Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[Fisherman]

So, the apron had been there since Thursday, he just put it back. It was where it was supposed to be -- drying more slowly than usual it would seem.

There had been showers of rain during the day preceding the murder night. Was the apron hanging in a place protecting it from rain?

[Fisherman]

John was out and about at the right time of day and since he went to Hanbury each morning to check on the lock for his mother he had to have been passing in the same area the murders were occurring about the right time.

Richardson lived in John Street. John Street was situated off Hanbury Street, close to Commercial Road. Richardsons walk to 29 Hanbury Street- a very short one, turning one corner only - would take him directly to one murder spot, that of Chapman.

The route would not pass any of the other murder spots, though.

[Errata]

I am never one for suspect theories, since I believe they all inevitably run into a wall there is no getting around. That being our inability to glean proof from events so long ago. And I'm not sure I would believe it even if I was a suspect kind of person, but in full disclosure, my first boyfriend was named John Richardson, and a more gentle and delicate soul never existed. So I'm biased.

But, in order for this man to be a suspect on a par with Lechmere, Richardson, Kosminsky, etc. What is required is a whole lot of research. A whole lot. You can make an argument for this guy, and that's good. You can't prove it (no one can) so that makes things difficult. So what you need is such a bulwark of facts about this guy that it makes it hard not to take him seriously as a suspect. You've done some. You just need more.

One thing you might reconsider is his mother actually witnessing the crime. Seeing Chapman dead, maybe. Watching it happen... the psychology of these kinds of killers is incredibly complicated and incredibly fragile. Never mind the fact that there really is a tendency for the mother to be some kind of catalyst for the killing. Look at Dahmer, Bundy, Gein, Kemper, etc. all mommy issues. Any of these guys being interrupted by their mother during a murder would have been the psychological equivalent of a bomb going off. I don't think that it is in any way a safe assumption that a mother would survive such a disruption. It would certainly cause a collapse of the killer. Had Chapman's murder looked interrupted, maybe. But it didn't. So it seems a safer assumption that the mother walked out when it was over.She would have seen it from the steps, so if she fainted, she would have done it from the top step, slamming into fence pretty hard, and that seems like an injury to me. On the other hand, no pictures exist of the fence in the original position, so it is possible that the door hit the fence when it was opened all the way. So if she threw the door open, or he did, it might have hit the fence. Or he may have been startled by his mother coming out, and he lost his balance and hit the fence. He would have been crouched in a less than stable position. All just a thought. But given the possible disaster of one of these kinds of killers being witnessed by his mother, I would need a compelling reason that he continued on as he had and that she survived that encounter in order to believe it. I mean it's like your mom walking in on you having sex. Even if you don't start screaming at her to get out, you likely don't continue.

Good luck though. It sounds like you got this.

[Pandora]

Good Morning, Pandora,
Thanks. Great post. I was thinking of not coming to Casebook this morning. Anymore it's so same ol'- same ol'. You've provided a great change of pace.

I've thought for a long time that Jack Richardson requires a much longer look. Glad you're taking it.

I love that you've actually found a reasonable way to include the eyewitness testimony. Since I believe Annie was long dead by the time the doctor arrived, I'd tended to dismiss that as eye witnesses have been proven to be so often plain wrong. I like your way better (for now at least).

Richardson certainly lied and his story makes no sense, so you have to wonder what was really going on with him.

Thank you Curious, I very much appreciate your feedback, you make me feel very welcomed!

I've suspected that Annie was tired and sick, so went to a house she knew was open to lie down and get some rest instead of being out soliciting that morning.

Like you I think I think it very possible than Annie was already in the yard when Richardson found her. If she was fast asleep when he decided to strangle her, then it would explain why the crime was relatively quiet.

It would be nice to know what kind of problem John's brother had and where he was at the time of the Ripper murders. John and his mother could have been covering for him and were so shaken they were unable to come up with a plausible story. Also, it might be important to know if the problem was genetic.

According to the 1871 Census the brother was listed as Thomas Richardson, 24. But he was missing from the 1881 Census, so I suspect he may have died (or been sent away to an institution?). Whether his lunancy was genetic, would certainly be interesting to know, but alas, I do not.

So, the apron had been there since Thursday, he just put it back. It was where it was supposed to be -- drying more slowly than usual it would seem.

Agreed. I suspect the entire crime was one of opportunity. Annie being there asleep, the damp apron hanging in the yard. The water tap and bucket being readily available. And even his knife, perhaps, was in the basement where he had hidden it away after killing Polly Nichols. All very reasonable assessments.

Was John married, do you know?

