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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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 wouldnīt be. Because that sentence of yours just turned me into an idiot with a preconceived theory.

[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.

[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.

[Abby Normal]

I wish you wouldnīt 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. ; )

[Fisherman]

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

Phew! (Or Dew... ) Thatīs a relief and a half!

[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.

[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.

[Fisherman]

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

Can it be proven to be right, then?