Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[Rosella]

Thank you John. So we are possibly back to a wider time span. The chapter provided in the link states that the digestion process doesn't stop with death. However, considering that Dr Phillips conducted his post mortem at about 2pm on the afternoon following the murder and still found a little food there, it seems a remarkably long time for a potato to be making its way to its final destination even if the TOD was the later time we've been debating not the earlier!

[John G]

Still searching for that elusive interview. I think it was with the Star!

The last food that Annie consumed, as far as we know, was a baked potato in the kitchen at Crossinghams. That was at approximately 1:45am. Even if she had greedily gobbled up two baked potatoes before she was chucked out into the street how long would a small meal like that take to digest, seeing that Dr Phillips found an amount of partly digested food still in her stomach at the autopsy? I have read that it takes about two hours for food to be digested normally but Annie was a sick woman and that might have made a difference.

If it takes less than three hours then we have problems with a 5:30am death, though Cadosch undoubtedly heard something falling against those palings!

Hi Rosella,

Estimating time of death by gastric contents is, like the temperature of the body, an unreliable indicator, even for modern pathologists. This is because there are "great individual variations in the emptying time of the stomach." (Gordon et al.) Gastric digestion can also continue post mortem, creating further difficulties.https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ntents&f=false

[GUT]

About the stench though, --would a newly ripped body have necessarily absolutely stank on an early September morning? (As an Australian I'm quite willing to believe that raw meat can stink if left at the height of summer but I can't really remember uncooked meat at summer barbecues in my British childhood doing so.) I think there may well have been that sort of acrid smell of fresh blood, but think of all the smells and stinks that were around in the East End in those days, including wafts from nearby horse slaughterers. We are much more used to sanitised surroundings these days, if we time-travelled back I think we'd be knocked out by the pongs!

I've taken a look at James Mason entering the yard of No 29 in that clip of film. If you were just standing at the top of the steps and primarily looking to the right, ducking your head a bit to see the cellar doors under the canopy, you could conceivably miss something to the left, especially in darkness. For anyone sitting on those steps with legs stretched out a bit, a body to the left would be impossible to miss, lying there in the tiny space between fence and them, even with the door fully open.

Fresh blood and open intestines have a pretty distinctive smell.

[Rosella]

About the stench though, --would a newly ripped body have necessarily absolutely stank on an early September morning? (As an Australian I'm quite willing to believe that raw meat can stink if left at the height of summer but I can't really remember uncooked meat at summer barbecues in my British childhood doing so.) I think there may well have been that sort of acrid smell of fresh blood, but think of all the smells and stinks that were around in the East End in those days, including wafts from nearby horse slaughterers. We are much more used to sanitised surroundings these days, if we time-travelled back I think we'd be knocked out by the pongs!

I've taken a look at James Mason entering the yard of No 29 in that clip of film. If you were just standing at the top of the steps and primarily looking to the right, ducking your head a bit to see the cellar doors under the canopy, you could conceivably miss something to the left, especially in darkness. For anyone sitting on those steps with legs stretched out a bit, a body to the left would be impossible to miss, lying there in the tiny space between fence and them, even with the door fully open.

[Pandora]

I'm not a Richardsonite as you know, but in the course of my searching for the elusive article I have read a lot of the medical evidence again and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that a 5:30 am death for Annie is just too late.

Yet, what about Cadosch's testimony? I'm willing to believe that Mrs Long got it wrong, was mistaken, wrong person etc, but, unless Cadosch was a liar and I don't think he was, then he certainly heard two people in the backyard of No 29, a 'No' and a bang against the palings. I don't believe that it was Mrs R and her son, by the way, too late, nor does the prostitute and client robbing the body seem credible. None of these timings fit!

And we do have Wynne Baxter seemingly preferring the testimony of Cadosch and Long over that of Dr Phillips at the inquest. He inferred that Phillips must have been mistaken over the TOD. Cadosch must have been impressive in the witness box, I think.

So therefore, if Phillips was correct then what did Cadosch hear at around 5:30am?

I don't believe that Richardson was Jack. Nor do I believe, taking a look at that back yard and the open back door and steps, that anyone could have sat on the steps and not looked to the left at all and not seen a shape when they did so.

Therefore I think Richardson either was at the house before 4:15 am (before Annie and Jack's arrival) opened that back door, took a quick look to the right, saw the lock was there intact and then departed, or, having faithfully promised mum that he would check the lock for her on market day, he forgot or couldn't be bothered, (more likely perhaps) and was therefore not there at all at that hour. Remember, Amelia stated that she never heard her son's footsteps that morning.

I think that Richardson had indeed repaired his boot, at the market with a sharp knife, not in the half light of the yard with a butter knife. Therefore unwilling to admit that he hadn't been protecting mum's property, he told a stupid fib and then another and then some embroidery on that, (incorporating the boot story), so that in the end he realised that he was up a certain creek without a paddle and was a police suspect.

