Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[Elamarna]

Some clocks were kept fairly accurate (mainly church etc, so maybe the Brewery too). And yes most employers would keep accurate timekeeping (within the limits of technology) and for just that reason people would ensure they were at work on time. One of my grandfathers and his twin started work in 1894 (aged 11) and I heard many stories of the efforts they took to ensure they weren't late for work, and that was in a place and time when jobs were reasonably. Plentiful, I would imagine in Whitechapel in '88 when people were desperate for work, the efforts would be even more desperate.

So I would accept Mrs longs time a being earlier than she said by 10 minutes without hesitation, later than she said I would have problems with, much more than 10 minutes earlier I'd have trouble with too, as the quarter hour was the important one and a quarter hour of sleep pretty precious.

One if my ancestors was Clergyman in England died early 1890s one of his duties was to ensure the church clock was as accurately set as possible. Wound daily, synchronized with other local clocks, the most important, towards the end, being the railway clock.

I think we agree on this to a great extent, all the times of eye witnesses could be up to 10 mins out, the Police I feel would be much more accurate.
The issue is obviously the means of getting the accurate time in the first place to set the clocks.

I seem to remember the Police may have had a telegram sent( could be wrong) each day. at the very least they synchronized watches (if carried) and station clocks on a daily basis.

One assumes the railway would be reasonably accurate, Churches I am not so sure about. this is borne out by your comments about your Ancestor and how he set the clock!

Its probably fair to say that we take accurate time keeping for granted these days with internet clock setting, telephone provided time. and extremely accurate time pieces, be they watches or mobile/cell phones.
However its not that long ago that time would be set (in the UK at least) by reference to the BBC radio broadcasts on the hour.

cheers

Steve

[GUT]

GUT

the assumption here is that the employer would have actuate time keeping themselves.
Mrs Long mentions the brewery clock I believe, this was just as likely to be wrong as anything else.

The police I believe set their clocks so at least they were consistent, someone like Monty I am sure could point us in the right direction on that.

The podcast I quoted before goes into this issue in some depth

Steve

And yes re the police.

One reason I accept Neil finding the body at 3:45 and Mizen talking to Cross and Paul at 3:45 (both happening more or less at the same time) and Paul's 3:45 being the ine that was off by a few minutes, again upto 10.

[GUT]

GUT

the assumption here is that the employer would have actuate time keeping themselves.
Mrs Long mentions the brewery clock I believe, this was just as likely to be wrong as anything else.

The police I believe set their clocks so at least they were consistent, someone like Monty I am sure could point us in the right direction on that.

The podcast I quoted before goes into this issue in some depth

Steve

Some clocks were kept fairly accurate (mainly church etc, so maybe the Brewery too). And yes most employers would keep accurate timekeeping (within the limits of technology) and for just that reason people would ensure they were at work on time. One of my grandfathers and his twin started work in 1894 (aged 11) and I heard many stories of the efforts they took to ensure they weren't late for work, and that was in a place and time when jobs were reasonably. Plentiful, I would imagine in Whitechapel in '88 when people were desperate for work, the efforts would be even more desperate.

So I would accept Mrs longs time a being earlier than she said by 10 minutes without hesitation, later than she said I would have problems with, much more than 10 minutes earlier I'd have trouble with too, as the quarter hour was the important one and a quarter hour of sleep pretty precious.

One if my ancestors was Clergyman in England died early 1890s one of his duties was to ensure the church clock was as accurately set as possible. Wound daily, synchronized with other local clocks, the most important, towards the end, being the railway clock.

[Elamarna]

I have no problem at all with pretty much any time in the case being +- 10 minutes.

Even if they had clocks they weren't terribly accurate.

However I also expect that someone in their way to work is likely to be closer than someone just living their life. Jobs were precious being late was not good for keeping your job.

GUT

the assumption here is that the employer would have actuate time keeping themselves.
Mrs Long mentions the brewery clock I believe, this was just as likely to be wrong as anything else.

The police I believe set their clocks so at least they were consistent, someone like Monty I am sure could point us in the right direction on that.

