Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,


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?


Pandora.

Hi Pandora,

Been thinking about this overnight, maybe to say it was "stretched" was the incorrect word.
let me explain what I meant:

We actually have FIVE witness statements:

Richardson's - sitting on step, cutting leather does not see body
Doctor Phillips - examination of body, estimation of time of death
Mrs Long - claims to see Chapman and man in Hanbury street
Albert Cadosch - hears something in yard of 29.
John Davies - finds body.

Now I think it is safe to say all but the last are open to interpretation.

There is no way the other four can be fitted together and be accurate.

You have looked at this and applied the principle of Occam's Razor as you see it.
To achieve this you must discard at least one of the accounts, you have decided to discard that of Richardson.
From your initial post would it be fair to say that you came at this from a position of interest in Richardson as the killer? Did you consider any other options?

This is where I have to disagree with you. when you have to discard one statement how can you be sure which one?

Now the statements of Phillips and Richardson cannot fit together unless you accept Richardson missed a body right under his nose, in more senses than one.

The Statements of Long and Cadosch also have problems over timing, but given what we have discussed about timekeeping, this could be explained by one person getting the time wrong by only a few minutes or by Long being mistaken about the identification. I hope we can agree on that?

On this basis it is correct to assume the incorrect statement is one out of Phillips or Richardson.

You have decided to discard Richardson, and that time-line does indeed work given the theory you suggest of his mother entering the yard and Long mistaking his mother for Chapman, all before Davies finds the body.

However the alternative time-line also works, Phillips being wrong in his estimation of the time of death. Richardson sitting on step, no body, Long seeing someone who could be Chapman and Cadosch hearing something in the backyard before the body is found.

In my humble view BOTH options meet the principle of Occam's Razor - the simplest course is often correct.

Therefore either Richardson lied or Phillips made a mistake, which option you go for is of course a personal choice as we have no evidence to back either view.

yes a healthy, sensible debate.

regards

steve

[John G]

I think most time of death estimates during the JtR enquiry should be taken with a pinch of salt. In fact, such estimates are now regarded as subjective and highly variable and the current official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! (See, for example, the opinion of Dr Biggs, Marriott, 2015.)

[Harry D]

I would dismiss Richardson for the simple reason that I don't think the Ripper would kill on his own doorstep. Richardson only lived around the corner from 29 Hanbury St, which was owned by his mother. Killers generally put a reasonable distance between themselves and the scene of the crime. It doesn't make sense for Richardson to troll the majority of his victims further afield whilst killing one of them in his own backyard, so to speak, and put himself in the frame.

More likely that, as with Lechmere, he's another witness whose daily routine just happened to coincide with one of the murder sites. However, because these are guys who can definitely be placed at the scene of the crime, around the time of the respective murders or thereabouts, there's a temptation to elevate them to suspect status rather than wrestle with the shadowy figure of the real Ripper.

[Elamarna]

Harry D

I tend to agree, and while the thread is Pandora is a welcome change and actually well presented; I just don't see any evidence other than he was a witness and admitted to being onsite, which of course he did not need to do, to link him.

However it is thought provoking thread, and has highlighted the issues with general timing and the estimations of the times death, which is a issue few seem to understand.

regards

steve

[Pandora]

Hi Abby,

Why do you think his mother needs to be involved?
Why not simply its him and Chapman that Long sees and him and chapman that cadosh hears?

I think bringing his mother into it the way you suggest only weakens(and confuses) the theory that he was the ripper.

The reason I included Amelia was this. I decided to look at the witness testimonies as truthful, in particular Mrs Long & Codosch, who are both widely regarded to have been incorrect in regards to the time, because if correct, Long’s testimony that she saw the woman & JtR AFTER Cosdosch hears the fall against the fence – which proves it cannot have been Annie.

When I put their testimonies in chronological order, if they had the time no more than a few minutes out, I realised that it could not have been Annie talking to JtR at the front of Hanbury when Mrs Long walked past, since according to Codosch, she would have already been dead. So I looked into who else could have been a viable candidate for the “woman” and decided on Amelia Richardson, especially once I discovered the conflicting testimony John Richardson gave about the boot that morning.

