John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Ms Diddles,

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper 16 Sep:
Our representative on Friday again visited 29, Hanbury-street, and saw Mrs. Richardson, who is naturally greatly shocked that such a terrible crime should have been committed there.

As her rooms are used for prayer meetings once a week, both she and the landlord are very angry at anything like a slur on the respectability of the house.

It seems to be certain that the murdered woman was known there.

Mrs. Richardson said:- "When I saw the murdered body I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face, but I have no doubt it is the dark woman that used to come round with cotton and crochet work, and I have bought off her many times when she has said that she has been hard up.

She used to come round to these houses, and other neighbours used to buy off her too, and lend her money when she said she had not enough for her lodgings.

She then expressed her great indignation that her son, John, should have told the coroner that people came into the house, for improper purposes."

Cheers, George

Hi George

You have confirmed a point I made in a previous post where I stated Chapman knew this location as she he had been there selling items previously so she would probably have known that 17 people were residents at that address. So it would also be fair to say that Chapman took the killer to this secluded location long before the later TOD. I doubt she would have taken anyone to that location at the later time of the morning for fear of being caught.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you may be overestimating your impact.

I’m not claiming an impact. I’m pointing out hypocrisy.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms Diddles,

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper 16 Sep:
Our representative on Friday again visited 29, Hanbury-street, and saw Mrs. Richardson, who is naturally greatly shocked that such a terrible crime should have been committed there.

As her rooms are used for prayer meetings once a week, both she and the landlord are very angry at anything like a slur on the respectability of the house.

It seems to be certain that the murdered woman was known there.

Mrs. Richardson said:- "When I saw the murdered body I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face, but I have no doubt it is the dark woman that used to come round with cotton and crochet work, and I have bought off her many times when she has said that she has been hard up.

She used to come round to these houses, and other neighbours used to buy off her too, and lend her money when she said she had not enough for her lodgings.

She then expressed her great indignation that her son, John, should have told the coroner that people came into the house, for improper purposes."

Cheers, George

Thanks George!

I knew I'd seen it somewhere, but could not recall where.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If I’d have posted a personal insult like that comments would have been made. Tears of outrage would have been spilled. But someone else said it. So it’s fine.

I think you may be overestimating your impact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Had Stride or Eddowes met a more normal customer I doubt we would have ever heard of them at all and all sightings if them would be lost to us now.

Allow me to rephrase the point I made:

we do not know that we would not have had more sightings of Stride and Eddowes that night had they met a murderer as late as about 5.30 a.m., as Chapman is supposed to have done.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you considered a therapist?

If I’d have posted a personal insult like that comments would have been made. Tears of outrage would have been spilled. But someone else said it. So it’s fine.

You should try assessing evidence and not simply looking for any desperate excuse for discrediting witnesses.

Did Richardson mention the boot cutting to Chandler that morning? - Not according to Chandler.

So if he hadn’t mentioned it could Chandler have acquired knowledge about the boot cutting from another source? - No.

So, at no point that morning did Chandler or any other police officer know about and boot cutting? - Correct.

Hope you’re following this complex analysis?

So if Chandler did happen to notice a small piece of discarded leather would he have thought it remotely significant in any way? - No.

Conclusion

The absence of a small piece of leather is a complete non-point.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I located that quote.
Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper Sep 16:
Mrs. Richardson was brought in again from the corridor, to which she had retired; and in reply to questions from the coroner, said:-

I never have lost anything from my house, and I leave my door open. I, once missed a saw and a hammer from the cellar, but that was a long time ago. I used to lock the cellar, but they broke the padlock. That was done in the early morning. My son looks round on market mornings."

The Coroner:- "Had you any suspicion that the yard or any part of the house was at any time used for immoral purposes?"

Witness:- "No, sir."

The Coroner:- "Did you say anything about a leather apron?"

Witness:- "Yes; my son wears one when he works in the cellar."

The Coroner:- "It is rather a dangerous thing to wear, is it not?"

Witness:- "Yes. On Thursday, Sept. 6, I found my son's leather apron in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. I took it and put it under the tap in the yard, and left it there. It was found there on Saturday morning by the police, who took charge of it. The apron had remained there from Thursday to Saturday."