The podcast I quoted before goes into this issue in some depth

Steve

[GUT]

"I believe mistaken identity of a stranger on a dark morning, much more than I believe Mrs Long getting the actual time wrong when she was on her way to work."

Here I have to disagree with you on the second part of that statement.
it has been argued quite well I think, that time keeping in 1888 was probably much more random than we expect.

Can I suggest you listen to the podcast below which discusses the Chapman murder and the time keeping issues in some depth, far better than I ever could. i think the suggestion is that timings could be 10 minutes or so out.

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=84

keep up the good work

steve

I have no problem at all with pretty much any time in the case being +- 10 minutes.

Even if they had clocks they weren't terribly accurate.

However I also expect that someone in their way to work is likely to be closer than someone just living their life. Jobs were precious being late was not good for keeping your job.

[Elamarna]

"I believe mistaken identity of a stranger on a dark morning, much more than I believe Mrs Long getting the actual time wrong when she was on her way to work."

Here I have to disagree with you on the second part of that statement.
it has been argued quite well I think, that time keeping in 1888 was probably much more random than we expect.

Can I suggest you listen to the podcast below which discusses the Chapman murder and the time keeping issues in some depth, far better than I ever could. i think the suggestion is that timings could be 10 minutes or so out.

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=84

keep up the good work

steve

[Pandora]

Hi Steve,

you misunderstood me when you replied :

"I think it has to be Amelia, since Mrs Long saw a woman talking out the front of Hanbury when she walked past. Amelia makes the most sense to me.” What I meant was it could have been anyone who came into the backyard, it was very risky, you get out as soon as possible.

Ah, gotcha.

However your reply does raise the issue for the sake of debate, what if its not her at 5.20?

Then my work here is done.

With regards to :

"The real test is whether the timeline from Codosch to Long & back makes sense. In this regard, I think it does."

and

"It follows the theory of Occam’s Razor – the simplest theory is usually the right one. My theory is, they were all correct, and Richardson was lying."


Actually don't think it is the simplest, I actually feel your theory is stretched, but obviously we disagree on that. That is not a bad thing, we all have different points of view.

You’re not wrong Steve, if we all agreed then the mystery of who JtR was, would have been resolved many years ago – even if it wasn’t right. And there would be no need of a forum like Casebook. I’m just trying to make everyone look at John Richardson, and the timeline, from a different perspective. If we become locked into our theories and do not question them, then none of these posts matter. In looking from a different perspective, we may actually learn something new. We may not, as well, but what have we got to lose?

You mention that my theory is “stretched”, and does not follow Occam’s Razor – but if we take what the witnesses said at face value, and give them credit for being correct with their timeline’s, isn’t that the simplest thing to do? If we say that Dr Phillips, or Mrs Long were just plain wrong in their time estimations, is that not stretching the actual facts, to fit the theory? I believe mistaken identity of a stranger on a dark morning, much more than I believe Mrs Long getting the actual time wrong when she was on her way to work.

Agree with you 100%. debate is health, your theory does indeed raise the point of Long being mistaken, which I have always felt to be the case.

Thanks, I may not solve this case, I’d be foolish to think it possible at this stage, but I do love a healthy debate.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[Elamarna]

Pandora

you misunderstood me when you replied :

"I think it has to be Amelia, since Mrs Long saw a woman talking out the front of Hanbury when she walked past. Amelia makes the most sense to me."

What I meant was it could have been anyone who came into the backyard, it was very risky, you get out as soon as possible.

However your reply does raise the issue for the sake of debate, what if its not her at 5.20?

With regards to :

"The real test is whether the timeline from Codosch to Long & back makes sense. In this regard, I think it does."

and

"It follows the theory of Occam’s Razor – the simplest theory is usually the right one. My theory is, they were all correct, and Richardson was lying."


Actually don't think it is the simplest, I actually feel your theory is stretched, but obviously we disagree on that. That is not a bad thing, we all have different points of view
However if you could now find evidence to support the theory I could be persuaded to take a different view.


"Cross/Lechmere, Kosminski etc have got a huge plethora of threads & posts dedicated to theories of them being the Ripper, Richardson does not. I just felt there needed to be one."


