body with knife in hand, nor did he say (obviously) that he was doing that himself.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
For the benefit of those of us who do not understand the differences,maybe you would enlighten us.You are,I presume,an expert on the matter.

Try me, give us one of your assumed facts about the case.

[Wickerman]

I wouldn't rule it out, but if it's found mostbwillmdismissnit anyway.

Probably including me.

Hmm, if it can be dismissed, it can't be proof, can it?

Circumstantial evidence can be dismissed and that is the best that can be hoped for at this late date. Though I doubt sufficient circumstantial evidence can be found to tie the same man to more than one murder.

[RockySullivan]

Annie wasn't killed in the 'exact spot' Richardson was earlier at all. She wasn't killed on the steps leading to the yard but nearby, in the yard itself. Richardson was sitting on the second step trying to fix his boot, not crouching over anything near the fence. Nobody would have known that he had a knife if he himself hadn't said so. Why would he be prising brass rings off Annie's fingers? She was destitute, as could be seen from her clothing and way of life. Anything valuable she'd had had gone long ago.

Hi Rosella, wasn't Chapman's body found in the space between the stairs and the fence? Judging from the photos I've seen the isn't much space between the stairs and the fence. Richardson was sitting with his feet on the flagstones of the yard. Would he have been able to touch Chapman's body from his seat on the bottom step?

[SuspectZero]

Wickerman,
For the benefit of those of us who do not understand the differences,maybe you would enlighten us.You are,I presume,an expert on the matter.

One aspect of the Hanbury Street killing seemingly beyond argument,is that it was a risky place to commit a murder,therefor the killer was a risk taker.
One might add it was riskier for Richardson who could be connected to the location,but can we dismiss him on that score?And this may bring a smile to Fisherman's face, can we dismiss Cross and his connection to Bucks row when considering Risk.Risk may be an element of fact,but it's of minor consideration,when applying it to anyone who might be considered suspect in the Ripper killings.My opinion.

Harry it can only be assumed that JTR was a risk taker if he had been there before and new it was a risk to enter. If he was led there by his victim and it was his first visit it doesn't mean he knew what he was getting into. It could have been that by that point he wanted so bad to fulfill his fantasy he went for the moment.

[Errata]

I'm near positive that if we had the inquests, the police notes and files, about 90% of threads here would be dead in the water.

Well... yeah. We're all about reinventing the wheel here. Out of necessity.

Although there were plenty of things the police knew nothing of, that even modern police don't have a great handle on. Anything with mental illness for example. The police described this killer as mad, when in reality he very likely was nothing of the sort, and that assumption would necessarily lead them down the wrong path. So in some instances we are allowed to know better than the police of the day. We might still be wrong, but we would be coming from a better informed place than they were.

But we totally might still be wrong.

[harry]

Wickerman,
For the benefit of those of us who do not understand the differences,maybe you would enlighten us.You are,I presume,an expert on the matter.

One aspect of the Hanbury Street killing seemingly beyond argument,is that it was a risky place to commit a murder,therefor the killer was a risk taker.
One might add it was riskier for Richardson who could be connected to the location,but can we dismiss him on that score?And this may bring a smile to Fisherman's face, can we dismiss Cross and his connection to Bucks row when considering Risk.Risk may be an element of fact,but it's of minor consideration,when applying it to anyone who might be considered suspect in the Ripper killings.My opinion.