John Richardson

[GBinOz]

While it is clear the knife he produced could not be the murder weapon

Hi Jeff,

I think that what can be derived from all these descriptions is not so much what it looked like, but that the knife was inadequate for both the purposes of committing the murder and for the cutting of leather. That was part of my previous post. He obviously didn't spend enough time at home testing the repairs on his boot, resulting in it rubbing in less than a minute. He then said he spent another two minutes in a failed second attempt at #29, with a knife he must have known was inadequate for the task, rather than spending that two minutes walking to the market where he had access to a suitable knife. Result was a good risk free story.

It is often asked why he would risk admitting to carrying a knife at a murder scene, and the answer is that there was no risk at all in admitting to carrying that knife.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

How do we know he hadn't already ascertained that his mother was fine and that he hadn't tried to enter but had been denied by the police at the front door controlling the scene?

- Jeff

Because we know his mother was still inside the building and that he was permitted to enter to talk to Chandler. Which is the more convincing request:
1. My mother lives here and I want to see that she is all right.
2. I've just had a peek over the fence from next door and I want to talk to a police officer.

Best regards, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I do not know how John Richardson's account can be believed.

He claimed that he just happened to have a knife on him when he visited 27 Hanbury Street, that he attempted to cut his boot with it even though his visit lasted no more than two minutes, and that although he did not enter the back yard, he sat on one of the steps leading to it, even though there was no need to open the door to see what he needed to see.

[Indian Harry]

Ok, so above the knife has no handle, though in another report it is described as having a white handle (although I think the latter is reporting how Richardson described it). Using a rusty broken handled knife seems a bit odd to cut up carrots with, but then, broken handled doesn't mean no handle of course.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff. The Eastern Post & City Chronicle
Saturday, 15 September 1888 describes a knife with half its blade missing.


John Richardson recalled, handed to the coroner a small table-knife with half the blade broken off. At the request of the coroner he had been home to fetch it. It was the one with which he cut a piece off his boot last Saturday morning while sitting on the back doorstep at 29, Hanbury Street, and appeared to be a very ineffective weapon.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/eastern_post/easternpost880915.html

So there are press reports that emphasize major deficiencies with the knife. Granted there are inconsistencies from one paper to the next. So who knows what's true in the end?

[GBinOz]

I realise that my opinions are shared by very few on this forum. However, I did find a couple of posts over on the JTRforum:

Post by Chris Malone, July 6 2010:
Well, this dovetails with Inspector Chandler's statement and explains why Richardson came under suspicion as his testimony was inconsistant. I recall discussing this in part on the Cadosch thread and its relation to Dr. Phillips' testimony that the murder was much earlier, but most seemed to think Phillips was in error. The police didn't believe he was and didn't think much about Richarson's or Long's testimonies. Of course, there's Cadosch again.

Many criminal cases have shown the unreliability of witnesses. Unfortunately, with this case, that is the main evidence we have to go by... outside of what little forensic evidence there is. I believe that forensics ( however crude they may be) trumps witnesses when they conflict. I'm sure that I am in the minority here.

I know this killer took unprecidented chances but its still odd that someone would attempt something like this in daylight and when, even a lunatic, would know that people would be going to the privy and stirring about the building... let alone the prostitute herself who probably used that same location as an 'office' several times before and would also not want to be interrupted. This was not some dark street or passage where people who came across a pros at work would simply mind their own business; this was the backyard of a residence with the likely prediction that such early morning activity by these very residents would take place.

If this murder took place in the Richardson, Long, Cadosch timeframe, then both Jack and Annie were crazy... or desperate... or both.

Post by Paul Kearney AKA Nemo, July 6 2010:

If he did sit on the steps I would have thought he would have sat on the top step with his feet on the second step

If he lifted the boot onto his knee to facilitate the cutting, it could have further obscured his vision downward and to the left

However, his story about sitting and cutting the leather appears to be an untruth, perhaps to explain his presence in the yard with a knife (it goes against the doctors analysis and he changed his story on occasion)

For some reason I doubt the butter knife was the one he had with him

So possibly he made up the story of the leather thinking that explains his reason for having the knife, him thinking nothing of the time as he had already heard that Chapman probably died after 5.30am, and him not knowing that it would be disputed by the findings of the doctor

The body was probably there when he popped his head out and looked to his right just to check the cellar but he had committed himself to the story of having sat, confirming that there was no body there when he was there with his knife.

