Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Possibilities can be a help in pointing a way.
    Now I did put up the possibility that Chapman could have been sitting against the wall in the space between the steps and the fence,with the knees drawn up.Would she have been visible in that situation?.Fact. People do rest that way.

    At some time,she gets up,walks back down the passage,to leave the premises.As she steps on to the pavement,the Ripper walks by.
    "Well hello Annie",he says"what are you up to".
    "Hello George",she replies,"Could you lend me a tanner,I'm broke".
    The rest is history.

    Comment


    • Would Annie choose a backyard to have a rest in though, especially on a rather cool night? Surely a landing or passageway in one of those houses, even at no. 29, would have been marginally better, away from the elements anyway. If Annie entered 29 with Jack at about 5:15am then there could have been sounds of residents rousing themselves and so they maybe felt the garden would be more private.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rosella View Post
        Would Annie choose a backyard to have a rest in though, especially on a rather cool night? Surely a landing or passageway in one of those houses, even at no. 29, would have been marginally better, away from the elements anyway. If Annie entered 29 with Jack at about 5:15am then there could have been sounds of residents rousing themselves and so they maybe felt the garden would be more private.
        Given the fact that the loo was in the garden, Id wager that was the only place where you were certain to meet all of the residents...

        Comment


        • Okay, so back to John Richardson. I've done some more digging, and discovered in the 1881 Census, he is listed as a "militiaman" at the age of 28. I have yet to discover where he served, but one option is The Second Anglo-Afghan war, which was from 1878-1880. If anyone has any info, it would be very much appreciated.

          And regardless of where, if he did serve, then it seems reasonable to consider he may have been familiar with hand to hand combat techniques. And who knows what sort of post war trauma's he may have brought home with him as well.

          Another bit of info I've found, is his middle name. If I have the right John Richardson, then his middle name is Fennel (also spelt Finnel, and Phenel). Since it's not as common as John, it may aid in discovering some new info in regards to him, and his life. Again, if anyone has any more info in relation to that, I'd be very interested to hear it.

          And lastly, I think I have discovered when he died. Again, if I have the right John Richardson, it looks like he passed in 1935, at the ripe old age of 82. And for the naysayers who will want to know why he stopped his killing on the eve of 1889, when he lived to such a ripe old age, I don't know - not yet, anyway. But it is interesting to note that his last child, Henry, was born in 1889. And raising his kids is the same reason why Dennis Radar stopped for almost a decade.
          Cheers,
          Pandora.

          Comment


          • Here's a screengrab of his 1881 Census.
            Attached Files
            Cheers,
            Pandora.

            Comment


            • Militiamen were reservists, kept in Britain for home defence if necessary. They didn't serve abroad except in extreme national emergencies. (I believe early in the century some served in the Napoleonic Wars.) They would undertake regular military training as infantry and artillery units in camps for several weeks a year (including on artillery weapons ranges.) Militiamen received military pay and a retainer. It was considered ideal for men who had casual jobs (like market porters) because they could pick up and drop their civilian occupations before and after service.

              Comment


              • In the 1901 Census John (market porter) was living at 139 Vallance Rd, Bethnal Green. It was just him and his wife then, plus Henry aged 11 and Mary A Richardson, a boarder, who was 16 and a spice pickler! I believe John and Caroline may have moved to Islington later in their lives.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Rosella View Post
                  Militiamen were reservists, kept in Britain for home defence if necessary. They didn't serve abroad except in extreme national emergencies. (I believe early in the century some served in the Napoleonic Wars.) They would undertake regular military training as infantry and artillery units in camps for several weeks a year (including on artillery weapons ranges.) Militiamen received military pay and a retainer. It was considered ideal for men who had casual jobs (like market porters) because they could pick up and drop their civilian occupations before and after service.
                  Hi Rosella, thanks for that. So that puts the kibosh on my theory he came back from war hardened and twisted. Nonetheless, I shall persevere. There must be more information out there, it's just a matter of finding it.
                  Cheers,
                  Pandora.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Rosella View Post
                    In the 1901 Census John (market porter) was living at 139 Vallance Rd, Bethnal Green. It was just him and his wife then, plus Henry aged 11 and Mary A Richardson, a boarder, who was 16 and a spice pickler! I believe John and Caroline may have moved to Islington later in their lives.
                    The 1911 Census has him at 36 Balance Rd, Hackney. Living with Caroline and sons George & Henry (23 & 22 respectively) and a girl called Polly Paidon, listed as a grandchild - 8 years old.
                    Cheers,
                    Pandora.

