Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[curious]

If you take the TOD to 4:30 am or earlier then that discounts completely Albert Cadosch and Mrs Darrell's testimony. So, it is either go with Phillips' estimate and point the finger at Richardson because Annie's body would have had to have been present at 4:30 am by the latest, or discount Dr Phillips as having made a miscalculation and opt for a later death of about 5:30am in order to accommodate the two witnesses. You take your choice, therefore, and mine is to go with the slightly later time of death.

Another approach is to focus on neither doctor nor witnesses, but the condition of the body and how bodies normally react in certain circumstances.

You then conduct your own research using the most up-to-date information you can find. After researching, you will be able to arrive at your own conclusions and you won't have to choose between doctor or witnesses.

[Fisherman]

Another approach is to focus on neither doctor nor witnesses, but the condition of the body and how bodies normally react in certain circumstances.

You then conduct your own research using the most up-to-date information you can find. After researching, you will be able to arrive at your own conclusions and you won't have to choose between doctor or witnesses.

Exactly so!

[Michael W Richards]

Its ironic reading some of the comments that disparage opinions that are offered as "facts", but in the case of the Hanbury Street murder,...as has been stated here ad infintum, there is trustworthy evidence in the form of a witness who was next door in his yard at around 5:15am. Which means that for this Richardsoon premise to have any legs at all it is he who has to be with the woman who thuds against the fence after calling out "no" softly. That incident clearly establishes that a woman was alive and likely being subdued just before 5:30 in that yard. Which means if Richardson was on his step at around 4:45 there was no dead or dying woman there.

And Ive seen zero evidence that he wasnt there presented here. To make the Richardson premise work you will need to establish that he was actually in the yard 1/2 hour later than he says.

[RockySullivan]

Its ironic reading some of the comments that disparage opinions that are offered as "facts", but in the case of the Hanbury Street murder,...as has been stated here ad infintum, there is trustworthy evidence in the form of a witness who was next door in his yard at around 5:15am. Which means that for this Richardsoon premise to have any legs at all it is he who has to be with the woman who thuds against the fence after calling out "no" softly. That incident clearly establishes that a woman was alive and likely being subdued just before 5:30 in that yard. Which means if Richardson was on his step at around 4:45 there was no dead or dying woman there.

And Ive seen zero evidence that he wasnt there presented here. To make the Richardson premise work you will need to establish that he was actually in the yard 1/2 hour later than he says.

If you can rely on witness testimony...which i wouldn't

[Wickerman]

If you can rely on witness testimony...which i wouldn't

Before forensics, can you imagine building a case without witness testimony?

[RockySullivan]

Before forensics, can you imagine building a case without witness testimony?

All I'm saying is I don't want some ****** with a bad memory whose sure he saw me in the wrong place at the wrong time. You know how stupid people are in general

[Fisherman]

Before forensics, can you imagine building a case without witness testimony?

Indeed - but sifting out the kosher evidence was never an easy thing. A dozen women or so in Millers Court were willing to testify that they had heard the "Oh, murder!" cry - at varying removes in time.
It was apparent that they were after their fifteen minutes of fame, nothing else.

In the end, we are stuck with the witnesses. But that does not mean that we need to trust them when there IS forensic evidence going against them.

A careful weighing needs to be done. And people define "careful" in many a way, sadly.

[Wickerman]

In the end, we are stuck with the witnesses. But that does not mean that we need to trust them when there IS forensic evidence going against them.

We are indeed stuck with the witness testimony, like it or not.
In this case the witness was Cadoche, and we have no forensic evidence to contest what he said.
So, on what basis do we dismiss it?

[Fisherman]

We are indeed stuck with the witness testimony, like it or not.
In this case the witness was Cadoche, and we have no forensic evidence to contest what he said.
So, on what basis do we dismiss it?

We don´t dismiss it. We look upon it as the second best suggestion. But Phillips´ estimation of the TOD for Annie Chapman must to my mind take precedence, given how dramatically wrong he must have been to allow for the "witness" evidence. And while we digest that, we ponder how it was considered odd that Annie Chapman was never seen after leaving the dosshouse. Reasonably, somebody should have seen her if she walked the streets up until 05.30-ish.

[RockySullivan]

We are indeed stuck with the witness testimony, like it or not.
In this case the witness was Cadoche, and we have no forensic evidence to contest what he said.
So, on what basis do we dismiss it?

Isn't Philips TOD considered forensic evidence? And while longs statement contradicts Philips, cadosches doesn't, after all he only heard a no and bump against the fence, he didn't see annie and what he heard wasn't suspicious enough for him to invesrigate, he could have heard anyone in the yard, not necessarily Chapman or the ripper. And long was a streetwalker wasn't she? How reliable is her word, not saying she's a bad person but how much faith would you put her

[Wickerman]

We don´t dismiss it. We look upon it as the second best suggestion.

And once again we are in agreement.

But Phillips´ estimation of the TOD for Annie Chapman must to my mind take precedence,....

Ok, but we remember how Phillips added the caveat due to the cool temperature that morning. I didn't think he added the caveat because of witness testimony.

And while we digest that, we ponder how it was considered odd that Annie Chapman was never seen after leaving the dosshouse. Reasonably, somebody should have seen her if she walked the streets up until 05.30-ish.

If you recall, Nichols had also not been seen for over an hour before her body was found. Had she been in the company of her killer?

Chapman, as you noted, had been missing, or not seen by anyone for several hours before her body was found.

Stride had been seen 2 hours before her death with a man, which could quite possibly be the same man seen by PC Smith minutes before her death.

Eddowes was obviously a sudden encounter, but Mary Kelly may have been in the company of her killer for some appreciable time also.

Maybe 'Jack' was not this "blitz killer" who jumped out of the shadows after all. Maybe he "courted" them, and entertained them with food and drink for hours before killing them?

[Pandora]

By the way I was only joking when I said MY theory but I thought it was hilarious when you said to gut "this is my theory not yours" ha ha. Yes I did suggest the no heard was Mrs R in the yard but I doubt I'm the first. Credit is certainly due to Wolf for his dissertation most of all. I can't imagine you haven't read the dissertations or understand why you wouldn't read through the inquest and news reports and firstly read through the other Richardson threads if you are so interested in Richardson but if you had youd see he was a POI right off the bat

HI Rocky, I did give credit to Wolf for his dissertation in my OP. And yes, although people have discussed Richardson as a suspect in some threads, those threads are actually about him as a WITNESS, in so far as I can tell. I wanted to start a SUSPECT thread for him.

[Pandora]

Hi Pandora



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.

Thank you Jon, will do.

[Pandora]

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

My thoughts exactly, and at least Richardson gives us someone new(ish) to talk about, at least until Pierre's suspect comes to light, lol.

[RockySullivan]

My thoughts exactly, and at least Richardson gives us someone new(ish) to talk about, at least until Pierre's suspect comes to light, lol.

should look into francis tyler, no one seems to know anything about him