The Coroner:- "Was this tap used?"

Witness:- "Yes, by all of us in the house. The apron was on the stones. The police took away an empty box, used for nails, and the steel out of a boy's gaiter. There was a pan of clean water near to the tap when I went in the yard at six o'clock on Saturday. It was there on Friday night at eight o'clock, and it looked as if it had not been disturbed."

The Coroner:- "Did you ever know of strange women being found on the first-floor landing?"

Witness:- "No."

The Coroner:- "Your son had never spoken to you about it?"

Witness:- "No."

Cheers, George

Thanks George. Ok, so that's a transcript version as well. It is getting to be like the knife, the specific details are all over the show. Hopefully we can locate more and one of them emerges, but experience tells me that is unlikely.

Now I am not even sure what the metal was that was found.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff and thanks for your reply.

You make an interesting point about sightings possibly becoming less likely after about 1.45 a.m.

We do, however, have a sighting of Nichols at 2.30 a.m. in Osborn Street and we do not know that we would not have had more sightings of Stride and Eddowes that night had they met a more normal customer than the one they did meet.

Hi PI,

Yes, Nichols was spotted at 2:30, but that isn't that long after Annie went out in the first place (40 to 45 minutes) and I would think the streets are getting quieter after that.

Had Stride or Eddowes met a more normal customer I doubt we would have ever heard of them at all and all sightings if them would be lost to us now.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Thanks George. I think the perambulator is an error in the press, but wow, what a leap! ha ha I think that's an error as it's the only time I'm aware of that it isn't referred to as a legging spring (which was worn somehow, but I'm not sure if it is to hold the trouser leg in or what exactly).

As you know, I think Richardson's legging spring is an important bit of physical evidence that backs up his boot repair as removing his boot would, presumably, require removing it or could cause it to come off. And given it was found where he said he did the boot repair, it becomes an independent link to that story (and not one he mentioned - he may not have realised that is where he lost it - but one that the police found), and I've been familiar with the above report of it. However, it would be good to compare various sources and see what the majority record it as (being careful not to count two versions that are clearly just one paper copying the same story verbatim from another - that's one record presented twice, not two independent coverages, if that makes sense).

I wonder if there's an official police report that mentions it anywhere, as I would trust that more than the press coverage. I tend to prefer the press coverage that is transcript format more than reporter summaries of the inquest as summaries mean there's filtering through the reporters understanding, placing us one step further from the words of the witness. Transcript format is closer to the actual statements, and will only suffer from transcription errors, with the occasional deletion for space. The more we can combine, the better idea we get of what it is we're working with.

If it turns out it is only referred to as Richardson's in this one report, and all others indicate it was a child's, then I would have to reduce my emphasis on it in my thinking. At the same time, one doesn't want to overlook something that could be very important. Often, a key bit of information can be something as apparently trivial as this.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I located that quote.
Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper Sep 16:
Mrs. Richardson was brought in again from the corridor, to which she had retired; and in reply to questions from the coroner, said:-

I never have lost anything from my house, and I leave my door open. I, once missed a saw and a hammer from the cellar, but that was a long time ago. I used to lock the cellar, but they broke the padlock. That was done in the early morning. My son looks round on market mornings."

The Coroner:- "Had you any suspicion that the yard or any part of the house was at any time used for immoral purposes?"

Witness:- "No, sir."

The Coroner:- "Did you say anything about a leather apron?"

Witness:- "Yes; my son wears one when he works in the cellar."

The Coroner:- "It is rather a dangerous thing to wear, is it not?"

Witness:- "Yes. On Thursday, Sept. 6, I found my son's leather apron in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. I took it and put it under the tap in the yard, and left it there. It was found there on Saturday morning by the police, who took charge of it. The apron had remained there from Thursday to Saturday."

The Coroner:- "Was this tap used?"

Witness:- "Yes, by all of us in the house. The apron was on the stones. The police took away an empty box, used for nails, and the steel out of a boy's gaiter. There was a pan of clean water near to the tap when I went in the yard at six o'clock on Saturday. It was there on Friday night at eight o'clock, and it looked as if it had not been disturbed."

The Coroner:- "Did you ever know of strange women being found on the first-floor landing?"

Witness:- "No."

