Richardson's View

[Abby Normal]

Is anyone else experiencing problems accessing the witness statements on casebook? I can get to some but others are coming up as a 404 error. John Richardson is one of them so I only have the Sourcebook version which doesn’t go into the points about the knife as much as the other as far as I can recall?

yup. do a search instead-worked for me

[Herlock Sholmes]

The main issue about the knife appears to be when Richardson says that he used it to cut some leather from his boot but then, when he produces the knife and it’s not very sharp, he said that he’d had to get a sharper one at the market. Or words to that effect. I agree 100% that it appears to make no sense.

It so obviously makes no sense that I can’t help asking myself why no one pulled him up on this issue at the time? For eg: “Hold on, you said you’d used your knife to fix you shoe so why did you need another one at the market?”

Its an unmissable point.....no one mentions it.....so couldn’t the explanation be a simpler one. Some kind of reporting/transcription error? Maybe he’d said something like: “I cut some leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut enough off so I needed a sharper knife.” Isn’t it possible that at some point a few words or a sentence was omitted from the transcript which would have provided the explanation? Isn’t that more likely than everyone completely missing this anomaly?

So this would leave us with Richardson feeding his rabbit in his yard before he left for work. Then either, a) he puts the knife in his pocket intending to put it back in a drawer in the house but forgets to do so. Or b) he puts it into his pocket as he usually does but he doesn’t tell the police that he’s in the habit of carrying a knife.
As he walks to work his boot begins to hurt so realising that he has a knife on him he decides to try and fix his boot at number 29 rather than wait until he gets to the market.
He sits on the step and cuts some leather from his boot thinking that he’s done enough but as he continues his walk to work he finds that his boot is still hurting him so he borrows a sharper knife from a mate at the market.
When he relates this at the Inquest an error in transcription makes a very simple episode seem to make no sense.

What I think might also be worth mentioning is that Richardson wasn’t compelled to mention the knife to justify him sitting on the step. He could very easily have said “I sat on the step for a smoke of my pipe for 2 or 3 minutes.” But he mentions having a knife at a knife-related crime scene of his own volition. I’d say this adds to his believability. He mentioned using the knife on his boot because that’s exactly what he did.
I see zero reason to doubt Richardson when he said that he could not have missed the body had it been there.

[Abby Normal]

The other side of that coin is; if the knife had been able to cut the leather, what happened to the piece of leather removed?
Does Richardson mention borrowing a sharper knife at the market, because he knows that no bit of leather can be found, at #29?



Because as explained in #324, JR doesn't need to mention the boot cutting exercise at all (the cellar check alone, would be adequate).
So why does he?

And why the discrepancy between this...

Have you ever seen strangers there? -Lots plenty of them.

At all hours? -Yes ; both men and women.

Have you asked what they were doing there? -Yes ; and I have turned them out.

The Coroner. -Do I understand you mean that they go there for an immoral purpose?

Witness. -Yes, sir ; I have caught them in the act.

And this...

Mrs. Richardson, recalled, stated in answer to the coroner, that she had seldom had anything stolen from the premises, notwithstanding the doors being left open or unlocked. She did miss ham once. She never had any suspicion that the yard was used at any time for immoral purposes.

Perhaps Richardson wasn't seen with the knife, but actually seen out the front, with the victim .... by Elizabeth Long.

hmm interesting. but would the ripper actually kill on his own doorstep? I think not.

while I agree richardson (and the other witness suspects like hutch, lech and bowyer) have red flags and are some of the least weak suspects , I think with richardson, he just was reluctant to admit he was at the scene of the crime with a sharp knife and got twisted up when pressed by the coroner.

In all likelihood he was there, chapman wasnt yet, and cadosch and long heard and saw chapman with the ripper.

so you think richardson was the ripper?

[Abby Normal]

The main issue about the knife appears to be when Richardson says that he used it to cut some leather from his boot but then, when he produces the knife and it’s not very sharp, he said that he’d had to get a sharper one at the market. Or words to that effect. I agree 100% that it appears to make no sense.

It so obviously makes no sense that I can’t help asking myself why no one pulled him up on this issue at the time? For eg: “Hold on, you said you’d used your knife to fix you shoe so why did you need another one at the market?”

Its an unmissable point.....no one mentions it.....so couldn’t the explanation be a simpler one. Some kind of reporting/transcription error? Maybe he’d said something like: “I cut some leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut enough off so I needed a sharper knife.” Isn’t it possible that at some point a few words or a sentence was omitted from the transcript which would have provided the explanation? Isn’t that more likely than everyone completely missing this anomaly?

