Was John Richardson Jack the Ripper?

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[Bambi]

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

[Pandora]

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

Hi Steve,

The idea of discussing any subject on any forum is so other people can add their voice to the discussion, and potentially come up with new idea’s around that theory, which in time, could lead to new evidence. Two heads are always better than one, and several hundred, are obviously better than two.

Unlike some people on this forum, I have not claimed to have solved the mystery of who Jack was, I have called it what it is, a theory. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it thus “an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events”, "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true", and "the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject."


To be honest, I really struggle to understand why you seem to have taken such objection to this particular thread, when there are many hundreds, if not thousands of threads that stretch the realms of possibility so much further than this one does.

If you have no wish to partake in these discussions, that is absolutely fine, but please do not try and control anyone else who may wish to do so. Those discussions may lead to new evidence, that could prove the theory right, or wrong. That, in my opinion, is the whole point of this forum.

[Pandora]

I would like to add, that if the theme continues on this forum, where people who name their suspects are ridiculed, or told to put up or shut up, then it may cause future posters to be intimidated, and not share what may be a very interesting piece of evidence, or an idea that opens new doors into the 130 year old mystery. Someone out there may be sitting on something that they do not know the value of, and reading some of these posts, may decide against sharing, for fear of looking foolish.

I have no desire to present myself as some new age, all embracing, hand holding hippie, but I strongly believe that those who decide to post on these forums, and add their voices to any discussion, do so to help move all and any discussions forward. And if the same old arguments continue to be thrown about, such as “there is no evidence” then I once again suggest, that MOST of the theories, idea’s and questions raised on these forums are based on speculation, not hard evidence. If we were only allowed to discuss hard evidence, and not speculate, this forum would be very small, and very dull.

[Elamarna]

Pandora,

Please don't get me wrong, I have not taken an objection to the thread, rather I would like it to progress which I don't see it doing at present.
I like the idea, but my point is that I can see nothing new has been added to the thread in the past few days, it is going round in circles like so many threads do.

I had been hoping that as you say someone may have something which could be linked and take us further forward.

The suspect is certainly viable , and one of the better ideas put forward in recent months.

No one has ridiculed you, indeed I gave you encouragement only last week.

please look again what I said about the theory,

"What we have at present is a viable idea, but it is not a theory for the Whitechapel murders."

I am talking about a theory for all the killings, which at present it is not and the thread is "was Richardson JtR" after all.

Of course it is a theory, but only for Chapman at present; if I was not clear enough about that and caused you offence I am sorry


I was only hoping to perhaps point people in the direction of the ideas we could be looking at in order to take this forward. if the discussion continues around the time of death and if he lied the thread will i fear not progress.

And I agree entirely you cannot only work on hard evidence, otherwise we would have solved this ages ago. Unless someone does come up with some spectacular evidence we have to speculate to begin with.
However , and it is a big however, at some point we surely must move from speculation with some evidence if a theory is to progress and develop

You say:

"do not try and control anyone else who may wish to do so."

I don't believe that is what I am doing, putting forward an opinion that the thread is not progressing is not trying to control people, I see it as health debate, with the best of intentions that being to push it on.

all the best in carrying it forward

Steve