Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[Pandora]

I think it is a little strange that Richardson stops into check on the basement door on his way to work. It has a lock on it after all since the tools were stolen. But Ok I can believe that. Why did Mrs Richardson say she wasn't aware of any stolen tools at first, I think that is a bit strange. If John stopped there every morning before work to check on the basement because it had been robbed, she would of course be very conscious of this and it she should remember right away about the stolen tools. I still think it's very strange that John stops on his back steps and tries to cut a piece of leather with a dull knife. Firstly he says he put the knife there by mistaken and he wasn't sure why it was in his pocket. So when did he realize it was? Did he realize it was in his pocket before he decided to fix his boot and say oh I've got this dull knife let me try to cut the leather from my boot with it. It just seems a little convenient that he wants to fix his boot and he happens to have a knife in his pocket to do it which he put there by mistake. But also wouldn't he know full well that the knife wasn't sharp enough to cut the leather?

Exactly, he's cagey to say the least, and probably lying. Why?

[Pandora]

If I use that logic then you can say Cross/Lechmere is more guilty than Richardson. At least with him you have a witness who saw him leaning over a victim. Where's your witness who says Richardson was seen with a knife leaning over this one?
Sorry but this is still total speculation.

Every single suspect in this forum is based on speculation to some extent.

[Pandora]

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.

For the record, I think Richardson was prying the brass rings from Chapman's fingers. i think he was worried someone might have seen him so he made up the tale of fixing his boot with a knife to cover for being crouched in the spot with a knife.

Interesting theory - so do you think she was already dead when he arrived at 4:45, and he lied about it because he didn't want to implicate himself?

[Pandora]

It isn't just this thread though is it, with all that has been "what-if'd" against Hutchinson over the years, and he's just the tip of the iceberg.

There just isn't any Kudo's for being the first to label a witness as a liar, and by extension a suspect. The kudos come from being the first to provide proof. And we all know that isn't going to happen.

Hi Wickerman, I didn't start this thread for the "kudos", I just felt there was a lack of interest in Richardson, compared to some of the other witness/suspects, and coupled with his mysterious boot cutting story, which is suspect to say the least - thought he needed some more scrutiny.

[Pandora]

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!

Oh yes, if you find it, please post it! The police checking what time he started work that morning (and whether anyone could verify it) is one of the main things I wanted to know. The other being what happened to John Richardson post 1888.

[RockySullivan]

I remember that article rosella and it's got to be in either of the two Richardson threads where we were discussing it. I know it's been pasted or linked in them. There actually aren't many article on Richardson os it shouldnt be hard to find

[Pandora]

And while we digest that, we ponder how it was considered odd that Annie Chapman was never seen after leaving the dosshouse. Reasonably, somebody should have seen her if she walked the streets up until 05.30-ish.

Unless she was fast asleep or passed out drunk in the yard of 29 Hanbury for a few hours. Then it would make sense why no one saw her since she left the lodging house.

[Pandora]

Isn't Philips TOD considered forensic evidence? And while longs statement contradicts Philips, cadosches doesn't, after all he only heard a no and bump against the fence, he didn't see annie and what he heard wasn't suspicious enough for him to invesrigate, he could have heard anyone in the yard, not necessarily Chapman or the ripper.

Exactly!

[Fisherman]

Ok, but we remember how Phillips added the caveat due to the cool temperature that morning. I didn't think he added the caveat because of witness testimony.

What caveat is it you are seeing, Jon? I know Phillips opened up for an amount of elasticity on the timings, but how far did it stretch?

[Fisherman]

Exactly, he's cagey to say the least, and probably lying. Why?

It has been suggested that Richardson may not have lived up to what he had promised his mother in terms of keeping a lookout on that cellar door.
I always liked that explanation - somehow, the way he gets tangled up in his own testimony seems to me to tally with the suggestion.

[Wickerman]

What caveat is it you are seeing, Jon? I know Phillips opened up for an amount of elasticity on the timings, but how far did it stretch?

Ah Christer, you're as familiar with Philips's opinion as I am.
The reason the rudimentary forensics of the time do not rule out the testimonies of Cadoche or Richardson is precisely because Dr. Phillips was not totally sure about the time of death. As we read below...

Daily Telegraph:
[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.

Morning Advertiser:
Coroner: - How long do you suppose deceased had been dead before you saw the body?
Phillips: - At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence.

Times:
He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood.