These posts reflect my opinions almost exactly.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Some more interesting accounts:

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, 16 Sep:
Mrs. Amelia Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street, Spitalfields, said::

"I rent half the house in Hanbury Street. I carry on business there and employ there my son, aged 37, and a man named Francis Tyler. Tyler should have come to work at six o'clock, but he did not come until eight. I'd sent for him. He was often late when work was slack.

My son also works at the market. My son went through our yard about five o'clock, but there was nothing then.

About six o'clock my grandson, Thomas Richardson, aged 14, went down to see what was the matter, as there was so much noise in the passage. He came back and said, "Oh, mother, there is a woman murdered."

I went down and saw the deceased in the yard. There was no one in the yard at the time, but there were people in the passage. Soon afterwards a constable arrived and took possession of the place. So far as I know, he was the first person to go into the yard. I occupy the first-floor front. My grandson also slept it the same room. I went to bed at half-past nine. I was very wakeful, and was awake half the night. I woke at three, and only dozed afterwards. I heard no noise during the night.

The first-floor back was occupied by Mr. Walker, an old gentleman, with his wife and son, 27 years of age. The son is weak-minded and inoffensive.

On the ground-floor there are two rooms, occupied by Mrs. Hardiman and her son, aged 16. Mrs. Hardiman keeps a cat's-meat shop. The son goes out with the cat's-meat.

I occupy the back parlour for cooking, and on Friday night I had a prayer meeting there. When I went to bed I locked that room up. It was still locked in the morning.

John Davies and his family occupy the third-floor front.

An old lady occupies the back room on that floor.

The house is practically open all night, and although I have property there I am not afraid. There are never any robberies there. I am not the owner of the house. I can hear anyone going through the passage. I heard nobody on Saturday."

A Juryman:- "You mean to say you could hear them if you were awake?"

Witness:- "Yes. Of course there is noise and bustle on market mornings. I heard no cries on Saturday."

By the Coroner. "It is customary for people to go through the house. They go to the backyard, but I always hear them. Some people go through who have no business there."


John Richardson, John Street, a porter in Spitalfields Market, said:- On Saturday, I was at 29, Hanbury street about 4:40 a. m or 4:50 a.m.. I went there to see that all was right. I only go on market mornings, because I am out early.

Some months ago, the cellar was broken into.

The front door was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard. I did not go into the yard, I opened the yard door and sat on the steps to cut off a piece of leather from my boot. I used an old table-knife to cut the leather. I had been cutting up carrots for my rabbit, and I put the knife into my pocket. I do not usually carry it about with me in my pocket. It must have been a mistake on my part.

I did not go into the yard, and went away. The yard door closes itself. I shut the front door when I went away. I was there altogether about two minutes. It was not quite light, but I could see all over the place. I could not have failed to have noticed the deceased, had she been there then.

I afterwards saw the body. That was after the doctor had come. I heard of the murder when I was in the market.

I could see the cellar door without going into the yard. The padlock was on it all right. That was the sole object I had in going there. I sometimes look in if I am going home late at night.

When I sat on the steps I was close to where the woman was found. I have been there are at all hours of the night.

Coroner:- "Have you seen any strangers there?"

Witness:- "Lots - plenty of them."

Coroner:- "At all hours?"

Witness:- "Yes, men and women. I turned them out. I have seen them lying on the landing."

Coroner:- "Do I understand that they go there for an immoral purpose?"

Witness:- "Yes; I have caught them in the act.

Witness then left the court to fetch his old table-knife."

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."


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."


The Globe, 13th Sep:
Mrs. Amelia Richardson, a widow, living at 29, Hanbury-street, said she occupied the lower part of that house.

