Richardson's View

[Observer]

Also, I'm surprised that Mrs Richardson had a detailed knowledge of the components of her son's leggings! But there you go

[Observer]

Inspector Chandler, Daily Telegraph 14 Sept;

"Did you find anything else in the yard? - There was a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water. It was about two feet from the water tap.

Was it shown to the doctor? - Yes. There was also a box, such as is commonly used by casemakers for holding nails. It was empty. There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.
Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been."

Hmm....so Richardson's gaiter spring was found right where he said he'd sat and cut leather from his boot....wonder how that got there?

More to the point, when was it deposited there?

[Joshua Rogan]

Inspector Chandler, Daily Telegraph 14 Sept;

"Did you find anything else in the yard? - There was a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water. It was about two feet from the water tap.

Was it shown to the doctor? - Yes. There was also a box, such as is commonly used by casemakers for holding nails. It was empty. There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.
Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been."

Hmm....so Richardson's gaiter spring was found right where he said he'd sat and cut leather from his boot....wonder how that got there?

[Observer]

Assuming further questions of the "Mrs Kennedy" he's read about in the paper at the inquest would prompt Hutchinson to come forward with an account of his own. Not actually being identified at the inquest itself but having his description recognised in the press reports after may have put him in a position of someone asking what he was up to. Although not mentioned in the press before the inquest, he realises "Mrs Kennedy" must have seen him on her way into the court and is likely to be asked if she saw anyone hanging around Dorset Street near Miller's Court. He can't do anything about the inquest but he can do something about throwing attention away from himself and onto another man he says he seen with Mary Kelly while also justifying why he was there.

His assumption turns out to be right in terms of being seen and mentioned at the inquest but his timings are by going by the 3am given by "Mrs Kennedy" in the press as he doesn't know yet that Sarah Lewis has given the time of being in Dorset Street as 2:30am. He has to place himself there at 3am in anticipation of being said to be seen by "Mrs Kennedy" but has to leave as soon as possible after so as not to be there when the cry of murder is heard.

He knows he's been seen, so that would be the motivation in coming forward with his account when he did.

As I say, this is only a thought. I'm not saying this was definitely the case, just a possibility.

I believe Wickerman has dealt with this adequately, better than I could have put it anyway.

The motivation for John Richardson to account for being in the yard when there are no witnesses around leans towards him telling the truth as he doesn't need to say why or when he was on the steps at the back door if there's no-one to say differently. He doesn't need to place himself there at all, but he volunteers that information. His arrival at work could be verified. The motivation to lie either about being there or not being there doesn't exist for either. Therefore the time he's there, the reason he's there and the two minutes he's sat on the step for before leaving to go to work must be true.

Why must it be true? My point is, he did have a motivation to lie, he volunteered that information, that is, sitting on the step at the back, because he didn't want to get into trouble with his mother, who had instructed him to to check on the yard, and the cellar. He never visited the back yard. As I said two things point to this, Dr Philips TOD, and the other canonical murders were carried out under cover of darkness. Again, just a possibility.

One more thing, I believe Mr Marriot pointed out that sightings of Chapman after her removal from the lodging house are not in evidence. Not a sure fire pointer that she was murdered within a relatively short time after her removal, but a good point nevertheless.

[Observer]

Observer,
It's corroborated to the extent that it cannot be proven to be wrong.Really,you still want to argue that the door would have obstructed Richardson's view?

I don't believe he visited number 29 on the morning of the murder Harry. As Fisherman has pointed out it can't be proved that he was there. Two things make me think this, Doctor Philips estimated TOD, and the other four canonical murders took place under the cover of darkness.

[Observer]

lewis unreliable? hmmm ok. guess she just happened to get lucky not only saying she saw hutch where, when and what he was doing(admitted by him) but also the screams of murder around four am thats corroberated by another witness.

cmon, shes one of the most reliable witnesses we have.

and if she made up the bethnal green botherer it must have been another conspiracy because she (needlessly) included another witness in this story, whom the police could have checked out.

This has already been pointed out by two other posters, but here it is again. If Lewis saw Hutchinson, why then did Hutchinson not mention Lewis, and the young couple passing along the street in his statement?

Regarding the BGB, the police might have checked out the story with Lewis's supposed companion with regard to the BGB, that is, after they had stopped grinning at the absurdity of it. Cmon, Lewis seriously over egged the pudding with regard to the BGB. In reality, someone probably gave her a dirty look, as she was going about her business that day in Bethnal Green.

The only part of Lewis's testimony I'm safe with is she visited the Keylers on the night of Kelly's murder, and it's possible she heard a cry of "murder" during that night.

