Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[RockySullivan]

Annie wasn't killed in the 'exact spot' Richardson was earlier at all. She wasn't killed on the steps leading to the yard but nearby, in the yard itself. Richardson was sitting on the second step trying to fix his boot, not crouching over anything near the fence. Nobody would have known that he had a knife if he himself hadn't said so. Why would he be prising brass rings off Annie's fingers? She was destitute, as could be seen from her clothing and way of life. Anything valuable she'd had had gone long ago.

Hi Rosella, wasn't Chapman's body found in the space between the stairs and the fence? Judging from the photos I've seen the isn't much space between the stairs and the fence. Richardson was sitting with his feet on the flagstones of the yard. Would he have been able to touch Chapman's body from his seat on the bottom step?

[Wickerman]

I wouldn't rule it out, but if it's found mostbwillmdismissnit anyway.

Probably including me.

Hmm, if it can be dismissed, it can't be proof, can it?

Circumstantial evidence can be dismissed and that is the best that can be hoped for at this late date. Though I doubt sufficient circumstantial evidence can be found to tie the same man to more than one murder.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
For the benefit of those of us who do not understand the differences,maybe you would enlighten us.You are,I presume,an expert on the matter.

Try me, give us one of your assumed facts about the case.

[Rosella]

Hi Rosella, wasn't Chapman's body found in the space between the stairs and the fence? Judging from the photos I've seen the isn't much space between the stairs and the fence. Richardson was sitting with his feet on the flagstones of the yard. Would he have been able to touch Chapman's body from his seat on the bottom step?

Probably yes. Annie's head was 'about 6" in front of the level of the bottom step'.., according to Phillips. (That's a bit confusing, as Annie lay to the left of the step, near the crummy fence.) But Richardson wasn't seen by anyone standing or sitting crouching over the body with knife in hand, nor did he say (obviously) that he was doing that himself.

[RockySullivan]

Probably yes. Annie's head was 'about 6" in front of the level of the bottom step'.., according to Phillips. (That's a bit confusing, as Annie lay to the left of the step, near the crummy fence.) But Richardson wasn't seen by anyone standing or sitting crouching over the body with knife in hand, nor did he say (obviously) that he was doing that himself.

No but he said he was sitting on the bottom step with his feet on the ground cutting his boot with a knife. So he would have been bent over. Now if Chapman was killed at the time the doctor estimated, she would have been there when Richardson was out in the yard. If he was stealing her ring, considering her head was 6" out in front of the bottom step, would the best position for John to remove the ring been him sitting on the bottom step and holding her arm while prying the ring? I know you always say no one saw Richardson so he had no reason to come up with an excuse for being by the steps. But you never seem to take into account the idea that Richardson could have been paranoid that one of the neighbors or even a tenant of 29 saw him out there by the steps. What position was the killer in while mutilating chapman? Where would he have been standing when he cut her throat? There doesn't seem to be much room between the steps and Chapman's body to stand.

[Fisherman]

The police described this killer as mad, when in reality he very likely was nothing of the sort, and that assumption would necessarily lead them down the wrong path. So in some instances we are allowed to know better than the police of the day. We might still be wrong, but we would be coming from a better informed place than they were.

This is - at least to my mind - one of the most important matters to look at whan we ask ourselves wy the police did not catch the killer. And when we ponder it, it is important to note that one can be at fault in more than one respect.
One can be wrong in realtion to the truth.
And one can be wrong in relation to what society rules is the truth, on incomplete grounds.

The victorian police were, generally speaking, doing what they were supposed to do, and thinking along lines the were supposed to think along.
Itīs just that there was a lack of understanding what makes a serial killer tick, and a belief that anybody who would do what the Ripper did must be apparently mad.

A hundred years from now, we can be reasonably certain that those who follow us will laugh at how uniformed we were in 2016. But we at least have much finer tools to work with than the victorians did. We are, just as Errata says, much, much better equipped to cath the killer.

