John Richardson sitting on the step

[RockySullivan]

Richardson decides to stop and check the padlock ok that's reasonable. Why does he sit on the step on the step to cobble his boot in the yard with no light and a knife that isn't sharp enough? He is in the same spot where a murder takes place within 15-20 minutes of ETOD and hes cutting something at his feet with a knife. You believe two separate people randomly decided to cut something at their feet within minutes of each other in the exact same spot(a dark corner of an empty yard)? No unrealistic and improbable.

[RockySullivan]

Well, the police at the time weren't using their imaginations to get Richardson off the hook. They questioned him and his story stood up to their satisfaction. To have Annie murdered before 5am, when the Spitalfields Market opened and Richardson began work, the testimony of Albert Cadoche and Mrs Darrell/Long would have to be dismissed, as they talk of a time later than five.

If I had an elderly mother living in a large house in Hanbury St and heard some garbled story of a woman done to death in that same street, I'd be leaving work as well and coming back to see that she was OK!

Very little is known about John or Francis Tyler (other than he wasn't very punctual!) What makes you think he lodged with John Richardson and his family, Rocky?

And in order to accept the later murder time one was dismiss the expert opinion of the Doctor Phillips...
I thought I remember reading in a press report that Tyler and Richardson lived together on John street

[RockySullivan]

They are not conflicting accounts. Everyone and I mean everyone from the most skilled artisan to the most incompetent DIY'er has done a half assed job of DIY at some stage of their lives. We have all used(or attempted to use) a piece of equipment that just wasn't up to the job adequately. Very little "imagination" is needed to clear Richardson on this point.

How did Richardson cut the leather if the knife wasn't sharp enough? What about the man who accosted Richardson with the reporter who Richardson claimed was the ripper? There are way too many suspicious things about Richardson but everyone is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt

[jason_c]

That involves of quite a bit if imagination in order to let richardson off the hook. Why suppose the police would let Richardson give false testimony (perjury) in order to save him the cost of a knife? And would the coroner and jury be in on the conspiracy as well? In fact it was stated that the coroner viewed Richardson as suspicious. What's more not only did he lie about the knife, he changed his story many times (nearly every time he spoke), :

here's justa refresher of Richardson testimony:

"John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
[Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.
At this stage witness was despatched by the coroner to fetch his knife.

John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.
The Coroner: I think we will detain this knife for the present.


So he says" After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up" and then he says "He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market". Clearly two conflicting accounts as Richardson apparently is a terrible liar who couldn't keep his story straight.

They are not conflicting accounts. Everyone and I mean everyone from the most skilled artisan to the most incompetent DIY'er has done a half assed job of DIY at some stage of their lives. We have all used(or attempted to use) a piece of equipment that just wasn't up to the job adequately. Very little "imagination" is needed to clear Richardson on this point.

[Rosella]

Well, the police at the time weren't using their imaginations to get Richardson off the hook. They questioned him and his story stood up to their satisfaction. To have Annie murdered before 5am, when the Spitalfields Market opened and Richardson began work, the testimony of Albert Cadoche and Mrs Darrell/Long would have to be dismissed, as they talk of a time later than five.

If I had an elderly mother living in a large house in Hanbury St and heard some garbled story of a woman done to death in that same street, I'd be leaving work as well and coming back to see that she was OK!

Very little is known about John or Francis Tyler (other than he wasn't very punctual!) What makes you think he lodged with John Richardson and his family, Rocky?

[RockySullivan]

Paradoxically, one of the things that convinces me of Richardson's innocence is the fact that at the inquest the man plainly and blatantly lied about the knife that he'd used to trim his boot leather, but no-one, not the coroner, nor the jury, nor the police, called him on it. Why would that be?

It's obvious from accounts written at the time that the rusty table knife he produced, and for the provenance of which he told such an unlikely story, couldn't have trimmed his boot. That would have been as obvious in 1888 as it is to us today. As a market porter, he would almost have certainly owned and commonly carried a clasp knife with a strong blade to use in his job, and he probably kept it razor sharp.

I don't know enough about inquest procedures to say for sure (perhaps someone else can speak to this), but had he produced a sharp clasp knife, and admitted to having it at the murder scene, it seems likely to me that it would have been siezed as evidence, and not returned for some days at least. He was a poor man, and this was a tool without which he'd have difficulty earning his living.

This is complete speculation on my part, but I'd not be surprised to learn that he'd shown the actual knife off the record to the police and/or coroner before he gave his testimony, they'd concluded that it wasn't the murder weapon and he wasn't the murderer, and let him give his **** and bull story to avoid the regrettable necessity of taking his good knife from him, the replacement of which might have represented a substantial expense for a man of his station in life.

That involves of quite a bit if imagination in order to let richardson off the hook. Why suppose the police would let Richardson give false testimony (perjury) in order to save him the cost of a knife? And would the coroner and jury be in on the conspiracy as well? In fact it was stated that the coroner viewed Richardson as suspicious. What's more not only did he lie about the knife, he changed his story many times (nearly every time he spoke), :

here's justa refresher of Richardson testimony:

"John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
[Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.
At this stage witness was despatched by the coroner to fetch his knife.

John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
By the Jury: My mother has heard me speak of people having been in the house. She has heard them herself.
The Coroner: I think we will detain this knife for the present.


So he says" After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up" and then he says "He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market". Clearly two conflicting accounts as Richardson apparently is a terrible liar who couldn't keep his story straight.

[Ginger]

Paradoxically, one of the things that convinces me of Richardson's innocence is the fact that at the inquest the man plainly and blatantly lied about the knife that he'd used to trim his boot leather, but no-one, not the coroner, nor the jury, nor the police, called him on it. Why would that be?

