Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[SuspectZero]

Hi Michael,



I am not arguing that Cadosch lied, quite the opposite. I’m just saying, what if instead of Annie, the woman he heard was Amelia?

Interesting idea but totally speculative without the slightest evidence to back it up. "What if" cannot be the foundation of a theory if there is no factual evidence to support it.

[Pandora]

Hi Michael,

People make this a far more difficult issue than it is based solely upon the existing evidence. John didnt see a body because, based upon the Cadosche evidence, no-one was killed in that yard until around 5:15am.

Cadosche is the closest witness to the crime scene aside from Richardson, but the only one that provides us audible evidence that an attack was ongoing in the next yard at the same time he was in the yard.

If Cadosche told the truth, and there is no reason that I am aware of he wasnt, then its inconceivable that he heard people in that yard with a dead woman already in there. If he heard "no"...it was Annie being killed.

I am not arguing that Cadosch lied, quite the opposite. I’m just saying, what if instead of Annie, the woman he heard was Amelia?

[Pandora]

Hi Rosella,

Thomas Richardson, Amelia's 14 year old grandson, was at 29 Hanbury St at the time of the murder and sharing Amelia's room. What was he doing when Amelia was (a) outside at about 5:30am being seen by Mrs Long/Darrell fully dressed and having a conversation with a male in the street, or conversely watching her son murder Annie in the back yard, or discovering the body herself and conspiring with her son to lie and cover up? Was Thomas an extremely deep sleeper? Surely he would have woken up at some stage with his grandmother so active in the early hours and taken a look to see what she was doing?

Amelia had admitted to sleeping fitfully that morning, and had called out “good morning” to Thompson at around 3:50am. So it would not surprise me if she was up, and dressed, more than an hour & a half later at 5:30am. And if she was a regular early riser, I would also not be surprised if her teenage grandson had learnt to sleep through her early morning activities. Most teenagers are quite good at that.

[Pandora]

Hi Stan,

Well, that makes three of us who think JTR might have had a connection to #29. We all have a different suspect though. In addition to the aforementioned, you also have James Hardiman (Robert Hills True Detective 2004) and William Hardiman (me Ripperologist 2005).

Yes I’ve always thought 29 Hanbury must have had some connection to who Jack was, because it was the only murder site that was a residence. It definitely makes me want to look more closely at the people that lived there, not less.

[Pandora]

Hi Errata,

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.

Thanks for your post. I actually agree 100% that JtR could have had mother issues, after all it’s clear he had women issues. An overbearing, religious mother, could have definitely driven him to murder. It would be interesting to explore the relationship between John & Amelia a little more, and also the relationship he had with both his father Thomas, and brother Thomas, the so called “lunatic.”

And as we know now, no two serial killers are alike in their crimes, so I also agree that JtR could have killed close to home. This after all, was before profilers, MO’s and forensic technology existed. Unless he was caught red handed, it would have been very hard to connect him to the murder. In general, we know a lot more about serial killers, and their behaviours now, than even the police did in 1888. Day to day crime, street murders, sure, but serial killers are a special breed, and I am not sure the police of 1888 would have been too well equipped to know what they were looking for.

The insane, foaming at the mouth psychopath many thought Jack was, was no doubt very far from the truth of who he actually was.

[sdreid]

Well, that makes three of us who think JTR might have had a connection to #29. We all have a different suspect though. In addition to the aforementioned, you also have James Hardiman (Robert Hills True Detective 2004) and William Hardiman (me Ripperologist 2005).

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi errata
I agree in general with a lot of what you say here but I think we can agree that to the ripper not getting caught was The utmost importance, so important to him that he would abandon his true desire of mutilation if he thought he was about to be caught. So this overrides a lot of what you suggest above.

Knowing this importance I seriously doubt he would kill literally in his own mother, family and neighbors backyard.The risk that he would be seen and recognized by someone that knew him there is too high.


Kemper , BTW confessed and turned himself in so obviously not getting caught wasn't high on his list. And all those others you listed, killing and or bringing bodies back to there house was part and parcel of there MO!

In this regard think more of serial killers like bundy, Suff, ridgeway.

I also think you are focusing waaaaay to much on the mommy angle (I notice you do this generally to). I'm coming at it from a not being recognized (caught) angle.

[Errata]

I agree with this. The serial killers Errata mentioned-killing in their homes, bringing bodies back to their home etc. was all part of there regular MO.

Not so with the ripper. He killed them on the streets in secluded areas, left them their and got out.

Knowing this I find it hard to believe the ripper would kill and mutilate literally right under his mothers window. Don't see it.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Hello, Pandora.

I would say no, because Albert Cadosch almost certainly heard Chapman from behind the fence. Then we have Mrs. Long's testimony that she saw Chapman outside 29 Hanbury St. around 5.30. This would mean that both witnesses would need to be off in their timings just to accommodate Richardson as the killer.



We're not dealing with a Dahmer or a Gacy. The Ripper didn't keep the bodies hidden to himself, he left them laid out in the streets or in their own bed for the first unsuspecting person to find. It's a whole different ballgame. Presumably, this was a practical matter. The Ripper might've been a transient or a local who didn't have his own place to lure the victims to and keep them in his basement, or it could've been personal choice. Perhaps he enjoyed the thrill of killing on the streets and terrorizing the public? Whatever the case may be, the Ripper had his reasons for operating the way he did, and Richardson doesn't fit the bill.

I agree with this. The serial killers Errata mentioned-killing in their homes, bringing bodies back to their home etc. was all part of there regular MO.

Not so with the ripper. He killed them on the streets in secluded areas, left them their and got out.

