John Richardson sitting on the step

[RockySullivan]

Richardson sounds like a strong person of interest to me, anyone know any more about him? What does a market porters job entail? He was viewed with suspicion and that says A LOT. I wonder if he was involved in taking $ to let prostitutes use the yard. He's at the scene with a knife....

[Chava]

I think men did carry sharp knives with them then as useful tools. So I can well believe that he actually cut the leather with a clasp-knife. I don't see any reason why he would carry a butter knife, which in those days would have had a rounded edge and would have been used for...smearing butter! So no real cutting edge to it at all. He probably realized that he'd put himself in it carrying a knife at all, so lied about it. I do think it's a long shot for the reasons above. But I can't discount Richardson. If he was in the habit of going past every day at that time to check on his mother's stuff in the backyard while on the way to work, he'd have to come up with a reason why he wasn't near the backyard the exact morning someone killed a woman there. So he may well admit to being there before the murder rather than denying he was there at all.

[lynn cates]

the knife

Hello Jon. Quite. He brought his knife to inquest and they were dubious about its power to cut.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hey Up Chava!!

And I would also like to have had someone take that butter-knife be brought into the inquest and try and cut some boot-leather with it. I've never believed that was the knife he had with him that night.

To be fair, Richardson did state at the inquest that he had to use a sharper knife to finish the job off (his boot, not Chapman ..) when he arrived at the market.

[Garza]

Yeesh ignore my last post, I have been on hiatus for a half a year on jack the ripper and facts are a little fuzzy at present :-) .

[Garza]

The thing that strikes me with Richardson, is a story that is too unbelievable to not be true.

If he really was the murderer, why say he sat on the step in the first place, wouldn't it be better to say he peeked round the corner and that is it?

If he was embarassed by his negligence or incompentance of spotting a body, wouldn't it be better to say he peeked round the corner and that is it? (I mean that is what people say about Schwartz when he changed his story - he didn't want to seem like a coward).

Let me put it this way. What did Richardson have to gain by saying he sat no more than 2 feet away cutting a piece of leather from his boot from a dead body?

It is very possible due to the sketches and the way the door was opened that he couldn't see the body.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Colin,

I agree with you.
Another wise monkey, this Richardson.
Here no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Its amazing he had his eyes open looking DOWN when cutting that boot leather.

It's a recurring theme through every murder.
No one sees anything. No one hears anything. All turn up just too late to find a body and in Richardson's case, right under his nasal orrifice.

Ever noticed NO ONE wears spectacles?

Best wishes

Phil

[Chava]

I remember getting into a huuuuge fight on the old board on this very topic. I think the police should have taken Richardson very seriously as a possible suspect. And I would also like to have had someone take that butter-knife be brought into the inquest and try and cut some boot-leather with it. I've never believed that was the knife he had with him that night. I also always found it odd that he even mentioned having a knife with him that night in those circumstances...

[Jon Guy]

So, why the shoe and knife story? All he had to say to Insp Chandler was that he went into the yard to check the padlock and went no further than the foot of the steps. Instead, we get the whole trimming the leather with his blunt knife story.

To correct myself, when Richardson spoke to Insp Chandler in the passageway shortly before 7am he didn`t mention the whole trimming the leather bit.

[Bridewell]

The off-topic discussion of Cross is my fault. I had posed a question earlier of which person - Richardson or Cross - was more suspicious as a possible suspect. My apologies.

Hi Barnaby,
No apology needed. My post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular but there had been several Cross references which didn't seem really relevant to the topic.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Barnaby]

The off-topic discussion of Cross is my fault. I had posed a question earlier of which person - Richardson or Cross - was more suspicious as a possible suspect. My apologies.

[Bridewell]

What is the relevance of Charles Cross to a Richardson thread?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

The reason we know Cross was not checked out in any meaningful way is that the police failed to learn his real name.
I accept that a decent type of check circa 1888 may still fail to discover a culprit. My only point is that all things being equal, if a potential suspect passed what must have been a decent level of 'checking out' (eg Richardson or even Hutchinson for that matter) then it tends to diminish their credibility as a suspect in 2012 - in my opinion of course.

[Wickerman]

Thank you for that extract Trevor.
It pretty much destroys any revived case against Richardson as the police looked at him very closely at the time.
This extract also illustrates that when the police took an interest in someone we tend to have some record of it. From my point of view this is of interest as it confirms that Cross slipped through the net.

As the vast majority of police files have not survived we can only assume that every witness was thoroughly investigated. Richardson was thoroughly investigated because his testimony directly contested that of Dr. Phillips.

Crossmere's testimony did not contest that of Llewellyn, but certainly him along with every other witness will have been investigated.
Even those who are interviewed and their statements verified can & do go on to commit further murders, assuming that is what we are talking about here.

All I point out here is that whether Crossmere was a killer or not, the fact we have no record of his investigation does not mean he slipped through the net, ie; was not checked out.

Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Trevor

Or Richardson was simply lying !

Well that goes without saying if he was the Ripper...if, however, he wasn't, then why would he lie? Two explanations come to my mind...

1) He didn't actually check the cellar entrance that day, and initially (to please his dominant mum) fibbed about it...then found he couldn't back down and was forced to stick with the tale...

2) He suffered a mild epileptic fit on the morning in question and actually couldn't recall very much about his visit to the back yard...

Dr Phillips time of death I think is far more reliable than these other witnesses who were know doubt "trying" to help

My initial inclination is to agree with you...modern evidence seems to suggest rigor can start to set in after as little as an hour...but that is rather less than usual...I think Phillips was judging time of death by body temperature though, and that's probably more tricky...

All the best

Dave