Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Pandora

But yes, he has been discussed (and largely dismissed as a suspect) on threads that pertain to other aspects of the Hanbury murder..

This dismissal as a suspect may be due to the lack of evidence.
We can only play with the idea that either the body was not there, or he was lying.

It is a bit of a coincidence that Richardson is bent over in the corner of the yard holding a knife, possibly within half an hour of the Ripper doing the same actions.

I do find it interesting that Richardson said he could not finish removing the bit of leather in the yard because his knife was blunt, and had to finish the job off when he got to the market, using a sharp knife - which I used to think was him possibly covering himself when the police queried how he could cut leather with the blunt knife he produced at the inquest.

But I hope you keep pursuing big John Richardson, I will watch with interest.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes but the other 17 people weren't members of a family who has been put forward on this thread as conspiring to murder Annie Chapman, or at least covering for the murder afterwards, that is the Richardsons, mother and son.

It has been said that Amelia Richardson may have been the woman who was seen by Mrs Long at 5:30am speaking to the short man, that it wasn't Annie at all. It has been said on this thread that she caught her son John murdering Annie and/or covered for him afterwards by lying and perjuring herself.

14 year old Thomas Richardson, John's son, actually shared a bedroom with his grandmother. He wasn't elsewhere in the house with the 17 other residents, whether their windows were open or not.

Apparently he slept the sleep of the dead, according to the above theories, not hearing his grandmother, whose bed must have been nearby, get up and get fully dressed at before 5:30am in order to have a conversation with a stranger on the pavement outside. Nor apparently did Thomas hear his grandmother get up even earlier and go to the back door, perhaps for quite a long time, if she was helping John cover up murder.

Or is the contention of those who agree with the John Richardson is JTR theory that the 14 year old was in on it all as well?

Hi Rosella,"It has been said" means as much to an investigation as "my guess" is, although Im sure you know that. There is nothing credible for this theory to proceed with.

As I mentioned earlier, Cadosches evidence suggests that Annie was attacked around 5:15 and any later than that time for the murder would cause serious problems for the coroner. Someone was alive and bumped against that fence at 5:15, 1/2 an hour after Richardson says he was in the yard. If your contention is that the person with the woman in the yard at 5:15 is actually Richardson, then where is that evidence?

[John Wheat]

Unless you believe Richardson lied (and there is no proof of that) nothing. Not even circumstantial evidence. Being a witness at a crime scene does not make you a legitimate suspect. Anyone that lived in that building could be considered just as guilty.

To SuspectZero

I agree with you this new trend of trying to make witnesses into Ripper suspects is nonsense.

Cheers John

[RockySullivan]

To SuspectZero

I agree with you this new trend of trying to make witnesses into Ripper suspects is nonsense.

Cheers John

It's worthwhile to back and look at everyone. John richardson isn't JUST a witness though. He's there bending over on the steps, got a knife in his hand, he's cutting something....right when the doc estimated TOD for chapman. He changes his story over and over and then acts very strangely with the man in the street. SO there is a little more to richardson than just being a witness in all fairness.

Zero, Richardson did lie, because his story was changing and changing so there is no doubt he was lying, just when he was telling the truth we don't know.

[Errata]

Hi errata
I agree in general with a lot of what you say here but I think we can agree that to the ripper not getting caught was The utmost importance, so important to him that he would abandon his true desire of mutilation if he thought he was about to be caught. So this overrides a lot of what you suggest above.

Knowing this importance I seriously doubt he would kill literally in his own mother, family and neighbors backyard.The risk that he would be seen and recognized by someone that knew him there is too high.


Kemper , BTW confessed and turned himself in so obviously not getting caught wasn't high on his list. And all those others you listed, killing and or bringing bodies back to there house was part and parcel of there MO!

In this regard think more of serial killers like bundy, Suff, ridgeway.

I also think you are focusing waaaaay to much on the mommy angle (I notice you do this generally to). I'm coming at it from a not being recognized (caught) angle.

Kemper confessed because he thought the cops were on to him and he was going to die in a hail of bullets. He thought confessing was the only way to survive. He overestimated their case, thought to be fair they would have gotten it after that last one. Not getting caught was very high on his list. Living to tell the tale was merely higher. I can't say whether or not he was right about his probable fate. It seems a vaguely reasonable concern.