He was investigated, I believe that, and I do think detectives went to the Market and questioned Richardson's bosses and fellow workers about when he arrived there. The fact that we don't have those confirmations means nothing. Unfortunately for us 3/4 of this stuff has gone. So we have to take some things on trust.

I’m a Richardsonite? Oh dear.

Yes it all hinges on what Cadosch heard. I think there is enough evidence we know of (Dr Philips TOD, the half digested potatoes, the unlikeliness of Jack killing in daylight - sunrise was 5:25am that morning) to suggest an earlier time for the murder, but who on earth did Cadosch hear at (approx) 5:20am, and (approx) 5:30am, and who on earth did Mrs Long see at (approx) 5:32am?

While I have no doubt the police did go to the markets and question Richardson’s fellow workers, it’s whether they did it that day, or several days later that I wonder about. Several days later may have skewed their memories of the time.

And I just can’t wrap my head around the idea, that Richardson would place himself at the scene, if he hadn’t actually gone there that morning, just because his mother would find out he’d shirked his responsibility. A woman was ripped open in her back yard, so I very much doubt Amelia would have cared whether or not John had checked the lock or not that morning. More likely, in my opinion, he placed himself there because he was there, and couldn’t be sure he hadn’t been seen.

And to go back to my original argument, if Dr Philips was right about the TOD, then Annie would have already been dead when Richardson says he turned up. So I guess it depends if you believe he could have missed her body in the yard that morning, both the sight, and the stench - especially if he'd sat down on that step & fiddled with his boot for several minutes.

[Rosella]

I'm not a Richardsonite as you know, but in the course of my searching for the elusive article I have read a lot of the medical evidence again and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that a 5:30 am death for Annie is just too late.

Yet, what about Cadosch's testimony? I'm willing to believe that Mrs Long got it wrong, was mistaken, wrong person etc, but, unless Cadosch was a liar and I don't think he was, then he certainly heard two people in the backyard of No 29, a 'No' and a bang against the palings. I don't believe that it was Mrs R and her son, by the way, too late, nor does the prostitute and client robbing the body seem credible. None of these timings fit!

And we do have Wynne Baxter seemingly preferring the testimony of Cadosch and Long over that of Dr Phillips at the inquest. He inferred that Phillips must have been mistaken over the TOD. Cadosch must have been impressive in the witness box, I think.

So therefore, if Phillips was correct then what did Cadosch hear at around 5:30am?

I don't believe that Richardson was Jack. Nor do I believe, taking a look at that back yard and the open back door and steps, that anyone could have sat on the steps and not looked to the left at all and not seen a shape when they did so.

Therefore I think Richardson either was at the house before 4:15 am (before Annie and Jack's arrival) opened that back door, took a quick look to the right, saw the lock was there intact and then departed, or, having faithfully promised mum that he would check the lock for her on market day, he forgot or couldn't be bothered, (more likely perhaps) and was therefore not there at all at that hour. Remember, Amelia stated that she never heard her son's footsteps that morning.

I think that Richardson had indeed repaired his boot, at the market with a sharp knife, not in the half light of the yard with a butter knife. Therefore unwilling to admit that he hadn't been protecting mum's property, he told a stupid fib and then another and then some embroidery on that, (incorporating the boot story), so that in the end he realised that he was up a certain creek without a paddle and was a police suspect.

He was investigated, I believe that, and I do think detectives went to the Market and questioned Richardson's bosses and fellow workers about when he arrived there. The fact that we don't have those confirmations means nothing. Unfortunately for us 3/4 of this stuff has gone. So we have to take some things on trust.

[Pandora]

The last food that Annie consumed, as far as we know, was a baked potato in the kitchen at Crossinghams. That was at approximately 1:45am. Even if she had greedily gobbled up two baked potatoes before she was chucked out into the street how long would a small meal like that take to digest, seeing that Dr Phillips found an amount of partly digested food still in her stomach at the autopsy? I have read that it takes about two hours for food to be digested normally but Annie was a sick woman and that might have made a difference.

If it takes less than three hours then we have problems with a 5:30am death, though Cadosch undoubtedly heard something falling against those palings!

Yes great question Rosella, this was discussed in Wolf Vanderlinden's dissertation 'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman' in the following paragraph...

" Food in the stomach is also an interesting indicator of when Annie Chapman was murdered. Chapman had no money at 2:00 a.m. so in order for her to have eaten sometime after that she must have found a client and, rather than pay for her bed, bought food and then kept walking the streets. Also, it would seem that whoever sold her this food decided not to come forward when the police were diligently making inquiries about Annie's last four hours. This seems doubtful and we will have to stick to the facts as we know them. We know that she was seen eating a baked potato at sometime between 1:30 and 1:45 a.m. This, presumably, was her last meal or at least we have no concrete evidence to suggest that she had eaten anything after this time. Dr. Phillips states that there was still some food in her stomach so her last meal was only partially digested at her time of death so how long does it take for a meal of potatoes to fully digest?

