John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can provide you with a long list of highly-inappropriate things about the Jewish from other threads, written by a small collection of posters, and I did not write any of them.

PI, I wasn’t suggesting that you’d said anything inappropriate. How did you get that from what I said. What I meant was that you seem determinedly against any suggestion that the ripper might have been Jewish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For the same reasons that the police at the time concluded that he was not.

I must have missed something PI. When did the police say that the killer couldn’t have been Jewish?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI, I wasn’t suggesting that you’d said anything inappropriate. How did you get that from what I said. What I meant was that you seem determinedly against any suggestion that the ripper might have been Jewish.

I reject the argument that there is a case for the Whitechapel Murderer being Jewish because from the beginning, it was based on nothing more than prejudice.

Anderson claimed that in or soon after October 1888, the police came to the conclusion that the murderer must be a Polish Jew, even though they did not yet have a suspect.

That means that the starting point of Anderson's case against a Jewish suspect is nothing more than prejudice.

We are being asked to believe by those who argue in favour of a Jewish murderer that, by an amazing coincidence, it turned out that the thugs who marched down Hanbury Street, and whose threatening behaviour caused the police to call for reinforcements to prevent a pogrom against the Jews, had been right all along!

We have six Jewish suspects: Piser, seen with a long knife (naturally) but who was cleared; Cohen, who was found rambling in Yiddish a few weeks after he is supposed to have chatted up Mary Kelly in English and spent two hours butchering her; Nathan Kaminsky, who was reported to have been successfully treated for syphilis, and who is suspected in spite of being a mere 23 years old and in spite of the fact that the evidence we have suggests that the murderer was sexually inactive; Aaron Kosminski, who was a mere 22 years old when the first murder was committed, and whose only known criminal offence is having walked a dog in public without a muzzle more than a year after the last murder had been committed; an unnamed Jewish shopkeeper, the case against whom is based on the alleged fact that the murders stopped as soon as he came under surveillance, even though when the surveillance ended some three months later, the murders did not recommence; a man of Jewish appearance allegedly seen by a policeman, and allegedly escaping Mitre Square just after the murder there, even though the policeman did not give evidence at the inquest and was mentioned by not a single senior policeman involved in the case.

Kosminski / the Polish Jewish suspect is referred to by Anderson as the murderer and the criminal, even though neither he nor any other policeman ever mentioned one single piece of incriminating evidence against him.

Is that is not prejudice, then I do not know what is!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I must have missed something PI. When did the police say that the killer couldn’t have been Jewish?

I was referring to the fact that the police at the time were of the opinion that the writing on the wall was written by the murderer in order to pin the blame on the Jews.

[JeffHamm]

Why did four people remember seeing Nichols, two Stride (in the space of about 25 minutes), and one Eddowes (in the space of about half an hour)?

Why did they remember seeing them but no-one saw Chapman for three and three-quarter hours?

HI PI,

Were there 4 people who saw Nichols? As I recall she leaves the doss house around 1:30ish to look for money. Then, she's not spotted again until she meets Emily Holland around 2:30ish (an hour later), and after than she's not spotted until she's found dead by Cross/Lechmere and Paul (around 3:40 probably), so another hour where she's not spotted. In short, had she not met her friend Emily, then Nichols would have a similar "black hole" starting from when she left the dos house until she was found dead. I think there was a news report where a coffee vendor thought he saw her, however, that was followed up and when he viewed her body he indicated that wasn't the woman (so it wasn't her he sighted).

Well, when you say no-one saw Chapman I am going to assume that is because you've dismissed Long 's identification of her? Given we do not know if Long's identification of Chapman as the woman she saw is correct or a false positive, that leaves us in the situation of having to consider both options, so this is an exercise of following on from guessing that identification to be incorrect.

Hmmm, I see to recall there might have been a news story where Annie might have been spotted in one of the pubs, but that the person (the publican I think) wasn't sure that it was Annie perhaps? Something questionable like that? Obviously, though, if we're going to set Long's identification aside despite her demonstrating confidence in her identification, we would set aside any identification associated with a less confident identification.

So, in the "no-one saw Chapman", we're focusing only on the idea that Long's identification was a false positive. It goes without saying that if that is the wrong guess, then we're already wrong. And if my memory serves correct and there is some dodgy news story about Annie being seen in a pub, we're not counting that either.

Anyway, I think we might be over stating things when we say "nobody saw Chapman" simply because we have no other record of anyone coming forward and claiming to have seen her (other than Long and the possible pub sighting of course). Presumably, Annie was out looking for a customer, and as the streets in the area were not deserted, it is likely there were people who did see her. They wouldn't "know" her necessarily, even if they were familiar with seeing her. For example, there are people I see quite often on my way to work, or when out for a stroll. I am familiar with them, in that I've seen them around, but I don't know them so if I saw something in the news where their name was presented, etc, I would have no clue that is who the news is talking about. I wouldn't know to come forward if I had seen them at a time that might be of importance because there would be no way for me to connect the news story to someone I visually recognize in my local area.

