Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[Pandora]

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.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Pandora,
Excellent first post, and welcome.
I like your presentation, and the introduction, of a couple of scenarios, ie Mrs Long actually seeing Richardson, and his mother,and Mrs Richardson, uttering the cry ''No''.
Very original, and completely plausible. even Amelia falling against the fence is entirely possible.
Richardson's statement has many flaws,and he has to be at least on a equal par with the suspect Cross.
I hope your post wets the appetite of members, it deserves comments.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

... he has to be at least on a equal par with the suspect Cross.

Regards Richard.

Overall or just when it comes to the Chapman murder, Richard?

[Fisherman]

I agree that Pandoras first post make for good reading. If John Richardson was the slayer of Annie Chapman and if his mother was witness to it, agreeing to shield him from the police, the first question to ask would probably be why the story the two agreed on involved Richardson placing himself in the yard, sitting on the stairs.

[Pandora]

Hi Pandora,
Excellent first post, and welcome.
I like your presentation, and the introduction, of a couple of scenarios, ie Mrs Long actually seeing Richardson, and his mother,and Mrs Richardson, uttering the cry ''No''.
Very original, and completely plausible. even Amelia falling against the fence is entirely possible.
Richardson's statement has many flaws,and he has to be at least on a equal par with the suspect Cross.
I hope your post wets the appetite of members, it deserves comments.
Regards Richard.

Thank you Richard! As you may have guessed, I am a long time lurker, first time poster (now second) and I have always wondered why no one gave any serious credit to John Richardson being JtR. To me, he seems like a much more obvious candidate than many on the suspects list. He was a Whitechapel local for starters, and has a link to at least one of the murder sites.

If nothing else, I would just be happy to learn a little more about his life (and death) and whether or not he can be easily eliminated.

Again, thanks for your positive feedback, I too hope that my post whets the appetite of members.

Cheers,
Pandora.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As the Chapman killers M/O has such strong connections to both Eddowes/Kelly, it has to be a candidate for Jack.
I do agree in your argument for against however.
Regards Richard.

[Pandora]

I agree that Pandoras first post make for good reading. If John Richardson was the slayer of Annie Chapman and if his mother was witness to it, agreeing to shield him from the police, the first question to ask would probably be why the story the two agreed on involved Richardson placing himself in the yard, sitting on the stairs.

Hi Fisherman, good question. It’s impossible to know with certainty, but I can think of some hypothetical reasons.

1. He felt he may have been seen in the yard by Albert Codosch or John Davies
2. He was seen by someone who knew him as he left Hanbury on his way to work
3. He wanted to install himself in the investigation

Cheers,
Pandora.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Pandora,
Two characteristics can be in a killers mind.
Fear of being seen, and we know from many cases , installing themselves into an investigation is not unknown.
Rather like Cross with Nichols, and Hutchinson with Kelly.. although I am not advocating three Killers.
Regards Richard.

[Pandora]

Hi Pandora,
Two characteristics can be in a killers mind.
Fear of being seen, and we know from many cases , installing themselves into an investigation is not unknown.
Rather like Cross with Nichols, and Hutchinson with Kelly.. although I am not advocating three Killers.
Regards Richard.

Since it was well known he would stop by 29 Hanbury to check the lock on his way to work, perhaps he felt it would look suspicious if he claimed not to have done it that morning.

Perhaps he had even gone there that morning to do that very thing, when he found Annie sleeping in the yard. After all, she was M.I.A for many hours between leaving the lodging house, and turning up dead.

And yes, I feel fairly sure whoever Jack was, he may have been arrogant enough to consider himself above suspicion, even if he was interviewed at any point in the investigation.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman, good question. It’s impossible to know with certainty, but I can think of some hypothetical reasons.

1. He felt he may have been seen in the yard by Albert Codosch or John Davies
2. He was seen by someone who knew him as he left Hanbury on his way to work
3. He wanted to install himself in the investigation

Cheers,
Pandora.

Yes, one will have to add such a thing to the idea before it can gain some form of credibility.

