John Richardson sitting on the step

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Jon Guy:
"it`s probably nothing, because like Chas Cross in Bucks Row, he had a perfectly innocent and reasonable reason to have been there."

Then Ed Kemper probably didnīt kill his grandparents either. He had a perfectly innocent and reasonable reason to be there, right?

Well, we know he did cos he phoned his mum up after he did it and she told him to ring the police and wait in the house for them.

And all the highway killers, like Bonin, for example, werenīt killers either, by the same logic. Come to think of it, very many serialists have had perfectly legit reasons to be where they were when they decided to grab the opportunity. Thatīs why these men are so hard to catch.

How many of them contacted the police after a murder claiming to have found the body, or that they they were at the murder site but the body was not there at that time?

Of course, Jon, having a legitimate reason to be on a murder spot always helps when speaking to the police. But the reverse also applies - if you want to stay undetected, what better place to kill than somewhere you had legitimate reason to be? Like Hanbury Street. Like Berner Street. Like Mitre Square. Like Dorset Street.

Surely then, the best way to stay undetected would be to kill where you had a legitimate place to be, and not to contact the police?

Robert Paul was the man that passed through Bucks Row at the crucial time and was employed a few yards around the corner from 29 Hanbury St and may have been in the vicinity at 4.30 or 5.30. Cross had to be in the city for 4.00am.

Itīs not until the death toll rises and we can begin to see a geographical pattern that a legitimate path on behalf of a person may switch from a good alibi into something rather detrimental. And that is exactly what we have on display in the Lechmere case.

Well , we know he walked through Bucks Row.

Anyway, good try!

Thank you!!

And I think your Richardson proposal is somewhat congenially thought out! Back to that aim of the thread!

More of an observation than a proposal, but thank you again, and now back to the thread...

[Damaso Marte]

Lynn, what side are you on in the Chapman time of death debate?

[Bridewell]

Cadosch

Her death time is problematic, no doubt, when you have Long saying she saw Annie with Mr Shabby Genteel around 5:30am and you have Cadosche saying he heard the voices and thud nearer to 5:15, .....I give credence to Cadosche because if he heard anyone in that backyard at that time it was likely Annie and killer.
That point suggests Richardson saw nothing as he stated, because no-one was there yet.

Cheers Jon,

Mike R

Hi Mike,

I entirely agree, although according to Swanson's report dated 19th October, Cadosch's first visit to the yard was at 5.25am and his second 3 minutes later. The 5.15am time was when he got out of bed. If the Swanson report's time-line is accurate Cadosch's time estimate is only about 4 minutes away from Elizabeth Long's. Cadosch said that he heard something fall against the fence where the body was later found. If Annie was already dead, then whatever it was must have fallen on top of her body - and subsequently vanished.
I don't subscribe to the alternative suggestion that it was a different prostitute with her client finding the body and keeping quiet about it. I can accept that the yard may have been used quite regularly by prostitutes and their clients, but two of them in succession after 4am seems most unlikely. If Cadosch heard what he said he did, the sound was that of Annie Chapman falling to the floor in my view.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

If Richardson cut a piece of leather from his boot "because it hurt him", does this not suggest the piece of leather was perhaps cut from the inside of the boot...necessitating him sitting on the top step and removing said boot?

Debs discovered that our Richardson may well be the one discharged from the army with epilepsy...should this affect our judgement of his testimony? For example, could he in fact have sat on the top step, unaware, for a period?

Dunno myself...just stray thoughts

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Ah, but to be fair to my little theory, Richardson was crouching over on the steps and he was holding a knife.

Thanks for your reply to my earlier question Jon,...and to address the theory above, isnt a simpler answer that Richardson saw nothing there because Annie hadnt been in the yard with her killer yet?

Her death time is problematic, no doubt, when you have Long saying she saw Annie with Mr Shabby Genteel around 5:30am and you have Cadosche saying he heard the voices and thud nearer to 5:15, .....I give credence to Cadosche because if he heard anyone in that backyard at that time it was likely Annie and killer. How many couples are we to imagine slipped into that yard on that night and around that time?

