If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Pierre points out, Richardson is great for that one crime, none of the others. It's a good point. Linking suspects to multiple scenes. Where was her suspect? Rounding the Cape or something.
I still can’t get used to saying ‘her.’ David Orsam used to call him ‘dear boy’ whilst picking holes in everything he said
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Just putting it out there and I in no way endorse this idea, but has Richardson ever been considered as a suspect?
Tristan
hi los. yup. but not by police as far as i know. of course the coronor caught him out in the whole knife thing.he was there at the time and could have been annies killer given the time frames, had a knife on him and a discrepency with his story.
however, the knife snafu was probably like its just something he didnt want to really get into and or though relevant until the coronor pressed him on it. also, not sure someone as crafty as the ripper would kill on his own doorstep.
i give him a one red flag rating as viable suspect.
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
True. I’d say that Richardson didn’t have to have mentioned the knife though. He could easily have said that he’d sat on the step to smoke his pipe. Or just for a breath of air. So his mentioning of the knife was voluntarily done.
Perhaps he was preempting questioning about the leather scraps found on the doorstep? I can't remember if any were, but that's one angle.
I know this is not going to be a popular suggestion! But having looked over and over again at the pic of the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street I think it's entirely possible that John Richardson may not have seen Annie Chapman's body while he was there.
I kind of like the argument "Richardson said he couldn´t have missed her, and he was there so he would know". It is an argument that looks away from the fact that we sometimes conclude matters without really having checked. Like Abby.
John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in. [Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door. [Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door. [Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most. [Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place. [Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - 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. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place. [Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard. [Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
“Passing through Spitalfields with John Richardson, a curious incident occurred. A rough, demented-looking fellow came from a group, grinning, and, with clenched fist, muttered some threat to John Richardson.
“In answer to the question ‘Who is he? What does he mean?’ Richardson then replied: ‘That is a man who they say is mad. A great many of the women and people round our house think that he is the most likely man that they know of to commit a murder. In fact, many of them say that he is the real Leather Apron.’ When asked to go back to inquire what the man meant, Richardson said, ‘You had better not, for he would be most likely to spring upon you and knock you down at once, without a word. I shall not stop to speak to him, for he is very dangerous; and a great many of the women think that he is the murderer.”
This took place a week after John Pizer’s exoneration.
John Richardson is about as reliable as a $10 Rolex.
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
“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. It is now beginning to be believed that the woman was brought to the backyard in Hanbury Street some time earlier.”
In a word, Joshua—"No."
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
Looking at the photograph and then imagining a man standing at ground level holding the door open with his left hand before he sat down it’s almost impossible to see how he could have missed her. If he’d have held the door open slightly more (which would have been quite natural ) it would have been completely impossible unless we suppose that Richardson descended the steps only looking to his right then sat looking to his right.
Richardson said he couldn’t have missed the body I can see no reason to doubt him.
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment