Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[Bambi]

Really interesting. I feel those involving themselves in the case are always worthy of a closer look.

[Elamarna]

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

[Abby Normal]

Yes, that is what I think happened, regardless of whether or not the apron had been washed on the Thursday (and nice connection to Martha Tabram by the way) there is nothing to say it wasn't re-washed that morning, after being used to protect Jack's clothes during the murder, irrespective of whether it was John Richardson or not.

And if it was getting light at 4:45am as John Richardson said (and we know to be true as dawn was at 4:51am and sunrise was at 5:25am), and if the murder supposedly didn't take place until 45 minutes later as most people think, then JtR would have absolutely been able to see the tap & bucket, and use them to clean himself up. I doubt however, he would have taken the time to wash away the bloody water, and refill the bucket. Unless...

If the murder did indeed take place earlier, with John Richardson committing the crime, then he would have known where the tap & bucket were by heart, and could have used both & disposed of the bloody water before leaving the premises. And why would he take the time to get rid of the bloody water, and refill the bucket with clean water, instead of just getting the hell out of there? I'd say it's because he didn't want it to look like he'd washed the apron, and the bloody water would have been a dead giveaway. And he couldn't leave the apron there covered in Annie's blood either. That would have been far too big of a red flag for police, if his own apron had been left covered in a murdered woman's blood.

Hi Pandora/Jon
again-whether it was his mother or Richardson himself, why go through all the trouble, cleaning the apron, throwing out the bloody water etc.only to leave the apron there?

No-I think the psychology would be to get rid of the apron also. sure still clean it-but not leave it there. and then admit that it was his!

and all there testimony about the apron(especially hers) seems to show no guilt about it whatsoever.

[Pandora]

Unless Mrs R was covering for John and put it under the tap that morning.
But she does say other people used the tap, and it was a leather apron... but notice that she checks the tray of water by the tap at 6am on Sat morning with a dead body lying a few feet away. You`d think she`d be otherwise occupied by the nearby corpse.

Perhaps she`s just cleaned up after John ?!?!? Rinsed his leather apron and chucked away the bloody water from the tray.
She also says he hadn`t used his apron for a month, which takes us back to the date of the Tabram murder.

Yes, that is what I think happened, regardless of whether or not the apron had been washed on the Thursday (and nice connection to Martha Tabram by the way) there is nothing to say it wasn't re-washed that morning, after being used to protect Jack's clothes during the murder, irrespective of whether it was John Richardson or not.

And if it was getting light at 4:45am as John Richardson said (and we know to be true as dawn was at 4:51am and sunrise was at 5:25am), and if the murder supposedly didn't take place until 45 minutes later as most people think, then JtR would have absolutely been able to see the tap & bucket, and use them to clean himself up. I doubt however, he would have taken the time to wash away the bloody water, and refill the bucket. Unless...

If the murder did indeed take place earlier, with John Richardson committing the crime, then he would have known where the tap & bucket were by heart, and could have used both & disposed of the bloody water before leaving the premises. And why would he take the time to get rid of the bloody water, and refill the bucket with clean water, instead of just getting the hell out of there? I'd say it's because he didn't want it to look like he'd washed the apron, and the bloody water would have been a dead giveaway. And he couldn't leave the apron there covered in Annie's blood either. That would have been far too big of a red flag for police, if his own apron had been left covered in a murdered woman's blood.

[Pandora]

Hi Pandora
I agree-I doubt he would lie and PLACE himself at the murder scene with that lie.

IMHO he would have seen the body lying at his feet a few feet away, especially since his attention was directed downward toward his boot!

I think he may have sat down to cut the leather, couldn't do it with the dull knife and later cut it at the market. he just didn't get into that amount of detail the first time he told the story.

Long and Cadosh IMHO were valid honest witnesses who saw/heard Chapman and either one was off on their times a bit.


If anything-I would focus on the wet leather apron that was found at the scene and belonged to him. Why was it wet? was it wet from rain or had it been recently rinsed off? did it rain recently that night/ morning?

These aren't rhetorical questions-do you know the answers?

Because if it hadn't rained and looked like it had been recently washed then why and by whom? did Richardson wash and leave his apron there recently??
I think you see where I'm going with this.

Hi Abby,

this page has some great information regarding the weather surrounding all the murder dates. http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html

It seems that the day before Annie's murder it was "Generally bright & fine throughout w/occasional showers" and the day of the murder it was a "Bright morning; fair afternoon; spots of rain in evening." So not really enough to soak it through I don't think.

As for Amelia claiming to have washed the apron on the Thursday, we can only take her word for it as being the truth. If she was indeed covering for her son, it would be a fairly simple & believable claim to make.

And if she was in fact telling truth, and had washed the apron on the Thursday, that still doesn't stop John Richardson washing it again, if he'd gotten Annie's blood on it that morning.

[Pandora]

Hi Jon,

Well, based upon the study I cited, it would most commonly be the case that time of death was 2-6 hours after the last meal-because unidentifiable semi digested food contents were found in the stomach-so sometime between 3:30 am and 7:30 am, although I think we can safely rule out the latter estimate, based upon the time the body was discovered!

Hi John, whilst it is true that some foods do take up to 6 hours to digest, such as beef, lamb, pork, even hard cheeses, the time it takes for food to leave the stomach, really depends on what type of food it was.

And Annie didn't eat any of those high protein foods, we know she ate a baked potato, and potatoes are actually digested much more easily, and therefore much more quickly. Many of the food digestion sites I looked up, suggested that the time if takes for a potato to be fully digested - from consumption, to leaving the stomach - is a mere 60 minutes. Even if we doubled that timing, that would still result in a death 2 hours earlier than the currently agreed upon TOD.

[Errata]

From the way you have written this, it appears you are attributing the description of the knife that caused the wounds to the police, that was the domain of Dr. Phillips.

The width and shape of any direct stab wounds will provide a reasonable shape of the blade, the depth into the deepest organs from the surface of the skin will provide a length. Often, the hilt of the knife can be seen impressed or bruised into the skin around the entry wound.
The far extent of the stab will provide the shape of the tip.

Something tells me the typical dessert knife would be quite distinct if used as a weapon.

Sorry. Absent mindedly thinking of a forensics squad when clearly they didn't have one back then.

A stab with a hilt bruise on the skin is probably the only way they had of determining depth, and therefor length of the blade. And I don't think they found one of those. A quick and dirty way would be to find the deepest wound, say on Eddowes the dissection of the colon, and measure upwards from that. But that assumes the killer didn't have his hands in the body, which he likely did to ensure he severed the connective tissue. And the neck cannot have that kind of damage done to it flat on the ground with an 8 inch knife. The knife simply won't cut. Or you would lose a good part of the tip accidentally slamming it into the pavement trying to get a good sawing motion going.

Which isn't to say a dessert knife is the murder weapon. That's a bit too wee, and I'm sure that if they did dissect wound tracks back then, they would have noticed the blade was leaf shaped. But a regular dinner knife or steak knife custom sharpened? It would be on the smaller side but still possible.

[Wickerman]

While The knife Richardson had may not have been the murder weapon, a table knife could easily have been the weapon.

I'm not privy to everything the cops took into account to divine the length of the murder weapon, but my own experiments say that they may have vastly overestimated how long that knife was.

From the way you have written this, it appears you are attributing the description of the knife that caused the wounds to the police, that was the domain of Dr. Phillips.

The width and shape of any direct stab wounds will provide a reasonable shape of the blade, the depth into the deepest organs from the surface of the skin will provide a length. Often, the hilt of the knife can be seen impressed or bruised into the skin around the entry wound.
The far extent of the stab will provide the shape of the tip.

Something tells me the typical dessert knife would be quite distinct if used as a weapon.

