John Richardson sitting on the step

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi to all

Hi All,

I don't see how it's possible for Richardson to have sat on the steps at the rear of 29, Hanbury Street and not detected Annie Chapman's body a couple of feet away, had it been there at the time. Either Richardson was the killer or Annie Chapman was still alive at that time.

Or Richardson was simply lying !

In terms of the timings of witnesses, Cadosch's 5.32am at the Spitalfields Church is likely to be reliable as that particular clock was reputedly very accurate. It was also lit by gas lamps behind the clock face.

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

[Bridewell]

Hi All,

I don't see how it's possible for Richardson to have sat on the steps at the rear of 29, Hanbury Street and not detected Annie Chapman's body a couple of feet away, had it been there at the time. Either Richardson was the killer or Annie Chapman was still alive at that time.
In terms of the timings of witnesses, Cadosch's 5.32am at the Spitalfields Church is likely to be reliable as that particular clock was reputedly very accurate. It was also lit by gas lamps behind the clock face.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Chapman's time of death is one of those inner mysteries that are almost impossible to unravel.

Mike
When I said that Richardson was lucky that Long and Cadoshe corroborated him, I was being a bit ironic.
If he was guilty and he decided to place himself at the scene at a time when that the doctor roughly gave as the time of death, then I would suggest that would have been a bit reckless. Or as someone else might put it he was being a silly billy.
If he was the culprit he was lucky indeed that Long's and Cadoshe's evidence tended to clear him. - by corroberating his story that the body wasn't there when he was.

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation Lechmere.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Lechmere]

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.

Chapman's time of death is one of those inner mysteries that are almost impossible to unravel.

Mike
When I said that Richardson was lucky that Long and Cadoshe corroborated him, I was being a bit ironic.
If he was guilty and he decided to place himself at the scene at a time when that the doctor roughly gave as the time of death, then I would suggest that would have been a bit reckless. Or as someone else might put it he was being a silly billy.
If he was the culprit he was lucky indeed that Long's and Cadoshe's evidence tended to clear him. - by corroberating his story that the body wasn't there when he was.

[Trevor Marriott]

Which generally represents the conventional view. Interpretations to the contrary involve too many difficulties.

Long's testimony has little impact and involves a number of uncertainties.
- Did she get the time wrong (5:15 or 5:30)?
- Was it 5:30 (or 5:15) when she passed the Brewers, or when she passed No.29?
- Was it really Annie stood outside No.29?

Jon S.

Extract from Swanson's report dated 19th of October, 1888

" If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 AM. But as his clothes were examined the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him. Richardson is a market Porter. Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5.30 AM, then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6.20 AM and then he gives it as his opinion that death occurred about 2 hours earlier via 4.20 AM. Hence the evidence of Mrs. Long of which appeared to be so important to the coroner must be looked upon with some amount of doubt which is to be regretted"

[Hunter]

Back to Richardson. I agree with Jon in that he would have aroused my suspicion. Plus, he's back in the yard before the doctor arrives. Didn't he have work to do?

Richardson had gone to work and was told about the murder while he was there. Naturally, he ran down to No. 29 Hanbury St. to see what was going on. The police had the building cordoned off so Richardson couldn't get in. He goes next door and views the body from the neighboring yard. After the body was removed, he was allowed into his mother's tenement and met Insp. Chandler.

From DT:
...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.

[Wickerman]

The murder it would seem took place after Richardsons visit to the steps and around the time of Cadosche's "no" and thud.

Which generally represents the conventional view. Interpretations to the contrary involve too many difficulties.

Long's testimony has little impact and involves a number of uncertainties.
- Did she get the time wrong (5:15 or 5:30)?
- Was it 5:30 (or 5:15) when she passed the Brewers, or when she passed No.29?
- Was it really Annie stood outside No.29?

Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lechmere,

Just noted you stated that Long and Cadosche corroberated Richardson. Its very likely by the timing none of those 3 people saw Annie....Richardson said he saw nothing, its probable that Long did not see Annie, and Cadosche didnt see Annie.

The murder it would seem took place after Richardsons visit to the steps and around the time of Cadosche's "no" and thud.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Lechmere]

I'm wondering what connections Richardson had with the other murder scenes.
Or was this one of those 'one offs' that it is fashionable in some quarters to reduce the 'Whitechapel Murders' to.

[Jon Guy]

Also if I may...
This case is considerably weakened by reliance on an invented window watcher.
I would humbly suggest that all that needs to be said is this.
Richardson went to Hanbury Street in the course of his duties and he knew other people would know he was there at that time.
He saw Annie and got carried away (serial killers do sometimes pooh on their own doorstep).
He then invented the shoe and step business to alibi himself by putting the time of death later than his visit. He was lucky that Long and Cadoshe corroborated him.

Thanks for the summing up, Lechmere, and thanks for reminding me that Richardson had encountered and removed prostitutes from the passageway and yard of number 29 previously.

Oh, and there`s no case been made here, no invented window watcher or any reliance upon this voyeur.

[Lechmere]

Also if I may...
This case is considerably weakened by reliance on an invented window watcher.
I would humbly suggest that all that needs to be said is this.
Richardson went to Hanbury Street in the course of his duties and he knew other people would know he was there at that time.
He saw Annie and got carried away (serial killers do sometimes pooh on their own doorstep).
He then invented the shoe and step business to alibi himself by putting the time of death later than his visit. He was lucky that Long and Cadoshe corroborated him.

[Lechmere]

Richardson was clearly looked at by the police and his involvement was dismissed. This is another contrast. Cross clearly slipped through the interrogation net.

[Lechmere]

Barnaby
I'm not entirely sure of your point of view - but...
Richardson Placed himself - uncorroborated - on the step with a blunt knife and says he didn't see a body. He then came forward immediately and there are no inconsistencies - even ones that can be given innocent examinations - in his story.
Cross is found by the body by someone else. His story has numerous inconsistencies, he delayed in comIng forward until his role was mentioned in a newspaper.
You pays your money you takes your

Ok the slight details in Richardsons story are whether he was standing or sitting on the step and how much leather he cut with the blunt knife.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Many people on this forum seem to believe that Long saw a different couple, and even that Cadosch's "no" was the sound of couple #2 discovering Chapman's body.

I personally find this ridiculous (whether I am whoring or not, my reaction to finding Chapman's body would be a bit more than a soft 'no'), but some smart people believe in it. I find it much more plausible that people from the 19th century were inaccurate in keeping and remembering time.

I would break the mystery down into small parts:

1) Long stated she didn't take much notice of the couple. So, we're asked to believe that someone who, by her own admission, didn't take a great deal of notice; saw Annie.

2) Cadosche couldn't say where the no came from, but felt the thud came from no 29. By this time, Cadosche knows a murder has taken place in that yard and so his conclusion of where the sound came from is led, possibly, by an event. The no and the thud could have come from anywhere in the vicinity and could have been caused by any number of things.

3) Given the above, I would go with the doctor. Not really a close call in my view.

Back to Richardson. I agree with Jon in that he would have aroused my suspicion. Plus, he's back in the yard before the doctor arrives. Didn't he have work to do?

[Damaso Marte]

Many people on this forum seem to believe that Long saw a different couple, and even that Cadosch's "no" was the sound of couple #2 discovering Chapman's body.

I personally find this ridiculous (whether I am whoring or not, my reaction to finding Chapman's body would be a bit more than a soft 'no'), but some smart people believe in it. I find it much more plausible that people from the 19th century were inaccurate in keeping and remembering time.