Yes he was married, Caroline Richardson, 31, poops up on the 1881 Census as a button hole maker. Born in Lambeth.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[Pandora]

when it comes to the overall picture or to a comparison Lechmere-Nichols and Richardson-Chapman, it applies that Lechmere is the only of the two that had a proven opportunity to kill.
As long as you say that Richardson is a better suspect for Chapman, you are in the clear. Once you overall favour him over Lechmere, you have a mountain to climb.

Hi Fisherman, while I appreciate your questions/conflicts in regards to Richardson, I do not wish to discuss the reasons why Cross/Lechmere is a better candidate than him. Cross/Lechmere already has many threads of his own, and Richardson, like Curious says, at the very least deserves a closer look.

Personally, I think there are a number of weaknesses to the theory. For example, you have Richardson cutting up Chapman for a full 55 minutes, which I think is very generous..

I am not claiming to solved it, and my theory is not set in concrete, I am open to making changes. 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.

Richardson lived in John Street. John Street was situated off Hanbury Street, close to Commercial Road. Richardsons walk to 29 Hanbury Street- a very short one, turning one corner only - would take him directly to one murder spot, that of Chapman.
The route would not pass any of the other murder spots, though.

I would argue that if the Ripper had any sense at all, he would deviate from his route to work, to commit the murders.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[Pandora]

One thing you might reconsider is his mother actually witnessing the crime. Seeing Chapman dead, maybe. Watching it happen... I don't think that it is in any way a safe assumption that a mother would survive such a disruption. It would certainly cause a collapse of the killer. Had Chapman's murder looked interrupted, maybe. But it didn't.

Hi Errata, fair point. How about this then. What if Richardson had finished by the time Amelia came out (like I said) but only claimed he had found her like that? Perhaps since she could now connect him to the crime scene, their conversation out front was actually about whether she would tell the police he was there that morning. “Will you?” “Yes” thus forcing him to acknowledge he was there to the police, but he drew the line at putting himself there when the body was.

So it seems a safer assumption that the mother walked out when it was over.She would have seen it from the steps, so if she fainted, she would have done it from the top step, slamming into fence pretty hard, and that seems like an injury to me.

Not if it was dark, and she hadn’t seen the mutilations until she got closer. Or maybe she was made of sterner stuff, but fainted when she realised she knew the victim.

But given the possible disaster of one of these kinds of killers being witnessed by his mother, I would need a compelling reason that he continued on as he had and that she survived that encounter in order to believe it.

But if he claimed to have found the body only, then he could have continued the murders. Also, who is not to say his mother did not agree with his form of social cleansing?

Cheers,
Pandora.

[Pandora]

Yes he was married, Caroline Richardson, 31, poops up on the 1881 Census as a button hole maker. Born in Lambeth.

Well that was an hilarious typo, of course I meant "pops". Sorry to Mrs Caroline Richardson for the defamation of character.

[Fisherman]

Pandora: Hi Fisherman, while I appreciate your questions/conflicts in regards to Richardson, I do not wish to discuss the reasons why Cross/Lechmere is a better candidate than him. Cross/Lechmere already has many threads of his own, and Richardson, like Curious says, at the very least deserves a closer look.

I think it is a great idea to look into him as much as possible. And the matter of comparing him to Lechmere was something that was brought up by Richard, not by you. I am having that discussion with him, primarily, and if you don´t want to discuss that matter, that is very fine with me. I have others who will do the honours in that respect, believe me.

I am not claiming to solved it, and my theory is not set in concrete, I am open to making changes. 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.

That is true, of course.

I would argue that if the Ripper had any sense at all, he would deviate from his route to work, to commit the murders.

Which is a fine enough take on things; five murders on the miniscule John Street/Hanbury Street route to 29 Hanbury would give the game away, methinks. Personally, I think it will always boil down to opportunity. Anyhow, the best of luck with your research! If I can in any way help out, just let me know.

[Errata]

Hi Errata, fair point. How about this then. What if Richardson had finished by the time Amelia came out (like I said) but only claimed he had found her like that? Perhaps since she could now connect him to the crime scene, their conversation out front was actually about whether she would tell the police he was there that morning. “Will you?” “Yes” thus forcing him to acknowledge he was there to the police, but he drew the line at putting himself there when the body was.



Not if it was dark, and she hadn’t seen the mutilations until she got closer. Or maybe she was made of sterner stuff, but fainted when she realised she knew the victim.



But if he claimed to have found the body only, then he could have continued the murders. Also, who is not to say his mother did not agree with his form of social cleansing?

Cheers,
Pandora.