From this new perspective, I formulated a scenario, that accounted for all of the witnesses, a mother who admitted to “dozing fitfully” at 3:50am that, and therefore could have been awake, and man could get his story straight about the infamous boot cutting scenario.

[Pandora]

Hi Steve,

Hi Pandora,

Been thinking about this overnight, maybe to say it was "stretched" was the incorrect word.
let me explain what I meant:

We actually have FIVE witness statements:

Richardson's - sitting on step, cutting leather does not see body
Doctor Phillips - examination of body, estimation of time of death
Mrs Long - claims to see Chapman and man in Hanbury street
Albert Cadosch - hears something in yard of 29.
John Davies - finds body.

Now I think it is safe to say all but the last are open to interpretation.

There is no way the other four can be fitted together and be accurate.

You have looked at this and applied the principle of Occam's Razor as you see it.
To achieve this you must discard at least one of the accounts, you have decided to discard that of Richardson.
From your initial post would it be fair to say that you came at this from a position of interest in Richardson as the killer? Did you consider any other options?

This is where I have to disagree with you. when you have to discard one statement how can you be sure which one?

Now the statements of Phillips and Richardson cannot fit together unless you accept Richardson missed a body right under his nose, in more senses than one.

The Statements of Long and Cadosch also have problems over timing, but given what we have discussed about timekeeping, this could be explained by one person getting the time wrong by only a few minutes or by Long being mistaken about the identification. I hope we can agree on that?

On this basis it is correct to assume the incorrect statement is one out of Phillips or Richardson.

You have decided to discard Richardson, and that time-line does indeed work given the theory you suggest of his mother entering the yard and Long mistaking his mother for Chapman, all before Davies finds the body.

However the alternative time-line also works, Phillips being wrong in his estimation of the time of death. Richardson sitting on step, no body, Long seeing someone who could be Chapman and Cadosch hearing something in the backyard before the body is found.

In my humble view BOTH options meet the principle of Occam's Razor - the simplest course is often correct.

Therefore either Richardson lied or Phillips made a mistake, which option you go for is of course a personal choice as we have no evidence to back either view.

yes a healthy, sensible debate.

regards

steve

Well I’m glad at least my theory has gotten the wheels turning.

You are right of course, the Dr Phillips may have been incorrect in his initial assessment, Mrs Long & Codosch may both have gotten their times wrong, and Richardson may have been telling the truth about his boot & the time he was there. Case closed, thread locked, no more debate.

But let’s say for the sake of argument Richardson WAS JtR, let’s say he’s been largely overlooked for 128 years, and has slipped under the radar. If we look at his testimony, and that of the other witnesses from another angle, just maybe, we might be able to discover some new information. Open some new doors.

If we remain steadfast in our beliefs, not willing to address the possibility of a different scenario, then what is this forum about? I ask, not that you agree with my every word, and confirm my theory that Richardson was JtR - even I am not willing to say I am certain about that. What I ask is that we give him at least a modicum of our attention, to discuss the possibility that he MAY have been.

The main reason I have taken such a long time to create this thread, is because I seen so many valid questions/theories get caught up in circular arguments, where the same responses get used time & again, to not so much as disprove them (for as much as we cannot easily PROVE any theory about JtR nowadays, we equally cannot DISPROVE one either) but to knock them down as invalid, before they can gain any traction.

I’m asking you to change your perspective that the witnesses all got their timings wrong, and to look at Richardson with more scrutiny, to explore the possibility that he could have been actively deceitful, rather than just forgetful.

You may well be correct that Richardson was not JtR, but just a witness to one of the crimes. Entirely plausible. So do we put Richardson back into the shadows, and continue to argue the same old theories, and chase each others tails in the same circular arguments? Fine, that’s what has been happening for years anyway. But, and yes I concede it’s a big but, but what if you’re wrong? What if Richardson was indeed JtR. Look how many threads there are on the Royal Conspiracy, and I think most posters will agree, that theory is very very unlikely. Yet until now Richardson has not been given one thread dedicated to the possibility that he was Jack, despite being at one of the murder sites at around the time of the murder, and gave conflicting testimony about his actions that morning. Does he not deserve a more critical eye?