Bundy, Suff (nice reference by the way, he doesn't come up often), and Ridgeway all had something in common. If you want to group serial killers by type, the best way to do it is not how or why they killed, but what they did with the body. You get more behavioral commonalities that way. There are body hoarders, body dumpers, and body abandoners. Body displayers are a type of body hoarder. So Dahmer, Gein, Gacy, etc. are body hoarders. They have a relationship with the corpse, be it sexual, sentimental, magical, whatever. The corpse is as much a part of the crime as the murder is. Bundy, Suff, and Ridgeway were all body dumpers. They hid the corpses, sometimes badly, possibly for forensic countermeasures, possibly so only the killer can find it again. Bundy was a little different, in that he dumped the bodies in a place that had meaning to him. He would visit the corpses and have sex with them. But primarily his, and the other killers mentioned motivation was to keep the body out of sight or out of the realm of association. BTK, Son Of Sam, Zodiac, etc. were body abandoners. When the murders were done they had no relationship to the corpse and they would just walk away.

Jack was not a body dumper. He concealed nothing. So either he didn't care at all and was a body abandoner, or he was displaying the bodies, which is body hoarding. So if the psychology of the murderer is best revealed by what he does with the body, and a school of thought is that it is, then the killers we specifically shouldn't compare the Ripper to are Bundy, Suff, and Ridgeway. The one type of corpse related behavior we know for a fact he does not engage in. Now I have no idea if he is abandoning or displaying. I lean towards display a little, but just a little. But he isn't dumping the bodies, so the construction of his crimes isn't based almost entirely around his ability to move a corpse or get it out of sight. So his motivations, behaviors, and compulsions are not going to line up with killers who are dumping bodies.

I know serial killers generally get categorized by organization, by type of murder, by type of victim. And all of those factor into the commission of a crime. But comparing knife killers doesn't get a lot of commonalities. Not does comparing prostitute killers. And comparing organized serial killers certainly doesn't help. But the fact that you just unconsciously listed three body dumpers as being alike kind of illustrates that the treatment of the corpse is perhaps the most meaningful factor of all.

And yeah the mommy thing is fascinating to me. But it's a real thing. And serial killers with a certain kind of mother do tend to share some commonalities in their murders. More non psychotic mutilators have awful mothers. I have no idea why. Maybe it's a wish fulfillment thing. Feel free to discount it, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever asked serial killers how important a role their mothers played in their criminal development. It's very Freudian and that is sooo 50s. But if you've ever met a full blown Borderline woman, you begin to fear her kid is going to be a serial killer. It's pretty bad.

[GUT]

To SuspectZero

I agree with you this new trend of trying to make witnesses into Ripper suspects is nonsense.

Cheers John

Whilst I agree, there is a limited pool if you want to play "Let's catch a Ripper".

Other than witnesses(Cross, Hutch, Richardson et al) police (Macnaghten) and suspects named by them (Druitt, Koz etc) together with known killers of the time (Bury, Kelly) and the famous (PAV, LEWIS CARROL Van Gogh etc) most people know little about any of the Joe Averages that lived at the time.

So if someone want a name the can put some flesh on .... Where do you go

[GUT]

Whilst I agree, there is a limited pool if you want to play "Let's catch a Ripper".

Other than witnesses(Cross, Hutch, Richardson et al) police (Macnaghten) and suspects named by them (Druitt, Koz etc) together with known killers of the time (Bury, Kelly) and the famous (PAV, LEWIS CARROL Van Gogh etc) most people know little about any of the Joe Averages that lived at the time.

So if someone want a name the can put some flesh on .... Where do you go

And then look at how little we know about even those above.

[Rosella]

I agree that several serial killers have had mummy issues. Probably Jack did, who knows. However, although Amelia and John Richardson did disagree on the number of women and men that had taken cover inside 29 Hanbury St's stairs and passageways there's no reason to think that mother and son had a love/hate relationship. Amelia was sub-letting rooms. Of course she didn't want that fact publicised in the newspapers, even if it was true, (and I believe it was of many houses in the area.)

She may well have looked down on prostitutes as loose women. I would guess that would be the case for 99% of the 'respectable' working poor of the area, especially the womenfolk. (And Amelia was still working in her late 60's.) That doesn't mean she would have been a willing helper in killing such a woman.

Surely it's natural for a man who lives quite close by to come and check on his mother (elderly by the standard of the times) and young son on a regular basis? Also a lot has been made of Amelia's religiosity (in a religious era.) Having prayer meetings once a week in your house does not a religious zealot make. It's clear she was a benevolent woman, allowing an old lady to stay in a room rent free so she didn't have to go to the workhouse. That's kind, surely?

I do find it intriguing that Annie, flogging her bits of crochet work and cadging money, was a regular visitor to no. 29 and the houses around. She would certainly have known the layout of these buildings and the back yards.

