Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[Mirandola]

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.

[Pierre]

Hi Pandora,

thanks for sharing your ideas about John Richardson, I´ll 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 Buck´s 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

[Rosella]

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.

[Pandora]

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.

[Pandora]

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.

[Rosella]

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.

[Rosella]

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.

[Pandora]

Here's a screengrab of his 1881 Census.

[Pandora]

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.

[Fisherman]

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, I´d wager that was the only place where you were certain to meet all of the residents...

[Rosella]

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.

[harry]

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.

[Elamarna]

Pandora,

Please don't get me wrong, I have not taken an objection to the thread, rather I would like it to progress which I don't see it doing at present.
I like the idea, but my point is that I can see nothing new has been added to the thread in the past few days, it is going round in circles like so many threads do.

I had been hoping that as you say someone may have something which could be linked and take us further forward.

The suspect is certainly viable , and one of the better ideas put forward in recent months.

No one has ridiculed you, indeed I gave you encouragement only last week.

please look again what I said about the theory,

"What we have at present is a viable idea, but it is not a theory for the Whitechapel murders."

I am talking about a theory for all the killings, which at present it is not and the thread is "was Richardson JtR" after all.

Of course it is a theory, but only for Chapman at present; if I was not clear enough about that and caused you offence I am sorry


I was only hoping to perhaps point people in the direction of the ideas we could be looking at in order to take this forward. if the discussion continues around the time of death and if he lied the thread will i fear not progress.

And I agree entirely you cannot only work on hard evidence, otherwise we would have solved this ages ago. Unless someone does come up with some spectacular evidence we have to speculate to begin with.
However , and it is a big however, at some point we surely must move from speculation with some evidence if a theory is to progress and develop

You say:

"do not try and control anyone else who may wish to do so."

I don't believe that is what I am doing, putting forward an opinion that the thread is not progressing is not trying to control people, I see it as health debate, with the best of intentions that being to push it on.

all the best in carrying it forward

Steve

[Pandora]

I would like to add, that if the theme continues on this forum, where people who name their suspects are ridiculed, or told to put up or shut up, then it may cause future posters to be intimidated, and not share what may be a very interesting piece of evidence, or an idea that opens new doors into the 130 year old mystery. Someone out there may be sitting on something that they do not know the value of, and reading some of these posts, may decide against sharing, for fear of looking foolish.

I have no desire to present myself as some new age, all embracing, hand holding hippie, but I strongly believe that those who decide to post on these forums, and add their voices to any discussion, do so to help move all and any discussions forward. And if the same old arguments continue to be thrown about, such as “there is no evidence” then I once again suggest, that MOST of the theories, idea’s and questions raised on these forums are based on speculation, not hard evidence. If we were only allowed to discuss hard evidence, and not speculate, this forum would be very small, and very dull.

[Pandora]

Dear All

This is a thread which started out with a reasonable question, I was involved in some of the early discussions and suggested in summary, nice idea, not first time been raised, is there any evidence? if some can be found to link Richardson to murder can we find some to link to other murders?

I left it at that.

what it has developed into appears to be an acceptance by some of the old saying "no smoke without fire"


The first bit of evidence offered has been that there is a feeling that Richardson lied, and that is enough for some well the differences in his statements could be that :

1. the questions he was asked allowed him to give different answers
2. how the responses were recorded by the police in the first place.


even if he deliberately lied, the differences do NOT make him the killer.

The other evidence is that Phillips said the TOD was earlier, despite what some like to say, this was an opinion given almost 130 years ago when medicine was still in its infancy compared to modern day.

It is a guess!

There is nothing wrong with this suggestion for a suspect, but someone find some evidence to back these claims up.

There is no suggestion of a motive!
No suggestion of links to the other murders!
And no suggestions for the killings stopping!

If we have some answers on these, we can flesh out a theory.
What we have at present is a viable idea, but it is not a theory for the Whitechapel murders.

What we are seeing is a rapid growth in the willingness of some to see witness as a suspects. Where does this lead us?

Here:

Nichols killed by Cross, because he admitted he found her and lied according to some.


Chapman found in a spot a man admits to being in sometime before and says no body there then.
Some are prepared to say the murder could have taken 45 minutes or longer so that it fits with Cadosch.


What next, Watkins found Eddowes, there are sometimes questions asked about his timings on his beat, he found Eddowes, does that make him a suspect?

Since I asked for evidence, none as been produced, fair enough.

So in answer to the question in the thread

Was he Jack the Ripper?

Given that there is at present no link to the other murders the current answer has to be a firm NO.

However one could refine it to, did he kill Chapman, and the truth is possibly but probably not, there is no evidence, no motive and the fact that he came forward as a witness argues for his innocence.

Again, he is viable, but at present no evidence has been produced to take it any further.

regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

The idea of discussing any subject on any forum is so other people can add their voice to the discussion, and potentially come up with new idea’s around that theory, which in time, could lead to new evidence. Two heads are always better than one, and several hundred, are obviously better than two.

Unlike some people on this forum, I have not claimed to have solved the mystery of who Jack was, I have called it what it is, a theory. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it thus “an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events”, "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true", and "the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject."


To be honest, I really struggle to understand why you seem to have taken such objection to this particular thread, when there are many hundreds, if not thousands of threads that stretch the realms of possibility so much further than this one does.

If you have no wish to partake in these discussions, that is absolutely fine, but please do not try and control anyone else who may wish to do so. Those discussions may lead to new evidence, that could prove the theory right, or wrong. That, in my opinion, is the whole point of this forum.