The Coroner:- "Your son had never spoken to you about it?"

Witness:- "No."

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

You would test the patience of a saint.

Hmmm, Saint Herlock.....it has a nice ring to it.

[GBinOz]

Hi N.W!

I'm working from memory here, but didn't someone (Amelia Richardson?) state that they recognised Annie's body as being that of "the dark lady who sold trinkets door to door"?

Apologies if I've misremembered this!

Hi Ms Diddles,

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper 16 Sep:
Our representative on Friday again visited 29, Hanbury-street, and saw Mrs. Richardson, who is naturally greatly shocked that such a terrible crime should have been committed there.

As her rooms are used for prayer meetings once a week, both she and the landlord are very angry at anything like a slur on the respectability of the house.

It seems to be certain that the murdered woman was known there.

Mrs. Richardson said:- "When I saw the murdered body I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face, but I have no doubt it is the dark woman that used to come round with cotton and crochet work, and I have bought off her many times when she has said that she has been hard up.

She used to come round to these houses, and other neighbours used to buy off her too, and lend her money when she said she had not enough for her lodgings.

She then expressed her great indignation that her son, John, should have told the coroner that people came into the house, for improper purposes."

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

I sometimes despair when someone posts such unmitigated drivel is this.

Have you considered a therapist?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Convenient. John disposes of his leather in a place where nobody could see it. And of course, when they searched the yard: nobody thought to look 'in the grass'.



'Probably a very tiny piece'? Is this from the same school of thought: 'sharp enough to cut some of his boot but not sharp enough to cut other parts of his boot'?



Because they searched the yard, or examined it, depending on whether or nor we're talking of Chandler or Dr Phillips, and they were looking for any possible evidence; such as an empty box they took away.

I sometimes despair when someone posts such unmitigated drivel is this. It’s mind-blowing that you could consider these valid points. you’ve already shown that you can’t read evidence well by your claim that the piece of leather was 5 inches long when they were very obviously talking about the knife.

How big could a piece of leather be from inside a boot. Do you really think that an amateur would hack out a large chunk of his boot with the risk of ruining it? And this….

'sharp enough to cut some of his boot but not sharp enough to cut other parts of his boot'?

No one has said that. But what those who support an earlier ToD suggest is that Richardson basically said at the inquest ‘I cut a piece of leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut a piece of leather from my boot because the knife wasn’t sharp enough.’ That’s what your side of the argument claim! And that neither the coroner nor the jury noticed this or mentioned it. Whereas on the sensible side we say that Richardson clearly couldn’t have said anything of the kind. What he clearly meant was that he cut a piece of leather but, due to the knife, he couldn’t do a sufficiently good job. So he used a sharper one at the market.

Of course the down side of this, from your point of view is that it makes sense.

Finally….

We know that Chandler said that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair so even if they had found a piece of leather what possible significance would it have held. I’ll tell you how much…absolutely none. Even if someone had picked it up they’d have said - just a piece of leather - and chucked it.

The piece of leather is yet another piece of obvious desperation. You’re clutching at any straw whilst avoiding the obvious.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That they won't take responsibility for anything they do that goes wrong.

I think the meaning is more: 'I'm targeting 'the Jews' because they deserve to be targeted'. In parts of the country more isolated from language change, I'm thinking of the North East here, you will still hear: "you're not getting wrong for nothing". Which means: you're being blamed for something you have done/you deserve it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'd say the TOD issue affects Richardson more than any other suspect. If the TOD was early, he's one of the strongest suspects. If it was late, he's a much weaker suspect. A question for anyone: does anyone know when Richardson is first known to have been seen after 4:50 that day?

Druitt is a slightly stronger suspect with the early TOD, because it gives him a little more time to clean up, resat up, and get to his 11:00 cricket match.

With Gull and Sickert, I don't think it matters much. Both are extremely weak suspects regardless of Chapman's TOD.

If I may be permitted to put in a word for Gull, Druitt, and Sickert: if the graffito was indeed written by the murderer, then one of them could hardly have been the murderer, since they would not have made such an elementary spelling mistake as is contained therein.

Talking of sightings: is it believable that any of these three men could have walked the streets of Spitalfields in the early hours of the morning, without attracting attention?