As for my suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, it is met by assertions that if he so very obviously presented a viable bid for the killers role, the police would never have missed him.
But all we have is clear pointers to how he was never even investigated. Which is totally in line with how I think the victorian police went about the hunt for the Ripper.

And Richardson? Well, he did say that he was there and he did say that he handled a knife, and the knife was fetched and examined. And then they decided not to follow the Richardson trail, in spite of how that trail was strewn with inconsistencies as regards the testimony he offered. The right decision, based on the wrong grounds.

[harry]

Wickerman,
The envelope with the regimental crest.

[harry]

SuspectZero,
It would certainly help if the killer was aquainted with the layout,and customs of the inhabitants of the building,but the unexpected might still happen,and that risk alone,even if he was a first timer,had to be accepted.

Would the killer be so consumed that all reason deserted him.Could be,but I think the risk would have been apparent the moment he entered the passage.
Regards.

[Fisherman]

Richardson himself states at the exact spot bending over with a knife in his hand and he himself states he is there at the exact time of death estimated for Annie Chapman. I don't see how Cross is "more guilty" since he doesn't freely admit to crouched at the murder spot with a knife in his hand.

Lechmere is proven to have had the opportunity to kill Nichols.

Richardson is not proven to have had the opportunity to kill Chapman.

It really is that simple.

[Rosella]

No but he said he was sitting on the bottom step with his feet on the ground cutting his boot with a knife. So he would have been bent over. Now if Chapman was killed at the time the doctor estimated, she would have been there when Richardson was out in the yard. If he was stealing her ring, considering her head was 6" out in front of the bottom step, would the best position for John to remove the ring been him sitting on the bottom step and holding her arm while prying the ring? I know you always say no one saw Richardson so he had no reason to come up with an excuse for being by the steps. But you never seem to take into account the idea that Richardson could have been paranoid that one of the neighbors or even a tenant of 29 saw him out there by the steps. What position was the killer in while mutilating chapman? Where would he have been standing when he cut her throat? There doesn't seem to be much room between the steps and Chapman's body to stand.

Dr Phillips only estimated the time of death by touch though, didn't he, and he later qualified his estimate by acknowledging at the inquest that the cold morning may have led him astray. He didn't take any internal body temperatures.

Jack throttled Annie into unconsciousness after grabbing her chin. As she fell or was lowered one or the other of them knocked against the fence. If he knelt beside her with his back to the house and to the right of her head then with his right hand he could have slashed her throat from left to right in two strokes with the knife in his right hand. Blood splatter went on the fence to the left. There would have been enough room I think.

I read ages ago a newspaper article in which the Richardsons were interviewed, (after the inquest I think), and there were lots of things in the article I should have noted. Amelia believing that she knew Annie, John and Amelia disagreeing again about people taking refuge in the landings and stairs, and also John Richardson asserting that the police had investigated when he had got to Spitalfields Market that morning, who he had worked for and with from 5am and people who had seen him there. Why can't I track it down!

[Fisherman]

Dr Phillips only estimated the time of death by touch though, didn't he, and he later qualified his estimate by acknowledging at the inquest that the cold morning may have led him astray. He didn't take any internal body temperatures.

This is something I have often discussed, and itīs time to do so again, I think!

To begin with - yes, Phillips estimated the TOD by way of touch. And yes, that can be hard to do, since we sometimes have cold hands etc although we are very much alive. So the doc can fail to feel the underlying core temperature.

But in the Chapman case, Phillips DID feel the core temperature. She was totally cut up, and Phillips actually felt INSIDE her. The only small remaining warmth he could find was under the intestines. Otherwise, she was cold. On the inside!

Phillips never qualified his estimate by acknowledging that he could be wrong. That could perhaps have happened if he had been criticized by the coroner or something like that, asking him if he had really gotten it right.

But there was not a living soul who questioned him. Here is what was said:

Coroner: How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?