She was a packing-case maker, and her workshop was in the cellar. She employed her son and another man there.

On Saturday she sent her grandson, aged 14. years, down to see what caused the noise in the yard, and he came back immediately and said, "Oh, mother, there's woman murdered."

She went immediately, and saw the body of the deceased lying in the yard.

So far as she knew, the constable was the first person to arrive in the yard.

She went to bed about half-past nine on Friday night, and lay awake half the night. She awoke at three o'clock, and only dozed after that. She heard no noise during that time.

An old man, a maker of lawn tennis boots, occupied the first floor back room, and his son slept with him. He was a weak-minded man, but inoffensive.

The witness gave an account of the other tenants in the house.

The front and back doors of the house were always left open. She was not afraid of the doors being left open, and was confident no one went through into the back yard early on Saturday morning, for, unless it was done very quietly, she must have heard it."

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Hair Bear,

Were it I, and I discovered that the murder was where my mother lived, I would have immediately sought entry and asked to see the body to determine if it was my mother.

And you might have been told the same thing as Richardson, that the woman is not a resident of the house.
Chandler could have known this because it was Davis who reported the body and knew the woman did not live there.
Chandler cleared the passage of all outsiders, Richardson not being a resident would have been barred access.
It was the same with Millers Court, only residents were permitted access.

It could almost be construed that he needed to know where the body was before he spoke to Chandler.

Chandler said he first spoke to Richardson about 7:00 am, Richardson may have had to shout at him from the neighboring yard, to let him in. Which Chandler would as he claimed he was there earlier.

[Hair Bear]

Hi Hair Bear,

Were it I, and I discovered that the murder was where my mother lived, I would have immediately sought entry and asked to see the body to determine if it was my mother. To join the paying spectators in an adjoining premises strikes me as bizarre. It could almost be construed that he needed to know where the body was before he spoke to Chandler.

Cheers, George

Maybe it's because I'm something of a softy, but I would find it bizarre that the first thing anyone would want to do is visibly look at their mother's mutilated body. You do, however, have a point, so based on that I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that he was told "another prostitute has been murdered".

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I think that what can be derived from all these descriptions is not so much what it looked like, but that the knife was inadequate for both the purposes of committing the murder and for the cutting of leather. That was part of my previous post. He obviously didn't spend enough time at home testing the repairs on his boot, resulting in it rubbing in less than a minute. He then said he spent another two minutes in a failed second attempt at #29, with a knife he must have known was inadequate for the task, rather than spending that two minutes walking to the market where he had access to a suitable knife. Result was a good risk free story.

It is often asked why he would risk admitting to carrying a knife at a murder scene, and the answer is that there was no risk at all in admitting to carrying that knife.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I agree that we can draw little with regards to the specifics of the knife, the descriptions are too varied and don't appear to be reconcilable by any set of assumptions (I suppose one could go with the rust and broken blade as just not being mentioned in some papers, but it seems to me, the broken blade at least, would have raised a question from the coroner - so perhaps one could suggest that detail is improbable? But we're venturing a bit into guessing what would have happened).

And yes, I know you find the idea of him noticing his previous night's boot repair being inadequate seems strange. But again, we don't know the specific details of what it was he was trying to actually do. What I mean is, with leather boots, quite a small bit of hard leather bending out and hitting the foot/toe, can be very irritating (think of it forming a small triangular point sort of thing). If that's what he's trying to "fix", then the night before he could have easily bent it back, and when he tested it, it was fine. It was only the next day, with the night for the leather to relax back into position, that he notices it is still there. While I have no doubt the knife he had would not be the knife he would choose, he didn't have a choice, so he used what he had. He might have just wanted to push back the offending leather, even if only temporarily. Again, I'm just trying to illustrate the sort of thing that, to me, seems entirely plausible and consistent with what we know, I'm not saying I know that is what his boot problem actually was (nobody knows that beyond the general description of some leather inside was rubbing against him - was it large? small? pointed? details forever lost to us). It wouldn't take that long for him to realise his previous night's repair didn't fully solve things, so he tries because he's got a bit of time to try. As I mentioned, I would use a stick if it was bothering me and that was all I had. The inadequacy of the knife is not because he chose an inadequate knife, but because the knife he happened to have wasn't ideal, but it was still all he had. Also, finding his repair hadn't taken on the next day doesn't mean he didn't test it the day before, it just means whatever he had to do, and the details of the offending leather, had time to change overnight (curl back into a bothersome place, for example).

I guess the above seems entirely normal and commonplace, which I suppose is why I have such a hard time understanding the objections on the grounds of the knife being unsuited (yes, it was, but it was all he had) or the fact that his repair hadn't worked (fixing things like that can take a couple goes, once you cut some leather, any "curl" in it will cause the cut piece to change over time - but it takes time, and his boot had all night to change).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Because we know his mother was still inside the building and that he was permitted to enter to talk to Chandler. Which is the more convincing request:
1. My mother lives here and I want to see that she is all right.
2. I've just had a peek over the fence from next door and I want to talk to a police officer.

Best regards, George

I suppose, but do we know for sure he peeked over the fence before checking on his mum and talking to Chandler? If he did that afterwards, then the issue goes away doesn't it?

Sorry, I don't recall if it is mentioned where he and Chandler were when they spoke? Is it possible he had to go next door to speak to Chandler over the fence, to avoid disturbing the crime scene for example?

I have a vague idea they spoke in the hall, though, but that could very well be my brain making things up. Happens all the time.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

I suppose, but do we know for sure he peeked over the fence before checking on his mum and talking to Chandler? If he did that afterwards, then the issue goes away doesn't it?

Sorry, I don't recall if it is mentioned where he and Chandler were when they spoke? Is it possible he had to go next door to speak to Chandler over the fence, to avoid disturbing the crime scene for example?

I have a vague idea they spoke in the hall, though, but that could very well be my brain making things up. Happens all the time.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Daily Telegraph Sep 13:
I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard.

Daily News Sep 14:
Did you see John Richardson? - Later on in the morning, a little before seven o'clock. It was in the passage of 29, Hanbury-street.

Daily News Sep 14:
Dr. George Baxter Phillips, divisional surgeon of the H division of police, said - On Saturday, the 8th of September, I was called by the police at 6.20 to 29, Hanbury-street. I arrived there at half-past.

It appears that Richardson saw the body half and hour before he spoke to Chandler. If he was granted entry a little before seven, why would he have been denied entry at a few minutes before 6:30? Having hung around for half and hour, why did he suddenly feel the urgency to talk to Chandler as the latter was heading to towards the mortuary?

As we have pursued this discussion I have been noticing some facts about John Richardson. White male about 35, brown moustache, absent father, works for mother who is deeply religious, regularly has a problem with prostitutes using his mother's premises as their "office", lives and works near a profiling hotspot. I think he has advanced a notch on my persons worthy of further consideration scale.

Best regards, George

[FISHY1118]

I realise that my opinions are shared by very few on this forum. However, I did find a couple of posts over on the JTRforum:

Post by Chris Malone, July 6 2010:
Well, this dovetails with Inspector Chandler's statement and explains why Richardson came under suspicion as his testimony was inconsistant. I recall discussing this in part on the Cadosch thread and its relation to Dr. Phillips' testimony that the murder was much earlier, but most seemed to think Phillips was in error. The police didn't believe he was and didn't think much about Richarson's or Long's testimonies. Of course, there's Cadosch again.

Many criminal cases have shown the unreliability of witnesses. Unfortunately, with this case, that is the main evidence we have to go by... outside of what little forensic evidence there is. I believe that forensics ( however crude they may be) trumps witnesses when they conflict. I'm sure that I am in the minority here.

I know this killer took unprecidented chances but its still odd that someone would attempt something like this in daylight and when, even a lunatic, would know that people would be going to the privy and stirring about the building... let alone the prostitute herself who probably used that same location as an 'office' several times before and would also not want to be interrupted. This was not some dark street or passage where people who came across a pros at work would simply mind their own business; this was the backyard of a residence with the likely prediction that such early morning activity by these very residents would take place.

If this murder took place in the Richardson, Long, Cadosch timeframe, then both Jack and Annie were crazy... or desperate... or both.

Post by Paul Kearney AKA Nemo, July 6 2010:

If he did sit on the steps I would have thought he would have sat on the top step with his feet on the second step

If he lifted the boot onto his knee to facilitate the cutting, it could have further obscured his vision downward and to the left

However, his story about sitting and cutting the leather appears to be an untruth, perhaps to explain his presence in the yard with a knife (it goes against the doctors analysis and he changed his story on occasion)

For some reason I doubt the butter knife was the one he had with him

So possibly he made up the story of the leather thinking that explains his reason for having the knife, him thinking nothing of the time as he had already heard that Chapman probably died after 5.30am, and him not knowing that it would be disputed by the findings of the doctor

The body was probably there when he popped his head out and looked to his right just to check the cellar but he had committed himself to the story of having sat, confirming that there was no body there when he was there with his knife.

These posts reflect my opinions almost exactly.

Cheers, George

Interesting find George.

Given the resurgence of late regarding Richardsons testimony, its good to see other post with the same opinions and reasoning for those opinions that are the same as yours and myself and others here on casebook .

I should think the label of " Cheerleading " we've become accustomed too when putting forwards these same opinion could use a well earned rest ,don't you think?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Daily Telegraph Sep 13:
I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard.

Daily News Sep 14:
Did you see John Richardson? - Later on in the morning, a little before seven o'clock. It was in the passage of 29, Hanbury-street.

Daily News Sep 14:
Dr. George Baxter Phillips, divisional surgeon of the H division of police, said - On Saturday, the 8th of September, I was called by the police at 6.20 to 29, Hanbury-street. I arrived there at half-past.

It appears that Richardson saw the body half and hour before he spoke to Chandler. If he was granted entry a little before seven, why would he have been denied entry at a few minutes before 6:30? Having hung around for half and hour, why did he suddenly feel the urgency to talk to Chandler as the latter was heading to towards the mortuary?

As we have pursued this discussion I have been noticing some facts about John Richardson. White male about 35, brown moustache, absent father, works for mother who is deeply religious, regularly has a problem with prostitutes using his mother's premises as their "office", lives and works near a profiling hotspot. I think he has advanced a notch on my persons worthy of further consideration scale.

Best regards, George

Thanks for that George. Ok, so that clears up the timeline, in that he was in the yard before talking with Chandler. I see Wickerman had posted on similar ideas, that maybe he was initially denied entry to the premises as the police secured the scene. I suppose he could have been told to wait until someone was ready to talk to him, and so, like others, went to the backyard of the neighbors. Obviously, we don't know such details, so the possibilities are endless and in the end we run the risk of painting whatever picture we happen to imagine rather than putting pieces of the puzzle together from actual recorded information.

From what you've put together above (and I thank you for that, nicely done), we know he's in the next yard somewhere around 6:27 ish (2 or 3 minutes before the Dr. arrives at 6:30). Within the next half an hour, he is granted access to the passage of #29 to speak to Chandler.

Hmmm, he says he saw the body around 6:27ish, but we don't know when he first arrives at #29. What I mean is, he doesn't say exactly when he first gets there, only when he first saw the body, so we need to be consider the possibility he arrived some amount of time earlier and only goes into the backyard around 6:27ish. During that unknown amount of time, we don't know what he was doing or who he talked to (or at least tried to talk to), if anything or anyone - all of that is lost to us. Also, we don't know at what point it was determined he needed to talk to Chandler (was that sorted, for example, around 6:27, and Chandler, or some other police officer, told him to wait a bit and they would call him in when they were ready - that ending up being just before 7ish; or did he wait until just before 7ish to indicate to the police he had something to offer information wise? Anything between those extremes is possible given our lack of specific details. Moreover, our lack of details means there are all sorts of reasons for any of those choices, you've hinted at suspicious possibilities, so to offer an alternative, any delay can also have an innocent explanation too, simply the hesitancy of approaching the police while they're busy, which many witnesses experience. Often, they will wait to approach the police until things seem to be wrapping up, and they realise that they can't put things off and have to say something now. Again, I obviously don't know if that applies here, but as with so many things JtR, we don't know and so we need to caution ourselves against trying to fill in the blanks as we run the risk of thinking what we imagined is the "best explanation" - it's not, it's just "an explanation amongst an infinite number of alternatives".