I think it's safer to leave fainting out of it altogether, because given that the body was to a certain extent located between the fence and the stairs, fainting and hitting the fence means potentially pitching head first into a mutilated body, which aside from her probably mentioning that to the cops, has a lot of forensic ramifications. And given I have yet to see two people agree on the position of Chapman's body in the yard, you are going to have a hard time arguing that she didn't faint into a gaping wound. I mean, maybe she fainted, but there are a thousand things that could have resulted in the noise of something hitting the fence, including wild gesturing, the body being straightened out, the door opening into it, the killer rolling an ankle, bird strike, who the hell knows... all less problematic than fainting. It's not that it couldn't happen, or that it didn't happen, it's just that it's a tough argument. And one that does not lend especially to your primary argument. She does not need to faint for the noise to have been made, or for her to exhibit distress. And to say that she did opens it up for some argument that is somewhat off topic. The noise could have been a hundred things. Let it remain that way. That's not going to be what nails your guy.

Without a confrontation with his mother, this kind of killer can usually talk his way out of compromising situations with ridiculous ease. And he would count of that. As long as his mother at least nominally accepted his explanation, his world would remain intact. He could continue. And I think most mothers would accept just about any explanation upon finding their son with a dead woman. It would be a shock to both of them, but a recoverable one. Unlike her watching the actual murder/mutilation process. That would be such a violation of privacy and such a profound attack on his belief system that his psyche would fold like a lawn chair. He would kill her, kill himself, run away and disappear, it would be a huge deal. Unrecoverable. In my opinion at least. There are those who favor the idea of a pure psychopath who would be unmoved by disapproval. I am not one of them.

[Pandora]

Hi Fisherman,

I think it is a great idea to look into him as much as possible. And the matter of comparing him to Lechmere was something that was brought up by Richard, not by you. I am having that discussion with him, primarily, and if you don´t want to discuss that matter, that is very fine with me. I have others who will do the honours in that respect, believe me.

I do think both our suspects should be looked at more carefully, since they can both be placed at the scene of one of the murders. I just ask that Richardson be given as much attention as Cross/Lechmere has been, though this no doubt is due in no small part to your hard work. And who knows, one of us may even be right!

Anyhow, the best of luck with your research! If I can in any way help out, just let me know.

Thank you! I consider myself more of an armchair enthusiast, than an actual Ripperologist as you are yourself. If this thread gets people thinking a little more about the possibility of John Richardson as JtR, then I am happy.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[Pandora]

Hi Errata,

I think it's safer to leave fainting out of it altogether, because given that the body was to a certain extent located between the fence and the stairs, fainting and hitting the fence means potentially pitching head first into a mutilated body, which aside from her probably mentioning that to the cops, has a lot of forensic ramifications. The noise could have been a hundred things. Let it remain that way.

I understand your concerns, however, if we ruled out every hypothetical possibility in the Ripper murders, most of us on this forum would have nothing to talk about. You may feel strongly that the noise could have been anything, and must be left at that, but I do not. It is not only MY choice to consider other possibilities, it is my right. I think it is possible that John & his mother went back to yard and got close to the body. Perhaps she leaned in to identify the body, perhaps they intended to move it, and she fainted, but was caught by John, resulting in a dull thud. Did it happen that way? I have no idea, but I believe it is POSSIBLE.

As long as his mother at least nominally accepted his explanation, his world would remain intact. He could continue. And I think most mothers would accept just about any explanation upon finding their son with a dead woman. It would be a shock to both of them, but a recoverable one. Unlike her watching the actual murder/mutilation process. That would be such a violation of privacy and such a profound attack on his belief system that his psyche would fold like a lawn chair. He would kill her, kill himself, run away and disappear, it would be a huge deal. Unrecoverable. In my opinion at least. There are those who favor the idea of a pure psychopath who would be unmoved by disapproval. I am not one of them.

Again, fair point, but this is assuming the character of Amelia Richardson as a regular, abide by the law, be aghast by murder type of woman, and we just don’t know. She could have easily been a religious zealot, who domineered her son, and felt that the prostitutes were a plague on Whitechapel that needed to be eliminated. Was she that type of person? Again, I have no idea, but it is possible. Or perhaps she just believed her son that he found the body, and did not want to become a suspect, so she did what she could to assist him.

I guess my reason for starting this thread, rather than definitively proving whether John Richardson was JtR or not, was to see if my alternate timeline was be plausible. So far, so good.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[Pandora]

Another interesting thing to point out, most witness testimonies put Jack at about 5’7”-5’9”, but if it really was Annie that Jack was talking to when Mrs Long walked past, her testimony seriously refutes this, as Annie was only 5”, and Mrs Long stated the man was only “a litte taller”, making him a rather short 5’2” or 5’3”.

However, if it was actually Amelia Richardson, and not Annie, that JtR was talking to, then all it proves is that Jack was a few inches taller than Amelia. Since we do not know how tall she, or John Richardson were (only that he was “tall”), this is fairly inconclusive as evidence. But it is not rare for a son to be only a few inches taller than his mother.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[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

[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).

[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.