                    Comment


                    • Gee, those ages keep varying. In 1891 George was 4 and Henry was 1 year old. I wonder whose daughter Polly was, Mary's or Millicent (Richardson)? Maybe Mummy had died.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Pandora,

                        thanks for sharing your ideas about John Richardson, Ill give some feedback on these:


                        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 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)
                        1. There has been som substantial scientific critique of the FBI profiling model implying it is not a good tool.
                        2. The classification of age is induced from many unreliable witnesses. And being a certain age is not per se an indication of being a killer.
                        3. Everyone in Spitalfields were local and most of them "ordinary". No indication of being a killer.
                        5. A lot of people had parents who were "religious" in Spitalfields in that period. Not an indication of being a killer.
                        6. A lot of people had dead or absent fathers. No indication of being a killer.
                        7. Having been likely to have been interviewed or having been interviewed is no indication of being a killer.



                        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.
                        The killer would have had ample time and so would everyone who was in the area that night and had the time. So that is not an indication of the killer being John Richardson. And if John Richardson was one of everyone in the area that night who had the time, that is not an indication of him being a killer.

                        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.
                        If there was some evidence of John Richardson being the killer we would not need the set of time approximations above.

                        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.

                        1. John Richardson had his apron in the yard because he lived there. Aprons must be washed. It happened all the time in Spitalfields at many adresses and is a part of normal life. John having his apron in the yard as usual is no indication of him being a killer.

                        2. The killer managed to get away time after time and did not need knowledge about taps and buckets to do so. A tap and bucket in a yard and knowledge about them is no indication of John Richardson being a killer.

                        3. Is the change in his account due to the sources or to himself?

                        4. The reliability of the timeline is very low since it is built on hypotheses about John Richardson and his mother that have no evidence.

                        The idea of John Richardson is fun to play with, I think, but very soon you get to see the limits of it. I have pointed them out above. And then there is the known problem of not having any indications at all that John Richardson was at any of the other murder sites.

                        This problem takes you to the same dead end as with the Lechmere idea. The difference is the place:

                        You can remain standing in Bucks Row for decades of research or you can remain standing in Hanbury Street for decades. Both have their ambiance and excitement of "IF" but none has the evidence for their suspect being a serial killer.

                        It is a matter of deciding on what one wants to do for some years or decades ahead, I think.

                        Kind regards, Pierre
                        Last edited by Pierre; 02-12-2016, 02:19 AM.

                        Comment


                        • ivil Parish: Mile End New Town Ecclesiastical Parish: All Saints
                          Folio: 24 Page: 21 Schedule: 120
                          Address: 7 Johns Place

                          Surname First name(s) Rel Status Sex Age Occupation Where Born Remarks
                          RICHARDSON John Head M M 40 Bricklayer(Em'ee) London - Whitechapel
                          RICHARDSON Caroline Wife M F 38 Shirtmaker(Em'ee) London - Whitechapel
                          RICHARDSON John Son S M 15 Carman(Em'ee) London - Whitechapel
                          RICHARDSON Millicent Dau S F 10 Scholar London - Whitechapel
                          RICHARDSON Mary Dau - F 6 Scholar London - Whitechapel
                          RICHARDSON George Son - M 4 Scholar London - Whitechapel
                          RICHARDSON Henry Son - M 1 - London - Whitechapel

                          This is from the 1891 Census returns - might be the same, in which case his stated occupation of 'bricklayer' is interesting.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                            [ And then there is the known problem of not having any indications at all that John Richardson was at any of the other murder sites.
                            Was Spitalfields market open on Nov 9th ?

                            Dorset Street was next door to this market where Richardson started work at 5am.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                              Was Spitalfields market open on Nov 9th ?

                              Dorset Street was next door to this market where Richardson started work at 5am.
                              Being a Friday, I am fairly sure it would have been. And the current walk between what was 13 Millers Court, and Spitalfields Market is only 3 minutes.

                              And 5 minutes from John Richardson's house to Millers Court.

                              And Millers Court was was also incredibly close to where 2 of the earlier attacks on Annie Millwood & Martha Tabram happened, both of which I think have a reasonable chance of being committed by JtR.

                              So one could definitely argue John Richardson was up & about, and in the neighbourhood when all 3 women were attacked.
                              Attached Files
                              Cheers,
                              Pandora.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Pandora,

                                You write:


                                And Millers Court was was also incredibly close to where 2 of the earlier attacks on Annie Millwood & Martha Tabram happened, both of which I think have a reasonable chance of being committed by JtR.
                                Why do you think there is a "reasonable chance" that Millwood was attacked by the same person who did the C5?

                                Regards, Pierre

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X