I hope that this is what I have done. I have tried to look at the evidence from a different angle. Rather than jump on that bandwagon, that Dr Phillips, Mrs Long & Codosch were all wrong about their timings that morning, I decided to look at the situation with news eyes, starting with the idea, that all of them may have been correct, and going from there.

And your main question to me was, why did I decide on Richardson as the liar in this scenario, and not say Dr Phillips? The answer is pretty simple, Richardson wasn’t honest about his actions that morning, that’s why. His story of the boot, and when he cut the leather off is at the very least, suspicious. If he lied about that, could he have lied about everything else?

[Pandora]

Hi Harry,

I would dismiss Richardson for the simple reason that I don't think the Ripper would kill on his own doorstep. Richardson only lived around the corner from 29 Hanbury St, which was owned by his mother. Killers generally put a reasonable distance between themselves and the scene of the crime. It doesn't make sense for Richardson to troll the majority of his victims further afield whilst killing one of them in his own backyard, so to speak, and put himself in the frame.

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?

Not DID it, but COULD it? If the answer is yes, then we must look at Richardson with a scrutiny than he has not yet been given.

[Errata]

I would dismiss Richardson for the simple reason that I don't think the Ripper would kill on his own doorstep. Richardson only lived around the corner from 29 Hanbury St, which was owned by his mother. Killers generally put a reasonable distance between themselves and the scene of the crime. It doesn't make sense for Richardson to troll the majority of his victims further afield whilst killing one of them in his own backyard, so to speak, and put himself in the frame.

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.

[Elamarna]

Pandora

"You are right of course, the Dr Phillips may have been incorrect in his initial assessment, Mrs Long & Codosch may both have gotten their times wrong, and Richardson may have been telling the truth about his boot & the time he was there. Case closed, thread locked, no more debate."

That is one possibility or course not the only one, but it does not preclude debate.


"But let’s say for the sake of argument Richardson WAS JtR, let’s say he’s been largely overlooked for 128 years, and has slipped under the radar. If we look at his testimony, and that of the other witnesses from another angle, just maybe, we might be able to discover some new information. Open some new doors. "

Fully agree with you, he has not been looked at

"If we remain steadfast in our beliefs, not willing to address the possibility of a different scenario, then what is this forum about? I ask, not that you agree with my every word, and confirm my theory that Richardson was JtR - even I am not willing to say I am certain about that. What I ask is that we give him at least a modicum of our attention, to discuss the possibility that he MAY have been. "

Yes I am not discounting him entirely. he does deserve to be looked at more.


"I’m asking you to change your perspective that the witnesses all got their timings wrong, and to look at Richardson with more scrutiny, to explore the possibility that he could have been actively deceitful, rather than just forgetful. "



"You may well be correct that Richardson was not JtR, but just a witness to one of the crimes. Entirely plausible. So do we put Richardson back into the shadows, and continue to argue the same old theories, and chase each others tails in the same circular arguments? Fine, that’s what has been happening for years anyway. But, and yes I concede it’s a big but, but what if you’re wrong? What if Richardson was indeed JtR. Look how many threads there are on the Royal Conspiracy, and I think most posters will agree, that theory is very very unlikely. Yet until now Richardson has not been given one thread dedicated to the possibility that he was Jack, despite being at one of the murder sites at around the time of the murder, and gave conflicting testimony about his actions that morning. Does he not deserve a more critical eye?"

"I hope that this is what I have done. I have tried to look at the evidence from a different angle. Rather than jump on that bandwagon, that Dr Phillips, Mrs Long & Codosch were all wrong about their timings that morning, I decided to look at the situation with news eyes, starting with the idea, that all of them may have been correct, and going from there."