Phillips: I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

So what Phillips says is that she MAY - just may - have been dead as short a time as two hours, but he actually believed that she had been dead longer than so.

The "but" he uses (what you call a qualification) relates to his take that Chapman MAY - just may - have been dead for two hours only. BUT in all probability, she died earlier than that.

If we are to believe that Phillips allowed for Chapman to have been dead for just one hour or less, then we must accept that Phillips went into the inquest room and said, basically:

I am dead certain that she could not possibly have been dead any shorter time than two hours. Not a chance.

However, if you ask me, she has been dead for a significantly longer time than two hours only!

But hey, I am probably totally out. It may well be that I should not have suggested these timings at all. Maybe she had only been dead for an hour. Or less. Why listen to me, what do I know? Next witness!

The mere suggestion is a tad ridiculous, right?

It was cold. She was very cut up. So although Phillips would not recommend it, the circumstances ruled that he needed to allow for Chapman having been dead for a much shorter time then he would have opted for with a non-cut up victim in warmer conditions. Therefore, he was ready to accept that in spite of the signs (like rigor) pointing away from it, maybe she had only been dead for a meagre two hours.

The key here is to realize that Phillips advices against a time of two hours only, by saying that it was probably more. From that, you donīt move towards a shorter time - you move towards a LONGER one.

[Rosella]

If you take the TOD to 4:30 am or earlier then that discounts completely Albert Cadosch and Mrs Darrell's testimony. So, it is either go with Phillips' estimate and point the finger at Richardson because Annie's body would have had to have been present at 4:30 am by the latest, or discount Dr Phillips as having made a miscalculation and opt for a later death of about 5:30am in order to accommodate the two witnesses. You take your choice, therefore, and mine is to go with the slightly later time of death.

[Fisherman]

If you take the TOD to 4:30 am or earlier then that discounts completely Albert Cadosch and Mrs Darrell's testimony. So, it is either go with Phillips' estimate and point the finger at Richardson because Annie's body would have had to have been present at 4:30 am by the latest, or discount Dr Phillips as having made a miscalculation and opt for a later death of about 5:30am in order to accommodate the two witnesses. You take your choice, therefore, and mine is to go with the slightly later time of death.

I donīt object to that, Rosella - that is the exact same path most people take. However, what one should not do, is to misinterpret what Phillips said. He was very clearly not allowing for a TOD that fit Longs and Cadosches testimony, so if you want to believe in the witnesses, then you must opt for Phillips being totally off the mark - you need to believe that his best guess was wrong. And his best guess would have been perhaps somewhere around the three hour mark, going by what he said. So opting for three hours after have felt an almost completely cold body, the real time would according to your thoughts be less than an hour - a third of where Phillips wanted to place it.

Eddowes was checked for warmth by Brown some weeks later, after having lain in colder conditions and in a place more subjecter to wind. Forty minutes after her death, she was still "quite warm".

If you are going with the witnesses (and the contemporary police went with Phillips), you are siding with the majority of the posters out here. My guess is that there is virtually no chance that they are correct.

I just wanted to tell you why.

PS. Dont know if you have read "Considerable doubt and the death of Annie Chapman" by Wolf Vanderlinden? Itīs on the dissertations page on here. It makes for useful reading, no matter which side you are on.

[Errata]

This is - at least to my mind - one of the most important matters to look at whan we ask ourselves wy the police did not catch the killer. And when we ponder it, it is important to note that one can be at fault in more than one respect.
One can be wrong in realtion to the truth.
And one can be wrong in relation to what society rules is the truth, on incomplete grounds.

The victorian police were, generally speaking, doing what they were supposed to do, and thinking along lines the were supposed to think along.
Itīs just that there was a lack of understanding what makes a serial killer tick, and a belief that anybody who would do what the Ripper did must be apparently mad.

A hundred years from now, we can be reasonably certain that those who follow us will laugh at how uniformed we were in 2016. But we at least have much finer tools to work with than the victorians did. We are, just as Errata says, much, much better equipped to cath the killer.