It's obvious from accounts written at the time that the rusty table knife he produced, and for the provenance of which he told such an unlikely story, couldn't have trimmed his boot. That would have been as obvious in 1888 as it is to us today. As a market porter, he would almost have certainly owned and commonly carried a clasp knife with a strong blade to use in his job, and he probably kept it razor sharp.

I don't know enough about inquest procedures to say for sure (perhaps someone else can speak to this), but had he produced a sharp clasp knife, and admitted to having it at the murder scene, it seems likely to me that it would have been siezed as evidence, and not returned for some days at least. He was a poor man, and this was a tool without which he'd have difficulty earning his living.

This is complete speculation on my part, but I'd not be surprised to learn that he'd shown the actual knife off the record to the police and/or coroner before he gave his testimony, they'd concluded that it wasn't the murder weapon and he wasn't the murderer, and let him give his **** and bull story to avoid the regrettable necessity of taking his good knife from him, the replacement of which might have represented a substantial expense for a man of his station in life.

[RockySullivan]

Yes but infact he claimed his feet were on the flagstones of the ground while he whittled his boot which means his point of focus was his feet on the groundand wouldn't chapmans body have been essentially at his feet?

It may depend upon how far he opened the door. If he'd sat on the top step and only opened the door far enough to make room to sit down then I think there's a chance he wouldn't have seen a dead body in the position it lay; because the door would have blocked his sight to the left and if sat on the top step his eye level going to the floor may have been blocked by the middle to bottom of the door, meaning he couldn't see the body stretching past the step on his left hand side.

I know his story changed from sat on the step to peer over at the cellar door to actually going down the steps.

Perhaps his story changed because he thought he was in a bit of a spot: possible body in the yard and he didn't report it making him a possible suspect.

Whatever his story, I think there is a chance he wouldn't have seen the body to his left when sat on the top step.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Annie's body quite obviously wasn't there when John Richardson sat on the cellar steps. It was there later. The police questioned Richardson. Tyler wasn't even there. He turned up late for work.

It may depend upon how far he opened the door. If he'd sat on the top step and only opened the door far enough to make room to sit down then I think there's a chance he wouldn't have seen a dead body in the position it lay; because the door would have blocked his sight to the left and if sat on the top step his eye level going to the floor may have been blocked by the middle to bottom of the door, meaning he couldn't see the body stretching past the step on his left hand side.

I know his story changed from sat on the step to peer over at the cellar door to actually going down the steps.

Perhaps his story changed because he thought he was in a bit of a spot: possible body in the yard and he didn't report it making him a possible suspect.

Whatever his story, I think there is a chance he wouldn't have seen the body to his left when sat on the top step.

[RockySullivan]

Well, leaving aside the question of when he knew the body was there, leaving work oughn't to have been much of a problem. Market porters were essentially piece-workers. For each load that they handled for a vendor, the vendor gave them a token to cash in at the end of the work day. If they didn't mind losing a bit of money, they could prolly take a bit of time off now and again.


Edit: Also, I rather suspect that then, as now, "OMG! There's been a murder in me mum's back yard!" was pretty much an iron-clad excuse for leaving work early.

Well that's my point ginge, richardsn didn't know the murder was in his moms backyard. He only heard there was a murder in hanbury and went to see about it and only then did he learn the murder took place in his moms yard. If his job was so lax that he could leave like that isn't it possible he didn't show up til after five?

Gut I believe Richardson lived with Tyler...so i inagine they had a close relationship? They lived together and worked for richer sons mother a long time. I suspect if Richardson was involved then Tyler would be conplicit as well. Pure conjecture of course but I don't find reasonable satisfactory explanation for all of richardsons lies and change of stories

[Ginger]

...why would richardson be able to leave work to go rubberneck at a body when he wasn't yet aware it was in his mothers yard.

Well, leaving aside the question of when he knew the body was there, leaving work oughn't to have been much of a problem. Market porters were essentially piece-workers. For each load that they handled for a vendor, the vendor gave them a token to cash in at the end of the work day. If they didn't mind losing a bit of money, they could prolly take a bit of time off now and again.


Edit: Also, I rather suspect that then, as now, "OMG! There's been a murder in me mum's back yard!" was pretty much an iron-clad excuse for leaving work early.

[GUT]

Following on from what I said above, It was a fair bet Tyler would be late.

But Richardson would need to be one hell of a gambler to take that bet.

If he was the killer [and I am far from persuaded] then he would have had to make sure that it was over and done with long long before Tyler could remotely be expected to arrive.

[Rosella]

Who knows! I'm out, so I can't look it up right now but I think Amelia Richardson complained to a reporter that her worker was somewhat unreliable, so maybe he enjoyed sleeping in and didn't turn up early even when there was plenty of work! Things were quiet at the time of Chapman's murder, though. Richardson wouldn't have been able to rely on Tyler not appearing though, I shouldnt think!

Even so, if Tyler had turned up five minutes earlier than his starting time of six am, IMO Chapman would have been dead and her murderer gone.

[GUT]

Hi Rosella,
Do you think it likely that Richardson knew that Tyler would be later going to work that day?

Amanda

My 2 cents, it seems like a fair bet, Tyler doesn't it seems to have been exactly prompt in arriving for work and I suspect that Richardson knew that on quiet days Tyler may well be late.

[Amanda]

He seems to have arrived late quite a bit when trade was slack. Tyler was supposed to have started at 6am but on this particular day he didn't arrive until 8am.

Hi Rosella,
Do you think it likely that Richardson knew that Tyler would be later going to work that day?

Amanda