John Richardson sitting on the step

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[Damaso Marte]

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

[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...

[Jon Guy]

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?

Many thanks for that, Lynn. That`s pretty much it, although, I have nothing to suggest that Richardson thought he had been seen.

Richardson knew he would have to tell a copper that he had been in the yard that morning as he regularly checked out the cellar lock on market mornings.

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.

At the inquest, after the dessert knife had been retrieved from John St and handed over to the Police, Richardson then tells us that he finished the trimming job at the market with a sharper knife!!
I wonder if that was mentioned because he feared someone who worked at the market might have noticed that it was no blunt dessert knife that they saw him trim his boot with. Was the sharper knife he used at the market the actual murder weapon?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Michael

Thanks for your reply to my earlier question Jon,..

Now, now. This is my first opportunity to reply and I see Lynn has kindly answered your question for me.

.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?

Yes.

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?

I`d still give more credence to the fact that Dr Phillips saw the body at 6.30am and after an examination estimated that she`d been dead at least two hours.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Dave

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?

All I can find in the press reports are that he sat down to cut a bit of leather off his boot, and he then tied up his boot. I can find no mention of him taking his boot off. It could have been the tongue area of the boot.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Colin

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.

Quite rightly, one cannot ignore the witness testimonies of Long, and especially Cadosch, but I am interested in your view, as a retired Policeman, of the Police Surgeon`s estimate of a TOD of at the earliest 4.30am? Richardson was viewed with great suspicion at the time of the Inquest.

[Cogidubnus]

It could have been the tongue area of the boot.

Yes you're right Jon...

Thanks

Dave

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"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 ...

"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?"

But that was not the issue, as I understood it. The issue was whether having a legitimate reason to be at a murder site had any impact on whether one would be a killer or not.

"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?"

Yes. And that is what I suspect Lechmere hoped to achieve - but those hopes were crushed by Paulīs arrival, meaning that Lechmere needed to redesign his agenda.

"we know he walked through Bucks Row."

We know more than that, Jon. Not by means of any confirmation of him having used Old Montague Street and Berner Street on his travels - but a very compelling case can be made that he did so. That is, if he wanted to get to work as quickly as possible, and if he was in the habit of visiting his mother and daughter every now and then. Not much of a stretch, would you say?

"Thank you!!"

The pleasure is mine, Jon.

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Star, 13th September 1888—

"Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and no signs of the murder were then apparent."

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

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

1. He carried a knife.

Unnofficially we read that many men carried some form of a knife.

2. He owned a leather apron.

But a Leather apron really had nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders, did it.

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

In itself, this is not unusual. Medical evidence at the Kelly inquest was inconclusive when compared with eyewitness testimony.