In other words, we can't really be sure nobody saw her during that time, all we know is that nothing survives in the records that details anyone coming forward. That is for us very unfortunate as it leaves us with a black hole of time, during which anything that takes our fancy could have happened. Some various suggestions have been made, any of which individually are reasonable, some may even work in combination, some may be mutually exclusive - but none are anything more than demonstrations that anything that strikes our fancy can be put forward.

The public interest in the case really ramps up after Annie's murder as well. This increase in public concern (the "terror") would help encourage people to come forward if they believed they spotted the victim. Witnesses, even some who know they have important information, will often not come forward. Sometimes they simply wait for the police to contact them (there are many examples of modern cases where a witness is approached during a cold-case review, and says to the police "I was wondering when you were going to come talk to me" type thing - but why they never approached the police themselves is often just because they figured the police would get around to it!).

Basically, it is highly probable that people did see Annie during that time period. It is also highly probable that people who saw her would be unaware of her identity, even if they recognized her as a local. The lack of anyone coming forward may simply be nothing more than the fact that those who did see her didn't know her and so couldn't connect the news story to her, combined with the fact that the local concern had not reached the point where people were overcoming a tendency to not get involved.

Given we're willing to set aside as false confident identifications by those who didn't know Annie personally (Long) and less confident identifications as well (the pub story, unless we're setting that aside because my brain has just made that up), then we have set the bar very high for what qualifies as a sighting. I presume if Annie, like Nichols, had run into a friend who knew her we would not set that aside, then really we're looking at how likely is it that Annie didn't run into a friend in the area during those wee hours?

I don't think that's all that improbable myself.

I guess I'm wondering if our criterion has been set so very high we're simply not allowing for evidence that suggests she was spotted during those hours to be considered?

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

You're right, this comment a witness "saw no-one" must always be taken with a pinch of salt.
Writers of the time tells us the streets were alive with people all night long, women passing back & forth, kids screaming, dogs running all over the place. Some loitering in doorways chatting with neighbours, and so on.
Take Cadoche for instance, three different newspapers give a different account of him after he left the house on his way to work.
In one he says he saw 'no man and woman' in Hanbury street as he left. In another it reads 'no man or woman', yet the third admits he only saw 'men on their way to work'.
Seeing "no-one" can often mean "no-one suspicious", or "no-one out of the ordinary", not that the street was empty.
In the case above that "no-one" saw her only means at the least "no-one noticed her", but then again all these women looked and dressed very similar.

Hi Jon,

So in this crowded street, no one that knew Annie noticed her, but three days later a woman that didn't even know what Annie looked like, suddenly remembers seeing her amongst all these women who looked and dressed very similar, and becomes a reliable witness.

I'm not buying it.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

It's just come to my mind and I don't think anyone's asked this: where did John Richardson's piece of cut-off leather go to? It wasn't recorded on a search of the yard and it seems a stretch to say John put it in his pocket in case he had occasion to need a piece of annoying leather in the future.

Hi FM,

I asked that question several thousand posts ago. No answer was the stern reply. The spring from a child's gaiter was found, but not pieces of leather that Richardson told the coroner (twice) that he had cut from his boot. Curious.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Jeff,

I'm sorry.

I wrote:

Nichols was sighted four times during the five and a half hours preceding her death

I would like to amend that to:

Nichols was sighted five times during the four and a half hours preceding her death

She was reported to be seen walking down Whitechapel Rd at 11:00 PM, leaving the Frying Pan Public House at 12:30 AM, being back at her lodging house at 1:20 AM, seen by the housekeeper at 2:10 AM, and seen in Osborn St at 2:30 AM.

Although I do not believe that Long saw Chapman, I did not omit her from my calculations.

Three and three-quarter hours is roughly the time from her confirmed last sighting until the time she was allegedly sighted by Long.

Of course, it is possible that someone saw Chapman and did not come forward.

But they did come forward in the other cases!

How many exceptions have to be made in the case of the Chapman murder?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I reject the argument that there is a case for the Whitechapel Murderer being Jewish because from the beginning, it was based on nothing more than prejudice.

However it may or may not have started that doesn’t mean that we should dismiss all Jewish suspects because of it.

Anderson claimed that in or soon after October 1888, the police came to the conclusion that the murderer must be a Polish Jew, even though they did not yet have a suspect.

Still no reason to reject the possibility of a Jewish ripper.