As for my suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, it is met by assertions that if he so very obviously presented a viable bid for the killers role, the police would never have missed him.
But all we have is clear pointers to how he was never even investigated. Which is totally in line with how I think the victorian police went about the hunt for the Ripper.

And Richardson? Well, he did say that he was there and he did say that he handled a knife, and the knife was fetched and examined. And then they decided not to follow the Richardson trail, in spite of how that trail was strewn with inconsistencies as regards the testimony he offered. The right decision, based on the wrong grounds.

I assign no blame here. It makes me angry a little, I consider that the consequences of these views led to the victimization of innocent people who were not equipped to handle that kind of stress. In fact it's miraculous that they didn't get a false confession or three. But they had no way of knowing the truth. Doctors didn't know, wouldn't know for another 40 years. And doctors were the experts on this, and the doctors were wrong. And the doctors couldn't know they were wrong, they were in the infancy of psychiatry. At least they were trying, which is really all we can ask of them.

We know now that visibly aberrant serial killers are rare. It's never the guy raving in the street, it's always the "shy quiet guy next door who keeps to himself". It's almost code for a serial killer. So we know now that looking for a madman is 98% the exact wrong way to go. That we are more likely to find the killer in the neuro normative population, and we need to look there for our killer.

But damned if there isn't that 2%. And I can't swear Jack was in the 98%. I think he was, little clues lead me to believe that, but I can't be sure. No one can. So there is a 2% chance the cops were doing the exact right thing to do in order to capture this particular killer. As unlikely as it is, as much as logic and everything we know now says that Jack was cogent, there's a chance he was as nutty as a fruitcake. That he was in fact everything the cops feared he would be.

We might have finer tools, but without more data we certainly aren't more informed about this killer. Serial killers in general, yeah we know a lot. This serial killer, we have almost nothing. So even with our superior knowledge, we could be wrong and the cops could be right. Which is irritating, but unfortunately true.

[Fisherman]

I assign no blame here. It makes me angry a little, I consider that the consequences of these views led to the victimization of innocent people who were not equipped to handle that kind of stress. In fact it's miraculous that they didn't get a false confession or three. But they had no way of knowing the truth. Doctors didn't know, wouldn't know for another 40 years. And doctors were the experts on this, and the doctors were wrong. And the doctors couldn't know they were wrong, they were in the infancy of psychiatry. At least they were trying, which is really all we can ask of them.

We know now that visibly aberrant serial killers are rare. It's never the guy raving in the street, it's always the "shy quiet guy next door who keeps to himself". It's almost code for a serial killer. So we know now that looking for a madman is 98% the exact wrong way to go. That we are more likely to find the killer in the neuro normative population, and we need to look there for our killer.

But damned if there isn't that 2%. And I can't swear Jack was in the 98%. I think he was, little clues lead me to believe that, but I can't be sure. No one can. So there is a 2% chance the cops were doing the exact right thing to do in order to capture this particular killer. As unlikely as it is, as much as logic and everything we know now says that Jack was cogent, there's a chance he was as nutty as a fruitcake. That he was in fact everything the cops feared he would be.

We might have finer tools, but without more data we certainly aren't more informed about this killer. Serial killers in general, yeah we know a lot. This serial killer, we have almost nothing. So even with our superior knowledge, we could be wrong and the cops could be right. Which is irritating, but unfortunately true.

Of course, when it comes to the details known by the victorian police, we will be at a loss in a comparison.
But it is not as if this loss cannot be made up for by other things. We know more on a general level, just as I said and as you seem to agree with, about what a serial killer is made up of. For example! So it is a question of getting up every morning to face a changed reality, where the odds of catching our man will never be the exact same from day to day.

And some day, we may find ourselves standing there with the solution in hand.

PS. He was amongst the 98 per cent, Errata. Time will prove it.