Knowing this I find it hard to believe the ripper would kill and mutilate literally right under his mothers window. Don't see it.

[Michael W Richards]

Thomas Richardson, Amelia's 14 year old grandson, was at 29 Hanbury St at the time of the murder and sharing Amelia's room. What was he doing when Amelia was (a) outside at about 5:30am being seen by Mrs Long/Darrell fully dressed and having a conversation with a male in the street, or conversely watching her son murder Annie in the back yard, or discovering the body herself and conspiring with her son to lie and cover up? Was Thomas an extremely deep sleeper? Surely he would have woken up at some stage with his grandmother so active in the early hours and taken a look to see what she was doing?

There were 17 people listed as living there at the time, the same question would obviously apply to the rest of the residents. Evidently, some heard nothing...even though we have evidence that some of the neighbours had their windows open that night.

[Rosella]

Thomas Richardson, Amelia's 14 year old grandson, was at 29 Hanbury St at the time of the murder and sharing Amelia's room. What was he doing when Amelia was (a) outside at about 5:30am being seen by Mrs Long/Darrell fully dressed and having a conversation with a male in the street, or conversely watching her son murder Annie in the back yard, or discovering the body herself and conspiring with her son to lie and cover up? Was Thomas an extremely deep sleeper? Surely he would have woken up at some stage with his grandmother so active in the early hours and taken a look to see what she was doing?

[Elamarna]

People make this a far more difficult issue than it is based solely upon the existing evidence. John didnt see a body because, based upon the Cadosche evidence, no-one was killed in that yard until around 5:15am.

Cadosche is the closest witness to the crime scene aside from Richardson, but the only one that provides us audible evidence that an attack was ongoing in the next yard at the same time he was in the yard.

If Cadosche told the truth, and there is no reason that I am aware of he wasnt, then its inconceivable that he heard people in that yard with a dead woman already in there. If he heard "no"...it was Annie being killed.

Michael,

I agree with you 100% on this, I see no reason to disbelieve Cadosch, and it would seem almost certain what he heard was the killing of Chapman.

However I have attempted to enter into this debate to show the the theory proposed is only one version, and the possible outcomes of both the alternatives.

steve

[Harry D]

I understand your reticence, but let’s say Richardson went to his mothers that morning to only check the lock, and found Annie lying either asleep or drunk in the yard. It was dark, it was quiet, and no one was yet up. He could strangle her before she woke to make a noise, and his apron & tools were nearby. Could this scenario have happened as a crime of opportunity, rather than a pre meditated one that morning?

Hello, Pandora.

I would say no, because Albert Cadosch almost certainly heard Chapman from behind the fence. Then we have Mrs. Long's testimony that she saw Chapman outside 29 Hanbury St. around 5.30. This would mean that both witnesses would need to be off in their timings just to accommodate Richardson as the killer.

I think enough killers DON'T put up a wall around their personal space that it's not unreasonable to assume this one may have killed close to or even at home. Kemper did, Dahmer did, Gacy did, Gein clearly did, Holmes did, Hillside Stranglers... I mean there is a lengthy list of people who kill at home, or hunt from work, or use their cars as mobile crime scenes that there really isn't some kind of blanket rule about keeping things separate. Just that some do, and some don't. .

We're not dealing with a Dahmer or a Gacy. The Ripper didn't keep the bodies hidden to himself, he left them laid out in the streets or in their own bed for the first unsuspecting person to find. It's a whole different ballgame. Presumably, this was a practical matter. The Ripper might've been a transient or a local who didn't have his own place to lure the victims to and keep them in his basement, or it could've been personal choice. Perhaps he enjoyed the thrill of killing on the streets and terrorizing the public? Whatever the case may be, the Ripper had his reasons for operating the way he did, and Richardson doesn't fit the bill.

[Michael W Richards]

People make this a far more difficult issue than it is based solely upon the existing evidence. John didnt see a body because, based upon the Cadosche evidence, no-one was killed in that yard until around 5:15am.

Cadosche is the closest witness to the crime scene aside from Richardson, but the only one that provides us audible evidence that an attack was ongoing in the next yard at the same time he was in the yard.

If Cadosche told the truth, and there is no reason that I am aware of he wasnt, then its inconceivable that he heard people in that yard with a dead woman already in there. If he heard "no"...it was Annie being killed.

[Pandora]

Hi Errata,

I think enough killers DON'T put up a wall around their personal space that it's not unreasonable to assume this one may have killed close to or even at home. Kemper did, Dahmer did, Gacy did, Gein clearly did, Holmes did, Hillside Stranglers... I mean there is a lengthy list of people who kill at home, or hunt from work, or use their cars as mobile crime scenes that there really isn't some kind of blanket rule about keeping things separate. Just that some do, and some don't.

Sure a savvy criminal will not **** where he eats, so to speak. But they aren't all savvy, they aren't all rational, they don't all care, some are just that arrogant, and many are unable to resist temptation when it comes right down to it. So you get the gamut between a Gein who is clearly home based, a Kemper who brings parts of that life home, and a Dahmer who just sort of screwed up.

You are quite right of course, we cannot judge any decisions Jack made, since we just don't know enough about him, whether he was arrogant, cocky, lucky, highly intelligent, slow witted or otherwise. Ergo, we cannot rule any potential suspect out, based on generalizations about what WE think he would or wouldn't do.

I know from my own perspective, I have vowed not to do something in the past, and then gone right ahead and done it, for whatever the reason. Influence, desire, lack of self control, opportunity... if John Richardson did kill Annie in his mothers yard that morning, it could have been for any of these reasons, and many more no doubt.