The natural decrease in body temperature was compromised by the cool temperature of the morning. Phillips knew this which is why he expressed caution.

[As an aside, I am not sure what medical opinion was in the mid to late 19th century on the cause of rigor mortis. I don't believe they knew it was the result of a chemical process. If they believed the progression of rigor mortis was also the result of temperature, then we have another good reason for the caveat by Dr. Phillips.]

[Fisherman]

Ah Christer, you're as familiar with Philips's opinion as I am.
The reason the rudimentary forensics of the time do not rule out the testimonies of Cadoche or Richardson is precisely because Dr. Phillips was not totally sure about the time of death. As we read below...

Daily Telegraph:
[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.

Morning Advertiser:
Coroner: - How long do you suppose deceased had been dead before you saw the body?
Phillips: - At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence.

Times:
He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood.

The natural decrease in body temperature was compromised by the cool temperature of the morning. Phillips knew this which is why he expressed caution.

[As an aside, I am not sure what medical opinion was in the mid to late 19th century on the cause of rigor mortis. I don't believe they knew it was the result of a chemical process. If they believed the progression of rigor mortis was also the result of temperature, then we have another good reason for the caveat by Dr. Phillips.]

... and there we are again - Pillips does NOT allow for Long and Cadosh to be correct. He says AT LEAST two hours, probably more - but it MAY be as little as two hours. That was how he exercised caution - by admitting that although the signs pointes away from it, it could nevertheless be that it was only two hours. And this was on account of the chilly morning.

Swanson recognizes all of this this by saying that if Phillips was correct, then Long was wrong. So he never thought Phillips said an hour only - he knew that TWO hours was the limit. Otherwise, BOTH Phillips and Long would have been right.

Have you ever heard a medico who - unchallenged - said "It MUST have been AT LEAST two hours, but I actually think (actively: present tense) that it will have been more. But to be fair, I don´t really think that it must have been two hours, I was just kiddin´".

Have you, Jon?

[Mirandola]

'In 1811 the French physician and chemist P.H.Nysten published the first scientific description of rigor mortis ('Nysten's Law')' - Burkhard Madea, 'Estimation of the Time of Death', CRC Press, 2015, p 43.
'Time of development can differ according to effects of ... enfeebling disease ... a robust frame ... poison' (H.A.Husband, 'Student's Handbook of Forensic Medicine', 1877, quoted in the above work); ambient temperature is not given as a factor in timing of development.

[curious]

Ah Christer, you're as familiar with Philips's opinion as I am.
The reason the rudimentary forensics of the time do not rule out the testimonies of Cadoche or Richardson is precisely because Dr. Phillips was not totally sure about the time of death. As we read below...

Daily Telegraph:
[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.

Morning Advertiser:
Coroner: - How long do you suppose deceased had been dead before you saw the body?
Phillips: - At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence.

Times:
He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood.

The natural decrease in body temperature was compromised by the cool temperature of the morning. Phillips knew this which is why he expressed caution.

[As an aside, I am not sure what medical opinion was in the mid to late 19th century on the cause of rigor mortis. I don't believe they knew it was the result of a chemical process. If they believed the progression of rigor mortis was also the result of temperature, then we have another good reason for the caveat by Dr. Phillips.]

At the time of the Chapman inquest, likely Phillips' caveat is the reason the authorities accepted the timing of the witnesses.

However, all these years later, as we study the murders as a whole, we have the comparison of Katherine Eddowes, who was mutilated in the much the same way as Chapman and on a colder morning.

Eddowes was considerably smaller than Chapman, so she should have lost heat more quickly, but her body wasn't cold.

This indicates to me that Eddowes was examined closer to her time of death and that Annie was already dead by the time Cadoche and Mrs. Long were witnessing anything.

BTW. since William Henry Bury is my favorite suspect, it's a shame that I have to toss Mrs. Long's description since she saw a five foot tall woman and a man just barely taller.

[Fisherman]

At the time of the Chapman inquest, likely Phillips' caveat is the reason the authorities accepted the timing of the witnesses.

However, all these years later, as we study the murders as a whole, we have the comparison of Katherine Eddowes, who was mutilated in the much the same way as Chapman and on a colder morning.

Eddowes was considerably smaller than Chapman, so she should have lost heat more quickly, but her body wasn't cold.

This indicates to me that Eddowes was examined closer to her time of death and that Annie was already dead by the time Cadoche and Mrs. Long were witnessing anything.

Seconded!