Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[RockySullivan]

Can anyone post the news report where Richardson is walking in the street and he is accosted by a man and freaks out and says that man is the ripper? I can't find it anywhere!

[Pandora]

Can anyone post the news report where Richardson is walking in the street and he is accosted by a man and freaks out and says that man is the ripper? I can't find it anywhere!

Hi Rocky,

I suspect you mean the following excerpt from the 16 September 1888 article in the Lloyds Weekly News.

“Passing afterwards through Spitalfields with John Richardson, a curious incident occurred. A rough demented-looking fellow came from a group, grinning, and, with clenched fist, muttered some threat to John Richardson. In answer to the question “Who is he? What does he mean?” Richardson then replied: “That is a man who they say is mad. A great many of the women and people around our house think that he is the most likely man that they know of to commit a murder. In fact many of them say that he is the real ‘Leather Apron’ When asked to go back to inquire what the man meant, Richardson said “You had better not, for he would be most likely to spring upon you and knock you down at once, without a word. I shall not stop to speak to him, for he is very dangerous; and a great many of the women think that he is the murderer.”

It definitely begs the question, what did this so called mad man threaten John Richardson with, and why did he stop the reporter from attempting to find out? The reporters "What did he mean?" is very suggestive too.

And more importantly, why was he so eager to accuse this “fellow” and mention the fact so many people in the area considered him the real ‘Leather Apron’ – yet no more ever came of this accusation? Perhaps it was to divert attention from himself, and his own leather apron.

[Wickerman]

We are going to have to disagree, Jon. Ti my mind, Phillips DID give a low extreme of time: two hours.

I think we will need to disagree Christer.

Dr. Phillips did not give an upper estimate either, his median was the "two hours".
Just like he didn't say "1-2 hours more", he couldn't say "or an hour or so less".
His median was the "two hours", it could have been more BUT, due to the cold morning, it could have been less.

So let´s just disagree.

We don't need to agree on this Christer, if I recall, you only asked me to explain where I got the caveat from, so now you know

[RockySullivan]

Hi Pandora what do u hear what do u say! That's it thank you. If that doesn't make Richardson suspicious what possibly could?

[Wickerman]

And still, they ALWAYS check body temperature...?

The Dundee University used to have a link on this Time of Death issue, very informative for those interested in how they did it in the 19th century.

They used all three methods, Rigor Mortis, Algor Mortis, & Livor Mortis, they used other lessor known methods too, I remember Digestion being one.
Dundee seem to have removed the link.

[Wickerman]

...The police may have believed Richardson's story before the inquest, but how well was it checked out afterwards?

Not at all, I would guess. They had satisfied themselves at that stage that Richardson was not the man they were looking for, and so he slipped into the witnesses role.

Swanson did refer to Richardson being investigated...
"..it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

So the police were not deficient with regards to Richardson.

[Pandora]

The Dundee University used to have a link on this Time of Death issue, very informative for those interested in how they did it in the 19th century.

They used all three methods, Rigor Mortis, Algor Mortis, & Livor Mortis, they used other lessor known methods too, I remember Digestion being one.
Dundee seem to have removed the link.

Hi Jon, could it be this link? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

[Pandora]

Hi Pandora what do u hear what do u say! That's it thank you. If that doesn't make Richardson suspicious what possibly could?

Hi Rocky, it definitely seems like a suspicious overreaction. The "demented-fellow" obviously threatened Richardson, but why, if he was only a simple witness? We only have Richardson's word that he is a madman, and potentially 'Leather Apron', and he then steers the reporter away from investigating the matter further.

What if the threat was more of a "we know what you did, and we're going to take you down." kind of threat? He did come over from a "group" of men, after all. Local vigilante justice perhaps?

It's the reporters "What does he mean?" that interests me. The man obviously said something that the reporter felt needed further explanation or investigation, but Richardson cleverly, whilst not threatening him himself, intimates the reporter would get attacked for his troubles.

Definitely curious.

[Pandora]

Swanson did refer to Richardson being investigated...
"..it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

So the police were not deficient with regards to Richardson.

Yes, but “there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him ” is not the same thing as ‘he definitely didn’t do it.’

Let’s say for the sake of argument he was the killer, and since he admitted he had been to work and back already, it makes sense he changed his clothes at work, knowing he would be interviewed by the police. The route from Hanbury to Spitalfields Market also passed back by his own residence, so he could have changed there also. And let's not forget the leather apron, if he used it, would have taken the brunt of the blood splatter, and then been washed and hung back up.

The house being searched is interesting, and I wonder if Swanson was referring to 29 Hanbury only, and not John Richardson’s own house, which it is important to note is just 279 ft, a mere 1 minute walk from his mother’s house.

It’s possible he actively sought the police out, since he didn’t even wait for them to come to him, and interview them in his workplace. Or perhaps he didn’t want coming to where his workmates could verify what time he did, or didn’t start.

I’d say there’s a strong argument, that since they were actively looking for a frothing at the mouth lunatic, a respectable working man with a family, and clean clothes and a blunt knife, would not be looked at with as much scrutiny as we would give him today.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon, could it be this link? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

Thankyou Pandora, that's the one, I remember it did include Niderkorns Table, and there it is.

[Wickerman]

Yes, but “there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him ” is not the same thing as ‘he definitely didn’t do it.’

It's likely a fair assumption that Swanson couldn't say that Abberline "definitely didn't do it" either. Suspects are rarely ruled out 'absolutely', so long as their stories check out and there is no cause for suspicion, that will usually suffice until something else turns up.

Let’s say for the sake of argument he was the killer, and since he admitted he had been to work and back already, it makes sense he changed his clothes at work, knowing he would be interviewed by the police.

A change of clothes is likely a luxury of the modern working man but in the 19th century, these people slept in their clothes, its often all they had.

And let's not forget the leather apron, if he used it, would have taken the brunt of the blood splatter, and then been washed and hung back up.

That could apply to anyone though.
The police are more interested in circumstantial evidence that points to one person in particular.

The house being searched is interesting, and I wonder if Swanson was referring to 29 Hanbury only, and not John Richardson’s own house, which it is important to note is just 279 ft, a mere 1 minute walk from his mother’s house.

The house in question will be Richardson's house, and I'm sure the police will want to see the clothes he was wearing that day, Inspector Chandler, who saw him, will make sure of that.

It’s possible he actively sought the police out, since he didn’t even wait for them to come to him, and interview them in his workplace. Or perhaps he didn’t want coming to where his workmates could verify what time he did, or didn’t start.

Hmm, but please remember, "its possible", is the starting point for research, not the conclusion.

I’d say there’s a strong argument, that since they were actively looking for a frothing at the mouth lunatic, a respectable working man with a family, and clean clothes and a blunt knife, would not be looked at with as much scrutiny as we would give him today.

There is scope for research, but as it stands we have nothing to work with barring the contemporary reports we are all familiar with.

[RockySullivan]

Hi Rocky, it definitely seems like a suspicious overreaction. The "demented-fellow" obviously threatened Richardson, but why, if he was only a simple witness? We only have Richardson's word that he is a madman, and potentially 'Leather Apron', and he then steers the reporter away from investigating the matter further.

What if the threat was more of a "we know what you did, and we're going to take you down." kind of threat? He did come over from a "group" of men, after all. Local vigilante justice perhaps?

It's the reporters "What does he mean?" that interests me. The man obviously said something that the reporter felt needed further explanation or investigation, but Richardson cleverly, whilst not threatening him himself, intimates the reporter would get attacked for his troubles.

Definitely curious.

Yes or it could have been a warning to Richardson to keep his mouth shut about something he knew/saw. Although he seems to quick to say that man is leather apron...it's very strange and possibly one of the most overlooked report in the case

[RockySullivan]

It's likely a fair assumption that Swanson couldn't say that Abberline "definitely didn't do it" either. Suspects are rarely ruled out 'absolutely', so long as their stories check out and there is no cause for suspicion, that will usually suffice until something else turns up.




A change of clothes is likely a luxury of the modern working man but in the 19th century, these people slept in their clothes, its often all they had.




That could apply to anyone though.
The police are more interested in circumstantial evidence that points to one person in particular.




The house in question will be Richardson's house, and I'm sure the police will want to see the clothes he was wearing that day, Inspector Chandler, who saw him, will make sure of that.




Hmm, but please remember, "its possible", is the starting point for research, not the conclusion.



There is scope for research, but as it stands we have nothing to work with barring the contemporary reports we are all familiar with.

What makes you so sure they searched Richardson's house and not 29 Hanbury? I'm not convinced they searched the basement at 29 either way

[Wickerman]

What makes you so sure they searched Richardson's house and not 29 Hanbury? I'm not convinced they searched the basement at 29 either way

They will have searched both houses, but Swanson spoke of suspicion against Richardson, so to clear him they need to see if he has any weapons or if there are any clues where he resides.
That would be normal procedure for any suspect who claimed to be at the crime scene.

[Pandora]

They will have searched both houses, but Swanson spoke of suspicion against Richardson, so to clear him they need to see if he has any weapons or if there are any clues where he resides.
That would be normal procedure for any suspect who claimed to be at the crime scene.

If they had searched his house for weapons already, there would have been no need to send Richardson to fetch his knife during the inquest.