So this would leave us with Richardson feeding his rabbit in his yard before he left for work. Then either, a) he puts the knife in his pocket intending to put it back in a drawer in the house but forgets to do so. Or b) he puts it into his pocket as he usually does but he doesn’t tell the police that he’s in the habit of carrying a knife.
As he walks to work his boot begins to hurt so realising that he has a knife on him he decides to try and fix his boot at number 29 rather than wait until he gets to the market.
He sits on the step and cuts some leather from his boot thinking that he’s done enough but as he continues his walk to work he finds that his boot is still hurting him so he borrows a sharper knife from a mate at the market.
When he relates this at the Inquest an error in transcription makes a very simple episode seem to make no sense.

What I think might also be worth mentioning is that Richardson wasn’t compelled to mention the knife to justify him sitting on the step. He could very easily have said “I sat on the step for a smoke of my pipe for 2 or 3 minutes.” But he mentions having a knife at a knife-related crime scene of his own volition. I’d say this adds to his believability. He mentioned using the knife on his boot because that’s exactly what he did.
I see zero reason to doubt Richardson when he said that he could not have missed the body had it been there.

hi herlock

Its an unmissable point.....no one mentions it.....so couldn’t the explanation be a simpler one. Some kind of reporting/transcription error? Maybe he’d said something like: “I cut some leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut enough off so I needed a sharper knife.” Isn’t it possible that at some point a few words or a sentence was omitted from the transcript which would have provided the explanation? Isn’t that more likely than everyone completely missing this anomaly?

i guess its possible, but he said this-"after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market."

its only after the coroner makes him get the blunt knife he said he used, examined it and said it couldnt cut leather does richardson then admit he used the sharper one at the market.

to me it seems like he just dosnt want to admit he had the sharp knife on him the whole time. but again yes-it seems weird they would drop the whole thing even after they discovered the discrepency.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Unfortunately, there was no back wall, at least not one that could be clambered over. The yard of number 29 backed directly onto the wall of a factory.
There was an alley behind some of the other houses, but it ended at no.27, so he would have had to climb into Cadosche's yard to access it. Or perhaps clambered over the fence the other side and escaped thrrough that house. The police did check for any signs that the fences had been scaled though, and found none.

Hi Joshua, Thanks for this clarification.
I confess that I didn't know that the yard at 29 backed directly onto a factory wall.
I remember seeing an old photograph of the virtually demolished privy in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street and I didn't see that it backed on to a wall.

It is always a positive thing when perceptions are challenged, so, thanks again.

[Kattrup]

There’s nothing odd about a man keeping a rabbit. I don’t know if he had kids for example?

Keeping a rabbit?...

Yes. Rabbits are kept as pets. Why do you think this strange?

Rabbits were not kept exclusively as pets, they were also kept for their meat. Richardson may have kept a rabbit for that purpose.

[etenguy]

hi herlock



i guess its possible, but he said this-"after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market."

its only after the coroner makes him get the blunt knife he said he used, examined it and said it couldnt cut leather does richardson then admit he used the sharper one at the market.

to me it seems like he just dosnt want to admit he had the sharp knife on him the whole time. but again yes-it seems weird they would drop the whole thing even after they discovered the discrepency.

Hi Abby and Herlock

I agree with you Abby, he contradicts himself at the inquest and then brings a knife that he apparently didn't use instead of bringing the one he did use, which is what was asked for. It could be he was worried about bringing a sharp knife to the inquest or some other reason - but the fact that he appears to have lied at the inquest from discrepancies in his own statements means his credibility is in question.

I would add, his keeping a rabbit and feeding it before he goes to work does not cast any shade on his character.

[Herlock Sholmes]

yup. do a search instead-worked for me

This is going to sound like a stupid question Abby but what did you type in?

[Joshua Rogan]

Rabbits were not kept exclusively as pets, they were also kept for their meat. Richardson may have kept a rabbit for that purpose.

Yes. It's unlikely he would personalise it as "my" rabbit if he was only fattening it up for Sumday lunch.

[etenguy]

Yep. My point exactly. It's certainly possible the voice he heard was Chapman. But it comes from 'the yard' of 29. Maybe. She would have been right by him at that moment. I can't believe he wouldn't have mentioned that. His evidence suggests he heard a voice from in the yard, not right beside the fence he is also right beside...