[Abby Normal]

Kemper confessed because he thought the cops were on to him and he was going to die in a hail of bullets. He thought confessing was the only way to survive. He overestimated their case, thought to be fair they would have gotten it after that last one. Not getting caught was very high on his list. Living to tell the tale was merely higher. I can't say whether or not he was right about his probable fate. It seems a vaguely reasonable concern.

Bundy, Suff (nice reference by the way, he doesn't come up often), and Ridgeway all had something in common. If you want to group serial killers by type, the best way to do it is not how or why they killed, but what they did with the body. You get more behavioral commonalities that way. There are body hoarders, body dumpers, and body abandoners. Body displayers are a type of body hoarder. So Dahmer, Gein, Gacy, etc. are body hoarders. They have a relationship with the corpse, be it sexual, sentimental, magical, whatever. The corpse is as much a part of the crime as the murder is. Bundy, Suff, and Ridgeway were all body dumpers. They hid the corpses, sometimes badly, possibly for forensic countermeasures, possibly so only the killer can find it again. Bundy was a little different, in that he dumped the bodies in a place that had meaning to him. He would visit the corpses and have sex with them. But primarily his, and the other killers mentioned motivation was to keep the body out of sight or out of the realm of association. BTK, Son Of Sam, Zodiac, etc. were body abandoners. When the murders were done they had no relationship to the corpse and they would just walk away.

Jack was not a body dumper. He concealed nothing. So either he didn't care at all and was a body abandoner, or he was displaying the bodies, which is body hoarding. So if the psychology of the murderer is best revealed by what he does with the body, and a school of thought is that it is, then the killers we specifically shouldn't compare the Ripper to are Bundy, Suff, and Ridgeway. The one type of corpse related behavior we know for a fact he does not engage in. Now I have no idea if he is abandoning or displaying. I lean towards display a little, but just a little. But he isn't dumping the bodies, so the construction of his crimes isn't based almost entirely around his ability to move a corpse or get it out of sight. So his motivations, behaviors, and compulsions are not going to line up with killers who are dumping bodies.

I know serial killers generally get categorized by organization, by type of murder, by type of victim. And all of those factor into the commission of a crime. But comparing knife killers doesn't get a lot of commonalities. Not does comparing prostitute killers. And comparing organized serial killers certainly doesn't help. But the fact that you just unconsciously listed three body dumpers as being alike kind of illustrates that the treatment of the corpse is perhaps the most meaningful factor of all.

And yeah the mommy thing is fascinating to me. But it's a real thing. And serial killers with a certain kind of mother do tend to share some commonalities in their murders. More non psychotic mutilators have awful mothers. I have no idea why. Maybe it's a wish fulfillment thing. Feel free to discount it, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever asked serial killers how important a role their mothers played in their criminal development. It's very Freudian and that is sooo 50s. But if you've ever met a full blown Borderline woman, you begin to fear her kid is going to be a serial killer. It's pretty bad.

Hi errata
Thanks!
While your categories are interesting and a way to group serial killers that I havnt seen before, you are making the common mistake most modern thinkers on serial killers make-The ripper didn't have a car. Bundy, suff and ridgeway did.

and IMHO the ripper did have an interest in the bodies after he killed them-which is why he brought home body parts.

[RockySullivan]

I agree that several serial killers have had mummy issues. Probably Jack did, who knows. However, although Amelia and John Richardson did disagree on the number of women and men that had taken cover inside 29 Hanbury St's stairs and passageways there's no reason to think that mother and son had a love/hate relationship. Amelia was sub-letting rooms. Of course she didn't want that fact publicised in the newspapers, even if it was true, (and I believe it was of many houses in the area.)

She may well have looked down on prostitutes as loose women. I would guess that would be the case for 99% of the 'respectable' working poor of the area, especially the womenfolk. (And Amelia was still working in her late 60's.) That doesn't mean she would have been a willing helper in killing such a woman.

Surely it's natural for a man who lives quite close by to come and check on his mother (elderly by the standard of the times) and young son on a regular basis? Also a lot has been made of Amelia's religiosity (in a religious era.) Having prayer meetings once a week in your house does not a religious zealot make. It's clear she was a benevolent woman, allowing an old lady to stay in a room rent free so she didn't have to go to the workhouse. That's kind, surely?

I do find it intriguing that Annie, flogging her bits of crochet work and cadging money, was a regular visitor to no. 29 and the houses around. She would certainly have known the layout of these buildings and the back yards.

