Richardson's View

[Curious Cat]

What possible description is this that "he could be recognised" by, as opposed to the generic description in the press that would fit hundreds of men of all ages, all classes & all sizes?

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.

[Wickerman]

In any case, back to Richardson. One of the issues that always bothered me about his testimony was the time. The killer was certainly a risk-taker. But would he have taken that much of a risk? People were getting up and going to the privy from probably 4.30 onwards. That's when the market guys would have got started. And if a porter had woken up and gone to the outhouse when Our Guy was doing his work, what would happen then? The killer would be caught in a trap. Even if he managed to jump the fence it would only get him into someone else's back yard. He works in the small hours. Chapman is an anachronism. So, yes. I'm questioning Richardson's evidence.

The degree of risk only adds to the adrenaline.
Adrenaline for a serial killer is a drug.

[Wickerman]

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.

What possible description is this that "he could be recognised" by, as opposed to the generic description in the press that would fit hundreds of men of all ages, all classes & all sizes?

[Curious Cat]

Why would he have been identified at the inquest? Nobody knew who he was. That's my point, he had no need to come forward. Like I said, considering the extraordinary tale he told to the police, in my opinion it was a foolhardy risk he took.



But I'm suggesting he never paid a visit to 29 Hanbury Street that morning.

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.


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.

[Abby Normal]

I was joking. Somewhat.
But I will say that asserting that Hutchinson and Lewis corroborate each other is a misleading statement. And I'm serious about that.

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

[harry]

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?

[Chava]

In any case, back to Richardson. One of the issues that always bothered me about his testimony was the time. The killer was certainly a risk-taker. But would he have taken that much of a risk? People were getting up and going to the privy from probably 4.30 onwards. That's when the market guys would have got started. And if a porter had woken up and gone to the outhouse when Our Guy was doing his work, what would happen then? The killer would be caught in a trap. Even if he managed to jump the fence it would only get him into someone else's back yard. He works in the small hours. Chapman is an anachronism. So, yes. I'm questioning Richardson's evidence.

[Chava]

theres nothing fake about what i posted and i dont appreciate you saying i post fake news. apologize and retract that statement. im serious.

I was joking. Somewhat.
But I will say that asserting that Hutchinson and Lewis corroborate each other is a misleading statement. And I'm serious about that.

[Fisherman]

Hutchinson was interviewed by Abberline so Lewis may have been mentioned at that time. No record has survived of that interview, so we cannot say for sure.
However, the police statement that has survived is only concerned with what Hutchinson saw & heard concerning the victim, Kelly.
Badham, who took the statement is not concerned with any women passing in the street, especially poor women who were of no consequence to the police inquiry. Badham was also concerned with any men that Hutchinson might have seen in Dorset St., naturally, because the killer was obviously a man, not a woman.
Hutchinson had no need to mention any women passing, he also makes no mention of Mrs Cox who came home about 3 O'clock. Hutchinson is a witness, he is not required to prove himself, or defend himself to Badham.
A thorough examination of his story will be done by Abberline in due course.

Nope. Didnīt buy it last time over, donīt buy it now. Hutchinson should, would and could have mentioned Lewis passing into Millers Court if he was there. Ergo, he was. not.

[Wickerman]

No they don't. Lewis's lurking man is not necessarily Hutchinson. If Hutchinson knew about Lewis's evidence he could have come forward to say he was that man. And if he was, why didn't he mention the woman who went right past him up Miller's Court? There is no mention of Lewis in Hutchinson's statement. And Lewis comes forward before Hutchinson does. So she does not corroborate him.

Hutchinson was interviewed by Abberline so Lewis may have been mentioned at that time. No record has survived of that interview, so we cannot say for sure.
However, the police statement that has survived is only concerned with what Hutchinson saw & heard concerning the victim, Kelly.
Badham, who took the statement is not concerned with any women passing in the street, especially poor women who were of no consequence to the police inquiry. Badham was also concerned with any men that Hutchinson might have seen in Dorset St., naturally, because the killer was obviously a man, not a woman.
Hutchinson had no need to mention any women passing, he also makes no mention of Mrs Cox who came home about 3 O'clock. Hutchinson is a witness, he is not required to prove himself, or defend himself to Badham.
A thorough examination of his story will be done by Abberline in due course.

[Fisherman]

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.

One week ago, Albert Cadosch was "one of the most reliable witnesses we have"...

And yes, her both seeing a man who could have been the killer and overhearing the "Oh, murder" outcry is a bit thick. Of course, Prater also overheard that outcry. And so did heaps of ladies in Millers Court. On various times. Reliable witnesses all of them, Iīm sure.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Observer]

.Richardson's account can be tested and found to be truthfull.

Really Harry? Was it corroborated?

[Observer]

if she wanted to be fanciful or wanted fifteen minutes of fame she could have come up with something much more...like saying she saw the bgb with kelly or it was him lurking outside her house.

She claimed she saw him at the corner of Commercial Street, and Dorset Street, about 30 yards from Kelly's room. It's clear to me that she was insinuating that he might well have been responsible for Kelly's murder.

But lets take a look at the behavior of the BGB. At the height of the terror, he walks about Bethnal Green, top hat, and black bag in evidence, inviting women to go with him down some dingy back lane. Really? Did he have a death wish? I believe the BGB was nothing more than a figment of Lewis's imagination

[Observer]

It's been a thought of mine recently that Hutchinson may have read the account of Mrs Kennedy in the paper over the weekend and saw the time of 3am given. Anticipating being identified at the inquest, he comes forward after the inquest has closed and gives his own account. He gives 3am as his leaving time...the same time given by Mrs Kennedy...but also claims to have waited in Dorset Street for 45 minutes before leaving. Sarah Lewis's inquest evidence is then published after Hutchinson made his statement and it only matches in regard to Hutchinson's position in Dorset Street and the time he was there. Everything else is separate information. Sarah Lewis doesn't identify Hutchinson as the man she saw. Hutchinson identifies himself as the man Sarah Lewis saw. Hutchinson is aware there is a least one other person around at the relevant time who could potentially identify him.

Why would he have been identified at the inquest? Nobody knew who he was. That's my point, he had no need to come forward. Like I said, considering the extraordinary tale he told to the police, in my opinion it was a foolhardy risk he took.

There are no witnesses to John Richardson being at/near the spot where Annie Chapman was found whereas there would be witnesses to his arrival at work at the market, which he went to immediately after leaving 29 Hanbury Street. He also gives his evidence before a time of death is given.

But I'm suggesting he never paid a visit to 29 Hanbury Street that morning.