[RockySullivan]

Interesting. But I'd not think she would do all that just to leave it there for the cops to find. Especially after all the talk of Leather Apron!

What choice would she have if his apron was bloody? They'd assume the cops would search the basement, and if they cleaned it and left there to dry, it might be hard to explain why a wet apron was drying in the basement rather than the yard. I'm still not convinced the police searched the basement though

[Abby Normal]

Unless Mrs R was covering for John and put it under the tap that morning.
But she does say other people used the tap, and it was a leather apron... but notice that she checks the tray of water by the tap at 6am on Sat morning with a dead body lying a few feet away. You`d think she`d be otherwise occupied by the nearby corpse.

Perhaps she`s just cleaned up after John ?!?!? Rinsed his leather apron and chucked away the bloody water from the tray.
She also says he hadn`t used his apron for a month, which takes us back to the date of the Tabram murder.

Interesting. But I'd not think she would do all that just to leave it there for the cops to find. Especially after all the talk of Leather Apron!

[harry]

What if Chapman was in that space between steps and fence sitting with her back to the wall,and with her legs drawn up?

[Errata]

I agree that the knife John Richardson fetched was not the murder weapon. My point is, if the police had searched his house already looking for weapons, they would have also looked at, and discarded the "table knife" as a possible murder weapon, so why didn't anyone at the inquest say this, instead of sending him home to collect it? It suggests to me, that his house had not been searched, and the "table knife" had not been excluded, and so there was still reason to suspect it was the murder weapon.

While The knife Richardson had may not have been the murder weapon, a table knife could easily have been the weapon.

I'm not privy to everything the cops took into account to divine the length of the murder weapon, but my own experiments say that they may have vastly overestimated how long that knife was. A 3-5 inch knife could have done it. His hands would be more in the abdomen than people usually picture, but an 8 inch blade would frankly be too long to make the throat cuts. It has to do with knife mechanics, and I've written on it elsewhere on the boards, but a table knife custom sharpened edge and spine would possibly be ideal to the commit this murder.

[Wickerman]

I agree that the knife John Richardson fetched was not the murder weapon. My point is, if the police had searched his house already looking for weapons, they would have also looked at, and discarded the "table knife" as a possible murder weapon, so why didn't anyone at the inquest say this, instead of sending him home to collect it? It suggests to me, that his house had not been searched, and the "table knife" had not been excluded, and so there was still reason to suspect it was the murder weapon.

The Coroner can obtain and hold any evidence he chooses, regardless of whether the police have rejected it as material evidence.

If I can make a suggestion, for what its worth.

Richardson produced this table knife on the second day (Wednesday) of the inquest, the Coroner decided to hold it, possibly because Dr. Phillips was due to appear the next day (Thursday).
The Coroner might have though to ask Dr. Phillips if this table knife could possibly have been the murder weapon.

On Thursday, Coroner Baxter led Dr. Phillips into answering questions about the type of knife used in the mutilations. Quite possibly, once Phillips began to describe the murder weapon (It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer.) Coroner Baxter realized the table knife did not satisfy the requirements described by Dr. Phillips.

It's quite possible the police had gone through this exercise previously (ie; showing the knife to Phillips), but as Baxter didn't ask and didn't explain his intentions, Abberline who was in court, couldn't offer any assistance.

[RockySullivan]

I still feel like we are missing part of the story with no info on Francis Tyler. Does anyone know where lived? I thought he lived with John but I'm not sure if that's correct. Anyone have any info on Tyler?

What exactly is steel from a "boy's gaiter"? Does this mean a childs gaiter? Did the police thing coukve belonged to the killer since it was found by the body? If it was just trash in the yard would they have taken it as evidence? If it does mean a child could the killer have had a boy as an accomplice

[curious4]

Thanks Jon
well that answers that!

unless it should have been dry by the time the police found it.

She had put it on the flagstones to dry. It probably would have taken longer to dry there.

Best wishes
C4