Agree with you 100%. debate is health, your theory does indeed raise the point of Long being mistaken, which I have always felt to be the case.

Will be very interested if you take this further and look at possible links to the other murders.

regards

Steve

[Pandora]

But there have been a number of threads on him.

Yes, I have read all the threads on Richardson, many times over. Although a few posters do dance around the idea that Richardson was suspicious, most seem to believe he was just an honest albeit a slightly dim witness. But while some of the posts may have alluded to it, none of the threads are about John Richardson BEING Jack the Ripper, as I stated.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[Pandora]

Hi GUT,

Firstly depends in how much credence you put on profiling, especially a profile developed 109+ years after the event.

Which is why it is my theory, and not yours. I believe profiling to be quite a good guideline, and many serial killers have been found to have very similar profiles. Whether it is correct or not, as with most of Ripper lore, is anyone’s guess.

Also I took Douglas to me meaning interviewed as a potential suspect not as a witness, but I may be wrong (but don't think I am).

That is just your opinion though, and notwithstanding, how do we know John Richardson was not initially interviewed as a suspect? Since he placed himself at the crime, at around the time Annie was murdered, I would have thought it very remiss of the police NOT to consider him a suspect first, before deciding he was only a witness.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[GUT]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6878&highlight=Richardson

[GUT]

Hi Steve,




You may well be correct, but as I said to Fisherman in an earlier post “Did he take less time to “cut Chapman” than the 55 minutes I have allowed? Very possibly, which is why the timeline is “approx”. The timeline could start half an hour later and still be in keeping with the witness testimonies.” The real test is whether the timeline from Codosch to Long & back makes sense. In this regard, I think it does.



I think it has to be Amelia, since Mrs Long saw a woman talking out the front of Hanbury when she walked past. Amelia makes the most sense to me.



Agreed, but why can’t they all be right? My theory suggest that both Dr Phillips, AND Codosch & Long were right in their timings. It follows the theory of Occam’s Razor – the simplest theory is usually the right one. My theory is, they were all correct, and Richardson was lying.



You are correct of course, but my main point is that, though suspects like Cross/Lechmere, Kosminski etc have got a huge plethora of threads & posts dedicated to theories of them being the Ripper, Richardson does not. I just felt there needed to be one.

Cheers,
Pandora.

But there have been a number of threads on him.

[Pandora]

Hi Steve,

However I trouble with time line you give, in particular the allowing of so long for the murder. Chapman is not dissected, it is a frenzied attack I would be surprised if it took more than 10 minutes max, probably far less.

You may well be correct, but as I said to Fisherman in an earlier post “Did he take less time to “cut Chapman” than the 55 minutes I have allowed? Very possibly, which is why the timeline is “approx”. The timeline could start half an hour later and still be in keeping with the witness testimonies.” The real test is whether the timeline from Codosch to Long & back makes sense. In this regard, I think it does.

The idea of staying in the backyard, where you could be caught by anyone is I feel stretching things too far. indeed your theory is that he was caught by his mother, what if it was someone else?

I think it has to be Amelia, since Mrs Long saw a woman talking out the front of Hanbury when she walked past. Amelia makes the most sense to me.

One of the issues with the Chapman murder is the time of death, was the doctor right? if so then Richardson must be looked at.

However estimated time of death by medical professionals even now can be out and is normally given as a range, in 1888 it was far more a piece of guess work than now. It is entirely conceivable that the Doctor could be an hour or so out out in his estimation.

Agreed, but why can’t they all be right? My theory suggest that both Dr Phillips, AND Codosch & Long were right in their timings. It follows the theory of Occam’s Razor – the simplest theory is usually the right one. My theory is, they were all correct, and Richardson was lying.

in addition the points you list:

• Aged between 28-36 years old (JR was 36-37)
• Local, ordinary (JR lived in Whitechapel, was a porter at the Spitalfields Market)
• Domineering mother/weak or absent father (JR’s mother Amelia was very religious, and ran the family packing business. His father was deceased)
• Had likely been interviewed during the investigation (JR was interviewed as a witness in the Annie Chapman murder)

could easily be assigned to say Kosminski as well.

