John Richardson

[Scott Nelson]

The Jews Free School, Bell Lane, was yards from the site of the GSG.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Assuming the griffiti was recorded correctly by PC Long, arguably, it reads like a condemnation of Jews - Jewish men. That they won't take responsibility for anything they do that goes wrong.
The writing was described as in a good schoolboy round hand, and there was a school round the corner behind Goulston Street.
Now, as I look at the map (1890), the school was The Old Castle Street Board School, description has it as one of the four principal schools in the East End, "for the instruction of scripture and Hebrew".

https://www.mernick.org.uk/thhol/easlon02.html

All I remember was the school was in Tel Aviv, I assumed the girl was Jewish, on reflection only because the school was Jewish. I don't recall if the letter had the girls name, probably it was edited out. It could be argued the girl was foreign but attending a Jewish school.
I realize even if I had the letter today it might raise more questions; perhaps she was English or American but spelled the word the same way her Jewish friends spelled it?

If you think Pc Long was right and that there was no mis-spelling, what is the relevance of the alleged or possible mis-spelling of the word by a certain Jew or Jews?

You do not, presumably, think that Daniel Halse, who recorded the mis-spelling, was Jewish?

[Wickerman]

Well, I suppose that could render my point about the New Testament irrelevant, since you were referring to a Jewish school, except that it still suggests that the writer was uneducated or a foreigner.

As for the schoolgirl, I wonder in what context she used the word and how you know that she actually was Jewish.

I do not know what you mean when you write that you think that the word was spelled correctly.

And I do not understand why in your previous post you suggested that it was a critical remark about Jewish people, but now you seem to be suggesting it was written by a Jewish person.

Assuming the griffiti was recorded correctly by PC Long, arguably, it reads like a condemnation of Jews - Jewish men. That they won't take responsibility for anything they do that goes wrong.
The writing was described as in a good schoolboy round hand, and there was a school round the corner behind Goulston Street.
Now, as I look at the map (1890), the school was The Old Castle Street Board School, description has it as one of the four principal schools in the East End, "for the instruction of scripture and Hebrew".

https://www.mernick.org.uk/thhol/easlon02.html

All I remember was the school was in Tel Aviv, I assumed the girl was Jewish, on reflection only because the school was Jewish. I don't recall if the letter had the girls name, probably it was edited out. It could be argued the girl was foreign but attending a Jewish school.
I realize even if I had the letter today it might raise more questions; perhaps she was English or American but spelled the word the same way her Jewish friends spelled it?

[Fleetwood Mac]

But the leather was from inside the boot and so probably a very tiny piece. Richardson might have chucked it into the grass.

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'?

Why would a small piece of leather have stood out? Why would a small piece of leather been of interest to the police if Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair to Chandler?

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for the welcome diversion, RD.

I am happy to clarify the matter.

The graffito was written either by an uneducated British Gentile or a foreign Gentile, in an attempt to incite already prejudiced local opinion against the Jewish population, and that is why it was written in such close proximity to the bloody apron.

This explanation was the one preferred by the police at the time, but every time I mention it, there are the usual objections accompanied by farfetched alternatives, expressed as though my explanation were the farfetched one.

Opinion stated as fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair point, on reflection I reckon John was talking about the length of his knife.

Still, two searches of the yard, one an examination; and John's leather isn't noticed.

But the leather was from inside the boot and so probably a very tiny piece. Richardson might have chucked it into the grass. Why would a small piece of leather have stood out? Why would a small piece of leather been of interest to the police if Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair to Chandler?

[Lewis C]

Thanks Fiver,

Apart from Lechmere, what other suspects does it affect (the timing)? I know it affects the supposed witness sighting her at - what 5.20 or 5.30 - with someone foreign looking. Who do you think that was?

By the way, are you aware fivers are being phased out? I mean besides the move to move to digital only. Random comment!

best

Paul

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is farfetched.

Even Anderson did not believe that.

And since when have you valued Anderson’s thoughts.

Its not far-fetched. One say you’ll say something sensible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unfortunately, you are the one once again getting things wrong.

The examples you gave above are irrelevant and do not even use the perfect tense.


You wrote:

I have never mentioned anything ...


I proved that you had.

PI, pleeeeeeeese do me a favour.

Stop talking.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, while some of you have been discussing whether the killer could have been a Jew who couldn't spell, a Jew who could spell; but deliberately spelled incorrectly, a Jew who could spell but inadvertently spelled incorrectly, a non-Jew who couldn't spell, a non-Jew who could spell but deliberately spelled a word incorrectly, or a Jew who didn't realize they were ethnically Jewish and wrote the graffiti ironically and in earnest no doubt.

Thanks for the welcome diversion, RD.

I am happy to clarify the matter.

The graffito was written either by an uneducated British Gentile or a foreign Gentile, in an attempt to incite already prejudiced local opinion against the Jewish population, and that is why it was written in such close proximity to the bloody apron.

This explanation was the one preferred by the police at the time, but every time I mention it, there are the usual objections accompanied by farfetched alternatives, expressed as though my explanation were the farfetched one.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Where does it say that the leather was 5 inches long?

Fair point, on reflection I reckon John was talking about the length of his knife.

Still, two searches of the yard, one an examination; and John's leather isn't noticed.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

[The Rookie Detective]

What a fascinating thread.

Lots of heated debate.

It has essentially killed all other threads... which is remarkable considering the wealth of topics and members on the site overall.

Well, while some of you have been discussing whether the killer could have been a Jew who couldn't spell, a Jew who could spell; but deliberately spelled incorrectly, a Jew who could spell but inadvertently spelled incorrectly, a non-Jew who couldn't spell, a non-Jew who could spell but deliberately spelled a word incorrectly, or a Jew who didn't realize they were ethnically Jewish and wrote the graffiti ironically and in earnest no doubt.

And the length of leather on a boot/cut from a boot/left on the ground...is also fascinating in the sense that I feel compelled to reach for my tape measure.

But I digress...

I have been putting together a few other ideas that I believe may be of interest...and worthy of a more relevant, fresh and contextual debate on the Ripper case.

I will start a new thread shortly; so that anyone who is losing the will; can at least find enlightenment from another source and topic of conversation.

In the meantime, keep up the good work on Richardson...it's bound to bear fruit after a few thousand more posts.


RD

[Wickerman]

It’s amazing that the suggestion appears to be being made that either a Jewish person couldn’t misspell the word ‘Jews’ in English or if that had misspelt it they wouldn’t have misspelt it a particular way. This is what I mean about the rabbit-hole Wick. The lengths that some are prepared to go to to try and prove or disprove a point. It’s as if they’re trying to win a game of chess rather than getting either to the truth or the closest we can get to it.

Yes, debates often come down to who's better at chess, or draughts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because the killer could have been a Jew who wrote the graffito to deflect attention away from himself and toward a gentile killer the spelling means little. Anyone could have written it.

That is farfetched.

Even Anderson did not believe that.