Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[GUT]

I'd probably even settle for an internally consistent, logical theory that isn't based on circular reasoning, and speculation (usually wild) and an assumption that the police were too stupid to make even basic enquiries which often leads to (or is based on) an assumption that because the newspapers didn't report something the police didn't know it.

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.

[GUT]

Meaning....you think proof does exist to determine who the killer was???

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

Probably including me.

[GUT]

Of course you will, this isn't an academic forum.
If you haven't already noticed some rather assertive members repeatedly fail to distinguish between a personal belief and an established fact.
Then there are others who cannot distinguish 'proof' from circumstantial evidence, or even hear-say.

Which tends to make it a waste of time asking those members for 'proof' of anything.

See what I mean.

About agreeing.

[Wickerman]

It's rare that I don't.

Meaning....you think proof does exist to determine who the killer was???

[Wickerman]

You're forgiven.

Anytime I even ask or evidence let alone proof I get wild speculation and/or some "expert's" opinion.

Of course you will, this isn't an academic forum.
If you haven't already noticed some rather assertive members repeatedly fail to distinguish between a personal belief and an established fact.
Then there are others who cannot distinguish 'proof' from circumstantial evidence, or even hear-say.

Which tends to make it a waste of time asking those members for 'proof' of anything.

[GUT]

I agree with you, Jon.

It's rare that I don't.

[SuspectZero]

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.

I agree with you, Jon.

[SuspectZero]

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.

Correct on all points, Rosella.

[Errata]

My issue isn't so much to do with Richardson wanting to protect his mother or having mummy issues, rather that this was a location that could be connected to him and he unnecessarily implicated himself into a murder investigation. When I examine witnesses as potential suspects, the first thing I ask myself is 'Was he somewhere he shouldn't have been?' In the cases of both Lechmere & Richardson, neither of them were doing anything out of the ordinary that morning. Lechmere was taking his usual route to work when he happened upon a body, whereas Richardson was checking the cellar was locked, and his testimony checks out with the other witness Albert Cadosch, who heard Chapman from behind the fence long after Richardson had gone.

Then we have someone like George Hutchinson who was prowling the streets and lurking outside Miller's Court. While I don't think he was the Ripper, his conduct certainly raises a few eyebrows and he arguably set the trend for promoting witnesses to suspect status. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. At least these characters have a name, they have a face, and can be placed at the murder sites, which is a lot more than can be said for the majority of Ripper suspects. However, that in and of itself is not a case, and the real litmus test lies in linking these men with other murders in the series and providing evidence that they exhibited signs of serial killer behaviour.

But the reality is that the only reason he was connected to the site was because he connected himself by volunteering the information that he had been there. It might have been riskier than killing a woman in a blind alley, but it was not as risky as killing a woman in his home. We can say it wasn't him because he would have recognized the slightly increased risk, but we don't know that he would have recognized it, and we don't know that he didn't anticipate the risk and mitigate it. Killing a woman in the middle of the night is a good start, having a connection to the building gives him a built in excuse as to why he's there if he is seen coming or going. And in fact it's less suspicious that he was there that morning than some random dockworker would be. And admitting to being there did make him a part of the murder investigation which is kind of a classic move. In fact the one part of this that really was not well thought out was killing in a yard with only one entrance or exit, so the killer would have to knock down someone who saw him in order to flee. Which puts any killer at a disadvantage, whether he was tied to the site or not. It might take longer to identify a stranger, but given the look the witness would have gotten, not by much.

I mean, do I think that Jack the Ripper would have avoided killing at his mom's house? Yeah I do. But enough people have done precisely that kind of thing often enough that I cannot put faith in some sort of natural predilection to doing the "smart" thing to do. He could be dumb. He could be smart. He could have ego. He could have a greater desire to stick it to his mom than he has to stay smart. I mean there's a lot of options. I can tell if a guy I know is that kind of guy or not, but I don't know this guy. Not a blessed thing about him. So I'm no going to bank on him behaving one way over another without some kind of corroborating behavior.

[GUT]

Silly me!

You're forgiven.

Anytime I even ask or evidence let alone proof I get wild speculation and/or some "expert's" opinion.

[Wickerman]

Proof?

Get real!

Silly me!

[GUT]

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.

Proof?

Get real!

[Wickerman]

To SuspectZero

I agree with you this new trend of trying to make witnesses into Ripper suspects is nonsense.

Cheers John

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.

[Harry D]

Were the locations of the murders chosen at random, or did they have some significance to the killer? We have no idea.

Nor do we have any idea what his relationship with his mother was like. Kemper buried heads of his victims looking up at his mother's window just to spite her. And he managed to bring bodies and parts back to a home he shared with his mother who had no idea.

We don't know if this guy would consider his mother's place sacrosanct, if he saw it as something to target out of anger or spite, or if he had no relationship with the location at all, because in all likelihood it was not his childhood home or anything. Simply yet another apartment his mother lived in. It might not be significant enough to him to avoid. It wasn't his place. It was near his place, but not enough that it could be considered to be in his own backyard.

One thing we cannot assume is that a serial killer has relationships that they think enough about for it to alter their behavior. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. There is often a complex relationship with mothers, but obviously not enough of a regard to stop killing for their mother's sake. He didn't live there. That may have been all the boundary he was willing to put on himself. Not at his own place. He may not have thought about his mother at all when developing his boundaries, his relationship with her might not have even entered into his head. If serial killers will hunt at work, which they do, we cannot expect a mom's house to be so close to the killer that they fear killing around it. I mean, they're at work every day and that's a boundary they are capable of ignoring. For the boundary to exist, it has to either be self serving or emotional in nature. Killing at mom's house does not violate the basic self serving instincts, which means he would have to have real regard for her to be emotionally invested in not killing around her. He's a serial killer. Why would we assume that? We don't even assume he is capable of such things as filial love.

My issue isn't so much to do with Richardson wanting to protect his mother or having mummy issues, rather that this was a location that could be connected to him and he unnecessarily implicated himself into a murder investigation. When I examine witnesses as potential suspects, the first thing I ask myself is 'Was he somewhere he shouldn't have been?' In the cases of both Lechmere & Richardson, neither of them were doing anything out of the ordinary that morning. Lechmere was taking his usual route to work when he happened upon a body, whereas Richardson was checking the cellar was locked, and his testimony checks out with the other witness Albert Cadosch, who heard Chapman from behind the fence long after Richardson had gone.

Then we have someone like George Hutchinson who was prowling the streets and lurking outside Miller's Court. While I don't think he was the Ripper, his conduct certainly raises a few eyebrows and he arguably set the trend for promoting witnesses to suspect status. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. At least these characters have a name, they have a face, and can be placed at the murder sites, which is a lot more than can be said for the majority of Ripper suspects. However, that in and of itself is not a case, and the real litmus test lies in linking these men with other murders in the series and providing evidence that they exhibited signs of serial killer behaviour.

[Rosella]

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.