John Richardson sitting on the step

[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.

[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.

[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"

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Bridewell]

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

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]

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.

[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.

[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...