Indeed. I'm surprised he wasn't pressed more about what he heard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Abby and Herlock

I agree with you Abby, he contradicts himself at the inquest and then brings a knife that he apparently didn't use instead of bringing the one he did use, which is what was asked for. It could be he was worried about bringing a sharp knife to the inquest or some other reason - but the fact that he appears to have lied at the inquest from discrepancies in his own statements means his credibility is in question.

I would add, his keeping a rabbit and feeding it before he goes to work does not cast any shade on his character.

Hi Eten and Abby,

I think that this is one of many that we will never get an explanation that satisfies all. As I said earlier - why did no one point this obvious discrepancy out unless it was, in some way, explained at the time? I don’t know? I looked at the report in The Telegraph and thought how much adding two words might make to a report?

John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had (tried to) cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market

or The Times

. He stood on the steps and tried to cut a piece of leather off one of his boots.

Whatever the true answer is I don’t think it calls into question his testimony about the body not being there.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten and Abby,

I think that this is one of many that we will never get an explanation that satisfies all. As I said earlier - why did no one point this obvious discrepancy out unless it was, in some way, explained at the time? I don’t know? I looked at the report in The Telegraph and thought how much adding two words might make to a report?

or The Times

Whatever the true answer is I don’t think it calls into question his testimony about the body not being there.

It is unlikely the transcript and newspapers all missed out the 'tried to' because the inquest asked to see the knife and when he returned it seemed to be the first the inquest heard he had actually used another knife. I fall short of calling him a liar - but he was at best confusing or else deliberately opaque for whatever reason. When a witness behaves like that, it makes it difficult to believe other parts of their statement. That does not of course mean he lied about not seeing the body, but it is more difficult to rely on what he says in the circumstances.

I don't know why all three witnesses were not asked more about their information, to clear up discrepancies and to better understand what they saw or heard. It seems a poorly executed inquest in that respect.

[Michael W Richards]

Why do many press articles describe the voice heard from the other side of the fence as a womans? The Times, Sept 15th, The Irish Times, Sept 15th, St James Gazette Sept 15th, ..all perpetuating a myth, or did Cadosche give interviews outside of the Inquest that suggested he heard a woman?

sidebar- When I was looking at some of reports I came across a story I dont recall seeing before.."Munster News and Limerick and Clare Advocate, Sept 26.......about nine o'clock on Sunday morning the body of a woman named Jane Savage, aged 26, was found on a railway siding near Butley, five miles south of Newcastle. She had evidently been dead some hours. Her throat was cut from side to side and there was a horrible gash in the abdomen. The woman lived with her stepfather and her mother, and when last seen was leaving a publichouse where she had been drinking. There were no signs of a struggle."

I think that speaks to some other threads who claim that the throat slitting/abdomen cutting murders of women during this period, on a Saturday night no less, were all "Jacks" work. Jack must have taken a road trip I guess. Ill just say that before others do...and take the blame for a silly, baseless claim. The rest who were assigning all such victims to one man can take the rest of any blame due when they post similar sentiments.

[The Baron]

When a witness behaves like that, it makes it difficult to believe other parts of their statement. That does not of course mean he lied about not seeing the body, but it is more difficult to rely on what he says in the circumstances.

Debs' discovery that Richardson might've been discharged from the army with Epilepsy may explain all his confusions.

If he was discharged from the army, it is safe to discharge him as a reliable witness too.



The Baron

[Joshua Rogan]

sidebar- When I was looking at some of reports I came across a story I dont recall seeing before.."Munster News and Limerick and Clare Advocate, Sept 26.......about nine o'clock on Sunday morning the body of a woman named Jane Savage, aged 26, was found on a railway siding near Butley, five miles south of Newcastle. She had evidently been dead some hours. Her throat was cut from side to side and there was a horrible gash in the abdomen. The woman lived with her stepfather and her mother, and when last seen was leaving a publichouse where she had been drinking. There were no signs of a struggle."

I think that speaks to some other threads who claim that the throat slitting/abdomen cutting murders of women during this period, on a Saturday night no less, were all "Jacks" work. Jack must have taken a road trip I guess. Ill just say that before others do...and take the blame for a silly, baseless claim. The rest who were assigning all such victims to one man can take the rest of any blame due when they post similar sentiments.

Er, Dr Phillips headed straight up there to view the body. So yes, it was thought a possibility that Jack had taken a road trip.