You are correct of course, but my main point is that, though suspects like Cross/Lechmere, Kosminski etc have got a huge plethora of threads & posts dedicated to theories of them being the Ripper, Richardson does not. I just felt there needed to be one.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[GUT]

G'day Pandora

• Aged between 28-36 years old (JR was 36-37)


• Local, ordinary (JR lived in Whitechapel, was a porter at the Spitalfields Market)
• Domineering mother/weak or absent father (JR’s mother Amelia was very religious, and ran the family packing business. His father was deceased)
• Had likely been interviewed during the investigation (JR was interviewed as a witness in the Annie Chapman murder)

Firstly depends in how much credence you put on profiling, especially a profile developed 109+ years after the event.

Also I took Douglas to me meaning interviewed as a potential suspect not as a witness, but I may be wrong (but don't think I am).

[Elamarna]

Hi all, this is my first post so please be kind! I know that the following theory has been discussed somewhat in threads, but only in passing. As far as I know, there is no thread that is solely dedicated to John Richardson being Jack the Ripper.

I first started looking at John Richardson (JR) after reading Wolf Vanderlinden's wonderful dissertation 'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman, as well as the FBI profile by Special Agent John Douglas, who suggested that the suspect known as Jack the Ripper (JtR) might have had the following traits.

• Aged between 28-36 years old (JR was 36-37)
• Local, ordinary (JR lived in Whitechapel, was a porter at the Spitalfields Market)
• Domineering mother/weak or absent father (JR’s mother Amelia was very religious, and ran the family packing business. His father was deceased)
• Had likely been interviewed during the investigation (JR was interviewed as a witness in the Annie Chapman murder)

Now I know many people are of the opinion that John Richardson was an honest, albeit slightly forgetful man (when it came to his boot anyway), who happened to be at the murder site not long before Jack arrived with Annie Chapman and killed her. His ever changing testimony regarding the piece of leather he may or may not have cut off his boot, is already well documented & discussed. Instead, what I’d like to offer up, is an alternative to the timeline that I think could go some small way to giving credence to his being the killer. I’m concentrating on the murder of Annie Chapman, as being so close to home, I believe this is the murder that most clearly links him to being JtR.

If Dr Phillips was correct is his original diagnosis, that Annie had been killed at approx 4:20am, then I believe John Richardson would have had ample time to dissect Annie, and clean himself up before continuing on to work, while still confirming the testimony of witnesses Elizabeth Long & Albert Cadosch.

1:35-1:45am Annie was last seen at the lodging house, planning on returning soon in order to obtain a bed for the night.

4:15am (approx) Annie meets John Richardson after failing to make enough (or any) money thus far, and they head towards 29 Hanbury St.

4:20-5:15am (approx) Annie is murdered & cut up by JR in the yard. He puts on his leather apron (which he kept at Hanbury St) after strangling her, in order to protect his clothing as he cuts her throat before dissecting her. Since she is already dead, there is little blood transfer anyway.

5:15-5:20am (approx) JR cleans up post-dissection, washing his apron, and cleaning his hands in the nearby bucket, below the tap in the yard. He spends more time cleaning away evidence than he has at the other murder(s), as he knows he will be looked at carefully since the crime is in his mothers yard.

5:20am (approx) JR is caught by his mother, Amelia Richardson who has heard noises and come downstairs to check the yard. She cries out “No!” in shock at what she sees. This is heard by Albert Cadosch.

5:25-5:30am (approx) Still being quite dark at this point, Amelia may not see the full carnage, as JR ushers his mother to the front of the house to talk (so as not to wake the residents). He admits to killing “an unfortunate” but perhaps plays it down as being less brutal than it was, perhaps even an accident? He pleads for her to keep his secret, “Will you?” he asks. “Yes”, she replies, as Elizabeth Long walks past.

5:30-5:35 (approx) He returns to the back yard, to refill the water bucket, now red with blood from where he washed his hands. At this stage Amelia sees the carnage JR has inflicted on Annie, and she faints, falling against the fence. This is again heard by Albert Cadosch.

5:40am (approx) Having taken his mother back to her bedroom, JR rushes off to Spitalfields market. Once there he hides his knife and whatever other evidence (uterus) he has in his possession.

5:55am (approx) Annie is discovered by John Davies.

6:00 -6:25 (approx) JR hears people talking about the murder, and since it is at his mothers, he decides to return to 29 Hanbury so as not to look suspicious.

6:25am (approx) JR arrives back at 29 Hanbury, just before Dr Phillips.

Evidence…

1. JR’s apron was found in the yard, damp/wet.
2. Even in the dark, JR would have known exactly where the tap & bucket resided in the yard.
3. JR’s ever changing account of the piece of leather he cut (or didn’t cut) off his boot is suspicious to say the least.
4. If the timeline is correct, it accounts for all of Codosch, Long & Dr Phillips testimonies.

My theory is that, in order to protect her son, Amelia lied to the police, and thus created enough reasonable doubt to deter them. She already was the mother of one “lunatic” son (JR’s older brother Thomas, according to the 1871 census) and did not want the stigmatism of being Jack the Rippers mother as well. Also she was very religious, holding prayer groups at 29 Hanbury, so perhaps she even thought she could pray for his recovery. Being so religious, she no doubt was not fond of all the “unfortunates” in Whitechapel, and her influence may have also prejudiced JR against them.

As for Elizabeth Long confusing the 47 year old Annie Chapman, with the 65 year old Amelia Richardson, I put that down to it being dark, the briefness of her glance in their direction (by her own admission, she “did not take much notice of them”), and the fact that Annie at 47 no doubt looked much older than she was after many years of living hard.

There are bound to be flaws in my theory, and I look forward to all & any opinions for & against. With no real possibility of conclusive evidence turning up to solve the crime, a healthy discussion is one of the few options we have at our disposal nearly 130 years after the fact.

For me the biggest question is whether or not the police actually verified what time JR clocked in at work that day? If it was closer to 6am than 5, then at the very least, I think this is a theory worth discussing.

One other thing I’d really like to know is, what happened to John Richardson post 1888? Does anyone know? I’ve looked, but can’t seem to find out when/where he died.

And on a side note, John Richardson could have easily travelled from Mitre Square after killing Catherine Eddowes, past Goulston St where he dropped the piece of bloody apron, ON HIS WAY back to where he lived, 2 John St (nowadays 33 Wilkes St) just around the corner from Hanbury St where his mother lived. In fact, if you ask Google Maps to walk you from Mitre Square to 33 Wilkes Street today, the first path it chooses, takes you along Goulston Street. Hardly conclusive, but certainly food for thought.

Hi Pandora


Nice 1st post, well constructed, well done.

However I trouble with time line you give, in particular the allowing of so long for the murder.
Chapman is not dissected, it is a frenzied attack I would be surprised if it took more than 10 minutes max, probably far less.

In many ways this is easily the most risky of the murder sites:

Only one exit.
Murder next to that exit.
Windows overlooking the site.
All the houses packed with people.
And of course, the toilets in the backyard too.

The idea of staying in the backyard, where you could be caught by anyone is I feel stretching things too far. indeed your theory is that he was caught by his mother, what if it was someone else?

One of the issues with the Chapman murder is the time of death, was the doctor right? if so then Richardson must be looked at .

However estimated time of death by medical professionals even now can be out and is normally given as a range, in 1888 it was far more a piece of guess work than now. It is entirely conceivable that the Doctor could be an hour or so out out in his estimation

I see little no evidence, other than the estimated time of death to suggest that Richardson was lying when he gave his statement.
Given the thread is was he JtR and not was he Chapman's killer, you obviously will have a great deal of work to do to find links to the other murders.


in addition the points you list:

• Aged between 28-36 years old (JR was 36-37)
• Local, ordinary (JR lived in Whitechapel, was a porter at the Spitalfields Market)
• Domineering mother/weak or absent father (JR’s mother Amelia was very religious, and ran the family packing business. His father was deceased)
• Had likely been interviewed during the investigation (JR was interviewed as a witness in the Annie Chapman murder)

could easily be assigned to say Kosminski as well.


of course that is only my view, don't let me put you off looking deeper.

all the best

Steve