I am happy to explore the all possibilities; however to suggest that the time keeping may not have been inaccurate is too ignore the known facts about time keeping at the time, however that question of timings does not really have any effect on your theory.

Either Cadosch hears something or not, but who or what he hears is just a guess.
Long sees someone she thinks is Chapman, either she does or she does not.

If these statements of Long and Cadosch are out by ten minutes it as no material effect on if Richardson was the killer or not does it?

Think you are misunderstanding what I have said Pandora, in essence we have two options do we not?

Either Richardson lied, or Phillips was mistaken.

That Richardson lied is based on the statement of Chandler when compared to that of Richardson himself.
This has been discussed before and commented on in the dissertation by Wolf Vanderlinden which you mentioned in your first post, different people will have different views on this.

However I am more than happy to say:

Of course it is possible that Richardson LIED, and it is possible he was JtR.
and for these reasons if none other he does indeed deserve to be looked at.

However, if he is the killer, why would he volunteer the fact he was on site at 4.45am? was there any need to?

With regards to Dr Phillips and his estimation of the time of death, as others have posted, such estimations have historically been less than accurate, particularly when based on body temperature by touch and the onset of Rigor Mortis.
Estimations become far more accurate when time as passed and insect activity as occurred.
It is not so much that his time of death was mistaken, but that it was an a guess, maybe an educated one, but a guess none the less.

My view is that both scenarios are indeed possible.
I am not saying that he was not JtR.

What I am saying is that it is a good base for a theory, but needs some more evidence to give it some body.

Can I say right now, this is one of the more reasonable suggestions in recent months:
Richardson was present, and he fits the profile you gave at the start.
He could be the Killer of Chapman.

However AT PRESENT there are no links to the other murders nor any motive I can see.
These areas must obviously be your next steps in taking the theory forward.

So no we don't put him back in the shadows, he needs to be looked at in more detail to see if he can be linked in any way.
best regards

steve

[Jon Guy]

But let’s say for the sake of argument Richardson WAS JtR, let’s say he’s been largely overlooked for 128 years, and has slipped under the radar. If we look at his testimony, and that of the other witnesses from another angle, just maybe, we might be able to discover some new information. Open some new doors.

If we remain steadfast in our beliefs, not willing to address the possibility of a different scenario, then what is this forum about

Hi Pandora

It`s refreshing that you have raised the subject, but Richardson was a suspect at the time of the murder, and he has been discussed at length on this forum. I wouldn`t say he has slipped under the radar.

[Pandora]

Hi Steve,

My view is that both scenarios are indeed possible.
I am not saying that he was not JtR.

What I am saying is that it is a good base for a theory, but needs some more evidence to give it some body.

Can I say right now, this is one of the more reasonable suggestions in recent months:
Richardson was present, and he fits the profile you gave at the start.
He could be the Killer of Chapman.

However AT PRESENT there are no links to the other murders nor any motive I can see.
These areas must obviously be your next steps in taking the theory forward.

So no we don't put him back in the shadows, he needs to be looked at in more detail to see if he can be linked in any way.

Thanks for that, your response is encouraging, and I will endeavor to find more evidence that can connect Richardson to the other murders.

The main difficulty I have, is there just does not seem to be an awful lot of information about him, or his family at all, at least online. But should any other Casebookers have any information about the Richardson family, particularly post 1888, or by some miracle anything pertaining to his initial police interviews, I should be very much interested to hear them.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[Pandora]

Hi Jon,

It`s refreshing that you have raised the subject, but Richardson was a suspect at the time of the murder, and he has been discussed at length on this forum. I wouldn`t say he has slipped under the radar.

Perhaps I worded that badly, as I do know he was looked at, at the time, and has been discussed on these forum’s before. What I was trying to drive at, was that he did not have his own thread, dedicated to the possibility that he was JtR.

But yes, he has been discussed (and largely dismissed as a suspect) on threads that pertain to other aspects of the Hanbury murder. In starting this thread, I’m hoping to create a place for any future ‘Richardson as JtR ‘ questions or theories to be raised.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[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.

[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.

[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.