That means that the starting point of Anderson's case against a Jewish suspect is nothing more than prejudice.

You can’t know that. You’re making an assumption.

We are being asked to believe by those who argue in favour of a Jewish murderer that, by an amazing coincidence, it turned out that the thugs who marched down Hanbury Street, and whose threatening behaviour caused the police to call for reinforcements to prevent a pogrom against the Jews, had been right all along!

Bizarre. Couldn’t be less relevant.

We have six Jewish suspects: Piser, seen with a long knife (naturally) but who was cleared;

Not suspected just because he was Jewish but because it was thought hat he’d been abusing prostitutes and he wore a leather apron. However weak the evidence it still can’t be called anti-semitism.

Cohen, who was found rambling in Yiddish a few weeks after he is supposed to have chatted up Mary Kelly in English and spent two hours butchering her;

So was Martin Fido anti-Semitic for suggesting him.

Nathan Kaminsky, who was reported to have been successfully treated for syphilis, and who is suspected in spite of being a mere 23 years old and in spite of the fact that the evidence we have suggests that the murderer was sexually inactive;

So was Martin Fido anti-Semitic for mentioning him?

Aaron Kosminski, who was a mere 22 years old when the first murder was committed, and whose only known criminal offence is having walked a dog in public without a muzzle more than a year after the last murder had been committed;

There’s no evidence that he was mentioned simply because he was Jewish.

an unnamed Jewish shopkeeper, the case against whom is based on the alleged fact that the murders stopped as soon as he came under surveillance, even though when the surveillance ended some three months later, the murders did not recommence;

Can’t recall that one?

a man of Jewish appearance allegedly seen by a policeman, and allegedly escaping Mitre Square just after the murder there, even though the policeman did not give evidence at the inquest and was mentioned by not a single senior policeman involved in the case.

And the evidence for anti-semitism is?

Kosminski / the Polish Jewish suspect is referred to by Anderson as the murderer and the criminal, even though neither he nor any other policeman ever mentioned one single piece of incriminating evidence against him.

Is that is not prejudice, then I do not know what is!

I’ll add two that you omitted.

Jacob Levy.

Are Tracy and Neil I’Anson anti-Semitic for naming him?

Hyam Hyams.

Is Sarah Bax Horton anti-Semitic for naming him?


Come on PI. You couldn’t have come up with a weaker case for anti-semitism if you tried.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was referring to the fact that the police at the time were of the opinion that the writing on the wall was written by the murderer in order to pin the blame on the Jews.

And your evidence is?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi FM,

I asked that question several thousand posts ago. No answer was the stern reply. The spring from a child's gaiter was found, but not pieces of leather that Richardson told the coroner (twice) that he had cut from his boot. Curious.

Cheers, George

Did Richardson not say at some point that he had not cut the piece off after all and had had to borrow a more suitable knife from a stall in the market?

[Paul Sutton]

Hi PS
Well for one thing it helps rule in or out certain suspects/theories. It helps the lech theory because earlier TOD is more in line with when he was going to work and beleivers in the royal theory (yes there is still of them left) because it more likely she would be dumped there in dark of light.

If Lech was on his 'way to work', surely he'd not go into some backyard - why not do that on the street too? I mean, the Buck's Row thing is one suggestion, but that would be at another level. If he's assertive enough to play that rigmarole with Paul et al, then would he meekly get taken into this trap?

Or did he have piano lessons at #29 as a child?

I think the Lech theory needs all the help it can get, but maybe it's a hindrance to it!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jon,

So in this crowded street, no one that knew Annie noticed her, but three days later a woman that didn't even know what Annie looked like, suddenly remembers seeing her amongst all these women who looked and dressed very similar, and becomes a reliable witness.

I'm not buying it.

Cheers, George

How do you get ‘crowded street’, George?

How can you know that there was someone in that street that knew her?

Why is Long unreliable but Lawende isn’t when she saw Chapman under much better conditions than he saw Eddowes?

Why would she lie? (I can only assume it’s the 15 minutes of fame point?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did Richardson not say at some point that he had not cut the piece off after all and had had to borrow a more suitable knife from a stall in the market?

These were Victorian police officers. Not exactly CSI or Sherlock Holmes. What are the chances of them seeing what was likely to have been a tiny piece of leather if Richardson had chucked it in the grass? It wouldn’t have been seen as remotely significant at the time. If an officer had picked it up he’d have just slung it away.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Jacob Levy.

Ah, yes.

Jacob Levy, who was allegedly recognised by Joseph Hyam Levy in Duke Street.

I refer you to my post of yesterday:

# 35 The lighter side of Ripperology and suspects

in which I cited and quoted from 7 previous posts of mine on this very subject, none of which has ever received a response.

Now is that not remarkable?