What I mean is, I don't think the evidence we have supports my above suggestions any more than the evidence supports yours because, in the end, the evidence (or information perhaps), just tells us he was in the backyard around 6:27 and speaks to Chandler in the hall just before 7ish. There's nothing about how, why, or when that meeting was arranged, and nothing that indicates at what time he arrived at #29 before ending up in the yard next door, or what he did during that interval.

You say your interest in him has increased a bit, but do recall, the police did investigate him (they too found him of interest, so you're not alone on that point), and while we don't know what they did, we do know they found nothing at all to suggest he was being anything but honest with them. Sure, mistakes happen, but they don't always, and very often when they do there is some copper who "liked this guy for it", and nowhere does he ever appear as anyone's "suspect" from the day. Not a great defence, but I would suggest keeping that on your balance scale when weighing him up.

Anyway, as always, you've given me food for thought, and that is, after all, what the boards are for (that's right, giving me food for thought is Casebook's mission statement, I'm sure of it! ha ha)

- Jeff

[Hair Bear]

"It appears that Richardson saw the body half and hour before he spoke to Chandler. If he was granted entry a little before seven, why would he have been denied entry at a few minutes before 6:30?"

Surely because the doctor had yet to arrive and carry out a forensic check. If you look at the time differences this makes sense. Richardson's chatting to Chandler would have happened immediately after Phillips had made his exit. I imagine a scenario of Richardson turning up at 29, being told he had to speak to the inspector about having been in the yard, but that he would have to wait until the doctor did his examination. In the meanwhile Richardson peered over from the neighbour. There, case closed. lol

"I realise that my opinions are shared by very few on this forum"

They are nonetheless very valid. Having an open mind is surely the only was to one day day arrive at the identity of the Ripper.

"I know this killer took unprecidented chances but its still odd that someone would attempt something like this in daylight"

If the murder was taking place when Cadosch was coming back and forth, it was before 5:30am, which is still an early hour. I would argue there is more danger of being caught when murdering Stride right next to the entrance/exit of a club that is open for business.

"The Eastern Post & City Chronicle
Saturday, 15 September 1888 describes a knife with half its blade missing."

So between the "rusty", "half its blade missing" and "no handle" descriptions of various newspapers we can ascertain that Richardson didn't return with a knife.

"If he did sit on the steps I would have thought he would have sat on the top step with his feet on the second step"

It would be more natural to have your feet on the flagstones, since that's the area (footwear) that is your focus. And anyway, since it was the coroner who asked him if he sat on the top step, why not just say "yes"?

"For some reason I doubt the butter knife was the one he had with him"
That's possible, because if he showed up with a knife not dissimilar to what the Ripper had used he might worry about being framed as Jack - unless he was Saucy.

[JeffHamm]

I realise that my opinions are shared by very few on this forum. However, I did find a couple of posts over on the JTRforum:

Post by Chris Malone, July 6 2010:
Well, this dovetails with Inspector Chandler's statement and explains why Richardson came under suspicion as his testimony was inconsistant. I recall discussing this in part on the Cadosch thread and its relation to Dr. Phillips' testimony that the murder was much earlier, but most seemed to think Phillips was in error. The police didn't believe he was and didn't think much about Richarson's or Long's testimonies. Of course, there's Cadosch again.