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. And the apron had hung were it was since Thursday - reasonably that could be confirmed.
Not that these are absolute obstacles, and on a general level, I think you are doing the exact right thing: You are picking a suspect from those who were there, people who belong to the picture, instead of adding a new Bury. Cudos to you for that.

[Fisherman]

Hi,
As the Chapman killers M/O has such strong connections to both Eddowes/Kelly, it has to be a candidate for Jack.
I do agree in your argument for against however.
Regards Richard.

Thanks for that, Richard! But what I want to know is how Richardson is "at least" as good a bid for the Rippers role as Lechmere.

Are you saying that this applies generally?

Are you saying that it applies when comparing Lechmeres role in the Nichols case to Richardsons role in the Chapman case?

Or are you saying that Richardson makes a better suspect in the Chapman case than Lechmere does?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman.
You have made strong claims for your suspect being responsible for Nichols, albeit, I doubt personally that he was the killer.
I have for years had the feeling that Chapman and a client entered the yard, for sex, but she was not killed by that person, but someone who had seen the couple enter the yard,either from Hanbury street, or from within the house.
Richardson would fit the latter.
We always assume that the last person seen with the victim, has to be their killer, like Mrs Long's man. or the Broad shouldered man in Berner street, or the man with the appearance of a sailor in Church passage, or Mr A in Dorset street.
This need not be so.
I have already mentioned my scenario in Hanbury street, we then have Pipe man in Berner street, we could suggest that Eddowes sailor man was rejected by Eddowes, and the killer followed her alone into Mitre square, and we have the man Mrs Lewis saw in Dorset street. who may have witnessed Kelly enter the court.
Our Killer may have been infuriated by seeing prostitutes soliciting men, and came on the scene after such encounters.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman.
You have made strong claims for your suspect being responsible for Nichols, albeit, I doubt personally that he was the killer.
I have for years had the feeling that Chapman and a client entered the yard, for sex, but she was not killed by that person, but someone who had seen the couple enter the yard,either from Hanbury street, or from within the house.
Richardson would fit the latter.
We always assume that the last person seen with the victim, has to be their killer, like Mrs Long's man. or the Broad shouldered man in Berner street, or the man with the appearance of a sailor in Church passage, or Mr A in Dorset street.
This need not be so.
I have already mentioned my scenario in Hanbury street, we then have Pipe man in Berner street, we could suggest that Eddowes sailor man was rejected by Eddowes, and the killer followed her alone into Mitre square, and we have the man Mrs Lewis saw in Dorset street. who may have witnessed Kelly enter the court.
Our Killer may have been infuriated by seeing prostitutes soliciting men, and came on the scene after such encounters.
Regards Richard.

No qualms, Richard; you are very much entitled to whatever take you want to on the identity of the killer.
It´s just that I would not make the comparison Lechmere/Richardson on any other level that the one of the Chapman murder alone. If we isolate that, Richardson is the better suspect, on account of his ties to the backyard.

So if that was what you meant, I actually agree!

However, 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. In Richardsons case, no close physical coupling between suggested killer and victim can be done. That is a huge difference, I´m afraid.

After that, there are all the other bits too - Richardson did not give a nmane he otherwise is not known to use, we don´t know if he had locigal ties to the other murder spots etc, etc.

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.

[curious]

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.

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.

Since Amelia Richardson knew Annie from buying crochet work from her, I wonder would John also have known her?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The cats meat shop was in the front of the building, wonder how long that tenant had been there and if John ever helped out?

If John was the Ripper, it may be that Amelia was too distraught to come up with a plan that morning and John did not seem overly bright . . . Once he had talked to the police, they had to try to stick with his story. Wonder how long it took them to find the rusty old knife he took to court?

Interesting.

You have my wheels turning.

Was John married, do you know?
Thanks,

[curious4]

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.

Hello Pandora

Your post is very well thought out and certainly ticks a lot of the boxes. Richardson is way up on my list, at least if we are going for a local man. From the account of the inquest they seem to have been very naive about the knife he used to trim his shoe! Seemingly he was allowed to point out any knife as the one he used.

Best wishes
C4