Dr. Robert Court, who contributed to a discussion about this issue on the Casebook: Jack the Ripper website several years ago, asked colleagues in the pathology department this very question. His personal opinion was that it would take about an hour for a potato to be fully digested but was told that "a time of less than half-an-hour was realistic." One forensic pathologist that I talked to told me that a small meal of potatoes would be fully digested "in about an hour to an hour and a half," while another told me "this small solid meal would take some time like 2 3 hours, 'let us say' to be digested." Here we have a range of between half an hour to three hours for Annie Chapman's meal to have become fully digested, which would suggest that as the food was only partially digested at death the range for estimated time of death falls somewhere after 1:30 to1:45 a.m., the last time we know she ate, and sometime before 4:30 a.m. or, the time offered by Dr. Phillips."

So yes, the undigested potato strongly suggests an earlier time of death, especially coupled with estimated TOD by Dr Phillips, and puts into doubt that the women Cadsoch & Mrs Long heard/saw was Annie, as by rights she was already dead.

If we take the outside suggestion of 3 hours to digest the potato fully, and wind it back to 2.5 hours for the potato to be mostly digested, but still in the stomach, then her time of death should be approx 4:15am, in keeping with Dr Phillips original diagnosis, and right about the time I've suggested John Richardson turns up to Hanbury, and does her in.

[RockySullivan]

Still searching for that elusive interview. I think it was with the Star!

The last food that Annie consumed, as far as we know, was a baked potato in the kitchen at Crossinghams. That was at approximately 1:45am. Even if she had greedily gobbled up two baked potatoes before she was chucked out into the street how long would a small meal like that take to digest, seeing that Dr Phillips found an amount of partly digested food still in her stomach at the autopsy? I have read that it takes about two hours for food to be digested normally but Annie was a sick woman and that might have made a difference.

If it takes less than three hours then we have problems with a 5:30am death, though Cadosch undoubtedly heard something falling against those palings!

I like that angle!

[Pandora]

Why is that?, the police obviously found nothing to cast suspicion on him, so are you saying the police would confiscate his table knife?

On what grounds?
It clearly was not the murder weapon.

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.

[Rosella]

Still searching for that elusive interview. I think it was with the Star!

The last food that Annie consumed, as far as we know, was a baked potato in the kitchen at Crossinghams. That was at approximately 1:45am. Even if she had greedily gobbled up two baked potatoes before she was chucked out into the street how long would a small meal like that take to digest, seeing that Dr Phillips found an amount of partly digested food still in her stomach at the autopsy? I have read that it takes about two hours for food to be digested normally but Annie was a sick woman and that might have made a difference.

If it takes less than three hours then we have problems with a 5:30am death, though Cadosch undoubtedly heard something falling against those palings!

[Wickerman]

If they had searched his house for weapons already, there would have been no need to send Richardson to fetch his knife during the inquest.

Why is that?, the police obviously found nothing to cast suspicion on him, so are you saying the police would confiscate his table knife?

On what grounds?
It clearly was not the murder weapon.

[RockySullivan]

Yea that doesn't really add up

[Pandora]

They will have searched both houses, but Swanson spoke of suspicion against Richardson, so to clear him they need to see if he has any weapons or if there are any clues where he resides.
That would be normal procedure for any suspect who claimed to be at the crime scene.

If they had searched his house for weapons already, there would have been no need to send Richardson to fetch his knife during the inquest.

[Wickerman]

What makes you so sure they searched Richardson's house and not 29 Hanbury? I'm not convinced they searched the basement at 29 either way

They will have searched both houses, but Swanson spoke of suspicion against Richardson, so to clear him they need to see if he has any weapons or if there are any clues where he resides.
That would be normal procedure for any suspect who claimed to be at the crime scene.

[RockySullivan]

It's likely a fair assumption that Swanson couldn't say that Abberline "definitely didn't do it" either. Suspects are rarely ruled out 'absolutely', so long as their stories check out and there is no cause for suspicion, that will usually suffice until something else turns up.




A change of clothes is likely a luxury of the modern working man but in the 19th century, these people slept in their clothes, its often all they had.




That could apply to anyone though.
The police are more interested in circumstantial evidence that points to one person in particular.




The house in question will be Richardson's house, and I'm sure the police will want to see the clothes he was wearing that day, Inspector Chandler, who saw him, will make sure of that.




Hmm, but please remember, "its possible", is the starting point for research, not the conclusion.



There is scope for research, but as it stands we have nothing to work with barring the contemporary reports we are all familiar with.

What makes you so sure they searched Richardson's house and not 29 Hanbury? I'm not convinced they searched the basement at 29 either way