I think it is a little strange that Richardson stops into check on the basement door on his way to work. It has a lock on it after all since the tools were stolen. But Ok I can believe that. Why did Mrs Richardson say she wasn't aware of any stolen tools at first, I think that is a bit strange. If John stopped there every morning before work to check on the basement because it had been robbed, she would of course be very conscious of this and it she should remember right away about the stolen tools. I still think it's very strange that John stops on his back steps and tries to cut a piece of leather with a dull knife. Firstly he says he put the knife there by mistaken and he wasn't sure why it was in his pocket. So when did he realize it was? Did he realize it was in his pocket before he decided to fix his boot and say oh I've got this dull knife let me try to cut the leather from my boot with it. It just seems a little convenient that he wants to fix his boot and he happens to have a knife in his pocket to do it which he put there by mistake. But also wouldn't he know full well that the knife wasn't sharp enough to cut the leather?

[SuspectZero]

It's worthwhile to back and look at everyone. John richardson isn't JUST a witness though. He's there bending over on the steps, got a knife in his hand, he's cutting something....right when the doc estimated TOD for chapman. He changes his story over and over and then acts very strangely with the man in the street. SO there is a little more to richardson than just being a witness in all fairness.

Zero, Richardson did lie, because his story was changing and changing so there is no doubt he was lying, just when he was telling the truth we don't know.

If I use that logic then you can say Cross/Lechmere is more guilty than Richardson. At least with him you have a witness who saw him leaning over a victim. Where's your witness who says Richardson was seen with a knife leaning over this one?
Sorry but this is still total speculation.

[RockySullivan]

If I use that logic then you can say Cross/Lechmere is more guilty than Richardson. At least with him you have a witness who saw him leaning over a victim. Where's your witness who says Richardson was seen with a knife leaning over this one?
Sorry but this is still total speculation.

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.

For the record, I think Richardson was prying the brass rings from Chapman's fingers. i think he was worried someone might have seen him so he made up the tale of fixing his boot with a knife to cover for being crouched in the spot with a knife.

[Rosella]

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.

[Harry D]

Were the locations of the murders chosen at random, or did they have some significance to the killer? We have no idea.

Nor do we have any idea what his relationship with his mother was like. Kemper buried heads of his victims looking up at his mother's window just to spite her. And he managed to bring bodies and parts back to a home he shared with his mother who had no idea.

We don't know if this guy would consider his mother's place sacrosanct, if he saw it as something to target out of anger or spite, or if he had no relationship with the location at all, because in all likelihood it was not his childhood home or anything. Simply yet another apartment his mother lived in. It might not be significant enough to him to avoid. It wasn't his place. It was near his place, but not enough that it could be considered to be in his own backyard.

One thing we cannot assume is that a serial killer has relationships that they think enough about for it to alter their behavior. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. There is often a complex relationship with mothers, but obviously not enough of a regard to stop killing for their mother's sake. He didn't live there. That may have been all the boundary he was willing to put on himself. Not at his own place. He may not have thought about his mother at all when developing his boundaries, his relationship with her might not have even entered into his head. If serial killers will hunt at work, which they do, we cannot expect a mom's house to be so close to the killer that they fear killing around it. I mean, they're at work every day and that's a boundary they are capable of ignoring. For the boundary to exist, it has to either be self serving or emotional in nature. Killing at mom's house does not violate the basic self serving instincts, which means he would have to have real regard for her to be emotionally invested in not killing around her. He's a serial killer. Why would we assume that? We don't even assume he is capable of such things as filial love.

My issue isn't so much to do with Richardson wanting to protect his mother or having mummy issues, rather that this was a location that could be connected to him and he unnecessarily implicated himself into a murder investigation. When I examine witnesses as potential suspects, the first thing I ask myself is 'Was he somewhere he shouldn't have been?' In the cases of both Lechmere & Richardson, neither of them were doing anything out of the ordinary that morning. Lechmere was taking his usual route to work when he happened upon a body, whereas Richardson was checking the cellar was locked, and his testimony checks out with the other witness Albert Cadosch, who heard Chapman from behind the fence long after Richardson had gone.

Then we have someone like George Hutchinson who was prowling the streets and lurking outside Miller's Court. While I don't think he was the Ripper, his conduct certainly raises a few eyebrows and he arguably set the trend for promoting witnesses to suspect status. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. At least these characters have a name, they have a face, and can be placed at the murder sites, which is a lot more than can be said for the majority of Ripper suspects. However, that in and of itself is not a case, and the real litmus test lies in linking these men with other murders in the series and providing evidence that they exhibited signs of serial killer behaviour.

[Wickerman]

To SuspectZero

I agree with you this new trend of trying to make witnesses into Ripper suspects is nonsense.

Cheers John

It isn't just this thread though is it, with all that has been "what-if'd" against Hutchinson over the years, and he's just the tip of the iceberg.

There just isn't any Kudo's for being the first to label a witness as a liar, and by extension a suspect. The kudos come from being the first to provide proof. And we all know that isn't going to happen.