[Observer]

only an idiot or someone with a pre conceived theory would doubt sarah lewis saw hutch. and im serious about that.

Then I'm an idiot, who doesn't have a preconceived theory. However, I am most certainly not serious about that

[Fisherman]

Observer,
It's corroborated to the extent that it cannot be proven to be wrong.

Can it be proven to be right, then?

[Chava]

only an idiot or someone with a pre conceived theory would doubt sarah lewis saw hutch. and im serious about that.

Really?

Show me my preconceived theory. Or point to idiocy in my posts.

I like Mr Blotchy. I think he's a good candidate. But I'm open to other suggestions.

I'm simply pointing out that someone who comes forward after Sarah Lewis has given public evidence and says 'that was me!' is not necessarily to be believed without scrutiny. If they came forward independently and spoke to the police and their statements were not matters of public record then I would believe that Hutch could be that man. But that didn't happen. If you believe in Hutchinson that's fine. But you cannot with any credibility say for sure that he was the man seen by Sarah Lewis simply because he says he was. If a witness in a trial says 'I saw a man hanging around where the burglary took place and he may have seen the perp. He was wearing a checked cap.' And that evidence is made public and afterwards a man comes forward and says 'that was me! Here's my checked cap! The burglar was a hunchback with a black pea coat, a bowler hat and a huge moustache. PS. he wore a small horseshoe pin on his Windsor-knotted tie.' I like to think the cops would pay some attention to checking his statement. If only because the fact about the checked cap guy was public knowledge and available everywhere.

[Michael W Richards]

only an idiot or someone with a pre conceived theory would doubt sarah lewis saw hutch. and im serious about that.

Sarah Lewis definitely saw someone...in a Wideawake Hat. Hutch's story makes it hard to argue that he wouldnt be the man Sarah saw. Problem is....we dont know whether Hutch was there or not at all,...we only have Sarahs sighting to validate that possibility, we dont know for sure why he would have been there,..we know why he says he was there, and we dont know if he even knew Mary Kelly...but he claims he did.

This man Hutch is the Israel Schwartz of Dorset street,....his story would be essential evidence if true, and not one person validates anything that either witness said. They match right down to their absence in the respective Inquest records.

[Fisherman]

except you fish. you have Dew on your side. ; )

Phew! (Or Dew... ) That´s a relief and a half!

[Abby Normal]

I wish you wouldn´t be. Because that sentence of yours just turned me into an idiot with a preconceived theory.

except you fish. you have Dew on your side. ; )

[Curious Cat]

Why would Hutchinson assume there was a witness talking to police?
All he saw was a woman walk down Dorset st. and enter the passage behind Kelly.
You're assuming far too much, there was nothing unnatural about a non-descript man loafing around Dorset St. at any hour.
The first natural inclination for anyone in his position, if he believed he might be implicated, would be to turn and leave Whitechapel, not offer himself up to police.
He can't provide an alibi for that night so he would be a lamb to the slaughter.

This is about the difference between Richardson's motivation to say he was at a location by where a woman's body was found soon after and Hutchinson's motivation to say he was near the location of where a woman's body was found a few hours later. There are no witnesses to Richardson being at 29 Hanbury Street so he doesn't have to say he was there at all if he did anything wrong. Hutchinson is aware of a woman who could possibly identify him, but he doesn't know to what degree. The account of "Mrs Kennedy" in the papers over the weekend before the inquest could prick up his ears to her being the woman who could've seen him. He might want to make his own account of being there before someone else starts asking questions and wonders why he didn't come forward sooner.

Again...just a thought.

[Wickerman]

He wouldn't know. That's the point.

If Hutchinson assumed the witness was going to give a more detailed description of him - after reading what "Mrs Kennedy" said over the weekend - he would want to get in before the press reports of the inquest and give his own account. For him, "Mrs Kennedy" would be the only person who saw him. As it turned out, Sarah Lewis is the only one who saw him and gave a vague description. He needn't have come forward after all.

As I say, it's a thought.

Why would Hutchinson assume there was a witness talking to police?
All he saw was a woman walk down Dorset st. and enter the passage behind Kelly.
You're assuming far too much, there was nothing unnatural about a non-descript man loafing around Dorset St. at any hour.
The first natural inclination for anyone in his position, if he believed he might be implicated, would be to turn and leave Whitechapel, not offer himself up to police.
He can't provide an alibi for that night so he would be a lamb to the slaughter.

[Fisherman]

only an idiot or someone with a pre conceived theory would doubt sarah lewis saw hutch. and im serious about that.

I wish you wouldn´t be. Because that sentence of yours just turned me into an idiot with a preconceived theory.