Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[GUT]

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.

Proof?

Get real!

[Wickerman]

Proof?

Get real!

Silly me!

[GUT]

Silly me!

You're forgiven.

Anytime I even ask or evidence let alone proof I get wild speculation and/or some "expert's" opinion.

[Errata]

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.

But the reality is that the only reason he was connected to the site was because he connected himself by volunteering the information that he had been there. It might have been riskier than killing a woman in a blind alley, but it was not as risky as killing a woman in his home. We can say it wasn't him because he would have recognized the slightly increased risk, but we don't know that he would have recognized it, and we don't know that he didn't anticipate the risk and mitigate it. Killing a woman in the middle of the night is a good start, having a connection to the building gives him a built in excuse as to why he's there if he is seen coming or going. And in fact it's less suspicious that he was there that morning than some random dockworker would be. And admitting to being there did make him a part of the murder investigation which is kind of a classic move. In fact the one part of this that really was not well thought out was killing in a yard with only one entrance or exit, so the killer would have to knock down someone who saw him in order to flee. Which puts any killer at a disadvantage, whether he was tied to the site or not. It might take longer to identify a stranger, but given the look the witness would have gotten, not by much.

I mean, do I think that Jack the Ripper would have avoided killing at his mom's house? Yeah I do. But enough people have done precisely that kind of thing often enough that I cannot put faith in some sort of natural predilection to doing the "smart" thing to do. He could be dumb. He could be smart. He could have ego. He could have a greater desire to stick it to his mom than he has to stay smart. I mean there's a lot of options. I can tell if a guy I know is that kind of guy or not, but I don't know this guy. Not a blessed thing about him. So I'm no going to bank on him behaving one way over another without some kind of corroborating behavior.

[SuspectZero]

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.

Correct on all points, Rosella.

[SuspectZero]

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.

I agree with you, Jon.

[GUT]

I agree with you, Jon.

It's rare that I don't.

[Wickerman]

You're forgiven.

Anytime I even ask or evidence let alone proof I get wild speculation and/or some "expert's" opinion.

Of course you will, this isn't an academic forum.
If you haven't already noticed some rather assertive members repeatedly fail to distinguish between a personal belief and an established fact.
Then there are others who cannot distinguish 'proof' from circumstantial evidence, or even hear-say.

Which tends to make it a waste of time asking those members for 'proof' of anything.

[Wickerman]

It's rare that I don't.

Meaning....you think proof does exist to determine who the killer was???

[GUT]

Of course you will, this isn't an academic forum.
If you haven't already noticed some rather assertive members repeatedly fail to distinguish between a personal belief and an established fact.
Then there are others who cannot distinguish 'proof' from circumstantial evidence, or even hear-say.

Which tends to make it a waste of time asking those members for 'proof' of anything.

See what I mean.

About agreeing.

[GUT]

Meaning....you think proof does exist to determine who the killer was???

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

Probably including me.

[GUT]

I'd probably even settle for an internally consistent, logical theory that isn't based on circular reasoning, and speculation (usually wild) and an assumption that the police were too stupid to make even basic enquiries which often leads to (or is based on) an assumption that because the newspapers didn't report something the police didn't know it.

I'm near positive that if we had the inquests, the police notes and files, about 90% of threads here would be dead in the water.

[harry]

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.

One aspect of the Hanbury Street killing seemingly beyond argument,is that it was a risky place to commit a murder,therefor the killer was a risk taker.
One might add it was riskier for Richardson who could be connected to the location,but can we dismiss him on that score?And this may bring a smile to Fisherman's face, can we dismiss Cross and his connection to Bucks row when considering Risk.Risk may be an element of fact,but it's of minor consideration,when applying it to anyone who might be considered suspect in the Ripper killings.My opinion.

[Errata]

I'm near positive that if we had the inquests, the police notes and files, about 90% of threads here would be dead in the water.

Well... yeah. We're all about reinventing the wheel here. Out of necessity.

Although there were plenty of things the police knew nothing of, that even modern police don't have a great handle on. Anything with mental illness for example. 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.

But we totally might still be wrong.

[SuspectZero]

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.

One aspect of the Hanbury Street killing seemingly beyond argument,is that it was a risky place to commit a murder,therefor the killer was a risk taker.
One might add it was riskier for Richardson who could be connected to the location,but can we dismiss him on that score?And this may bring a smile to Fisherman's face, can we dismiss Cross and his connection to Bucks row when considering Risk.Risk may be an element of fact,but it's of minor consideration,when applying it to anyone who might be considered suspect in the Ripper killings.My opinion.

Harry it can only be assumed that JTR was a risk taker if he had been there before and new it was a risk to enter. If he was led there by his victim and it was his first visit it doesn't mean he knew what he was getting into. It could have been that by that point he wanted so bad to fulfill his fantasy he went for the moment.