That point suggests Richardson saw nothing as he stated, because no-one was there yet.

Cheers Jon,

Mike R

[Jon Guy]

Ah, but to be fair to my little theory, Richardson was crouching over on the steps and he was holding a knife.

[K-453]

I admit I regard Richardson as a suspicious character, too.

Still, 'crouching over the body' and 'sitting on the steps' is not exactly the same.

Is there evidence someone had seen him in the yard? To me, it looks like he admitted that voluntary.

[Jon Guy]

Hi K453

The body of Chapman was so close to the fence she would have only been visible from houses to the east of number 29, and then at a closer look, only the feet would have been visible as the Ripper was, I believe, working from Chapman`s right side.

Now, my point is that if the old neighbour Adam, at number 31, for example, peered casually out of his dirty window and saw Richardson crouched over in the corner of the yard, and he would recognise Richardson as he worked at number 29, then I am suggesting Richardson may have made up the story to cover any sightings of him in the yard by nosey neighbours.
Now, old Adam may not have seen the body at the time, and like everyone else was not aware of the murder till 6.00am, and had then told the Police that the only person he saw was big Johhny Richardson.
Remember that despite Long and Cadosch, Dr Phillips put the TOD a lot earlier, at roughly the time that Richardson was messing about in the yard.

[K-453]

If a witness had seen Richardson crouching over the body, that witness would also have seen the body itself. Why, then, did Richardson claim that stubbornly the body had not been there yet?

When he thought he was seen, the cleverest thing to do would be what is imputed to Cross: Pretending he just found the victim and fetching help.

[lynn cates]

case

Hello Mike. I think the case for Richardson could be:

1. He carried a knife.

2. He owned a leather apron.

3. His testimony as to time and place contradicts Dr. Phillips' TOD for Annie.

The stooping posture argument was merely exploratory--if I understand the intent of the thread. The idea is, roughly, given that John killed Annie, and he thought he had been spotted in that posture (ie, over the body and crouching) would it not be prudent to testify that he had assumed EXACTLY that posture but in innocuous circumstances, thus possibly defusing such later testimony?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Im curious, just what is the evidence for suggesting Richardson may have killed and mutilated Annie Chapman Jon? That he sat and bent on the steps isnt much to use as springboard for that idea. Does he have some unknown violent past?

Cross may well have had a reason for being where he was but I would offer that his behavior upon finding Polly seems to me rather odd. I would think anyone who found a dead woman would stay with the body or call out for help, regardless of the time.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"it`s probably nothing, because like Chas Cross in Bucks Row, he had a perfectly innocent and reasonable reason to have been there."

Then Ed Kemper probably didnīt kill his grandparents either. He had a perfectly innocent and reasonable reason to be there, right? And all the highway killers, like Bonin, for example, werenīt killers either, by the same logic. Come to think of it, very many serialists have had perfectly legit reasons to be where they were when they decided to grab the opportunity. Thatīs why these men are so hard to catch.

Of course, Jon, having a legitimate reason to be on a murder spot always helps when speaking to the police. But the reverse also applies - if you want to stay undetected, what better place to kill than somewhere you had legitimate reason to be? Like Hanbury Street. Like Berner Street. Like Mitre Square. Like Dorset Street.

Itīs not until the death toll rises and we can begin to see a geographical pattern that a legitimate path on behalf of a person may switch from a good alibi into something rather detrimental. And that is exactly what we have on display in the Lechmere case.

Anyway, good try! And I think your Richardson proposal is somewhat congenially thought out! Back to that aim of the thread!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

ah!

Hello Jon. Thanks for the kind remarks.

Point taken--a faux pas with respect to calculations on his behalf? And I like how you summarise the situation. Tend to agree.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Indeed, but I doubt Richardson had your mental faculties, Lynn, and the final version off his story has him sitting down.

But it`s probably nothing, because like Chas Cross in Bucks Row, he had a perfectly innocent and reasonable reason to have been there.

[lynn cates]

portrayal

Hello Jon. Thanks.

It may well be a trivial point. But if he hatched the story in case someone saw him crouched over the body, it seems that he would never portray himself as standing.

Cheers.
LC