Many criminal cases have shown the unreliability of witnesses. Unfortunately, with this case, that is the main evidence we have to go by... outside of what little forensic evidence there is. I believe that forensics ( however crude they may be) trumps witnesses when they conflict. I'm sure that I am in the minority here.

I know this killer took unprecidented chances but its still odd that someone would attempt something like this in daylight and when, even a lunatic, would know that people would be going to the privy and stirring about the building... let alone the prostitute herself who probably used that same location as an 'office' several times before and would also not want to be interrupted. This was not some dark street or passage where people who came across a pros at work would simply mind their own business; this was the backyard of a residence with the likely prediction that such early morning activity by these very residents would take place.

If this murder took place in the Richardson, Long, Cadosch timeframe, then both Jack and Annie were crazy... or desperate... or both.

Post by Paul Kearney AKA Nemo, July 6 2010:

If he did sit on the steps I would have thought he would have sat on the top step with his feet on the second step

If he lifted the boot onto his knee to facilitate the cutting, it could have further obscured his vision downward and to the left

However, his story about sitting and cutting the leather appears to be an untruth, perhaps to explain his presence in the yard with a knife (it goes against the doctors analysis and he changed his story on occasion)

For some reason I doubt the butter knife was the one he had with him

So possibly he made up the story of the leather thinking that explains his reason for having the knife, him thinking nothing of the time as he had already heard that Chapman probably died after 5.30am, and him not knowing that it would be disputed by the findings of the doctor

The body was probably there when he popped his head out and looked to his right just to check the cellar but he had committed himself to the story of having sat, confirming that there was no body there when he was there with his knife.

These posts reflect my opinions almost exactly.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I note that in the first of the opinions you quote, they make the point that forensics trumps witnesses when they conflict. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the forensics and the witnesses do not conflict. The margins of error associated with the estimation of the ToD are (relatively) very large. And Dr. Phillips estimating at ToD around 4:30, when we take those error margins into consideration (which we have to, otherwise we're making such a grave mistake that the issue not worth talking about) then there is no conflict. The margins of error associated with estimating the ToD are +-3 hours, even today. The witnesses would place the ToD somewhere around 5:25ish, give or take maybe 5 minutes? That falls well within the error margins of Dr. Phillips' estimate. No conflict, no problem, no trumping either. Obviously, Dr. Phillips' caveat, allowing for his estimate to be too early (as Baxter's summing up clearly indicates that is what his caveat meant), and the non-existant conflict becomes even less. Given that "conflict" is the basis of that original opinion, and given that basis is false, the subsequent arguments are not compelling.

The 2nd one has a few odd bits actually. One, it also alludes to the same issue as above (where the poster says "...it goes against the doctors analysis...) , so I won't say more on that because that statement is incorrect.

The other bit, though, that seems very odd to me is that the poster is suggesting that Richardson made up the boot repair to explain the knife he had on him? But the knife he had on him only comes up when talks about the boot repair in the first place? There was nothing to explain (no knife was known to be on him), so no need to make up a story about repairing his boot to explain a knife nobody knew he had? That whole post seems to be a bit ... confused?

Anyway, don't worry about your opinions being shared by few. My opinions are shared by few as well. On some things I may share the same general gist as many, sometimes I share the same general gist as few, and there are times when I am the lone sane anchor in a raging sea of false belief (meaning, nobody agrees with me! ha ha).

Your opinions, while I don't always agree with them, are generally presented with the necessary degree of caution we should all adopt, and they are also thoughtful and tie in to the information we have. You often lean in one direction and I in another when it comes to some of the more open ended areas, where we have to try and fill in what seems "plausible and probable", but for what it is worth, I think that is a good thing as we balance each other out (well, I like to think we do). I know in this part of the case I lean, probably even more than before, more towards a later ToD while you lean the other way, I think it is important to note that neither of us is really saying it is impossible that we're wrong (well, one of us has to be right). Given my current excitement over the recent Chandler statement, I'm almost at that point though, but that, in part, reflects the newness of the information. Given time, I'm sure I will "settle down", and view it in more objective light.

- Jeff