John Richardson

[A P Tomlinson]

No they weren't. That is true, but they were out in public places interacting with other people.

Assuming Annie did want to take a rest, she would presumably choose somewhere where she was unlikely to be disturbed.

Like a spot people used for immoral purposes, and occasionally to get a few hours kip before the market opened... like the yard or landing at 29 Hanbury Street maybe?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But that doesn’t mean that no Jewish suspects can be considered or that we should dismiss on the grounds of Anderson’s poor thinking.

Anderson continued:


And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.


And yet he never even referred to one single piece of incriminating evidence against his alleged suspect.

He never even mentioned any arrest nor interrogation of his alleged suspect.

He never responded when challenged to produce or refer to any evidence.

He never substantiated his claim that his colleagues shared his view, even when challenged to do so.

It is not just that his case was grounded in prejudice, but that it lacked any substance at all.

[Wickerman]

And who gets to decide what is important?

We all do, did.
Nobody replied, right?
Thats democracy at work, isn't it?

Are Anderson's and Swanson's ramblings, written more than two decades after the murders, considered to be important when they do not contain one single reference to any incriminating evidence against their suspect?

Some seem to think so.

Are Macnaghten's insinuations about Druitt considered to be important even though they entirely lack corroboration?

To those who are interested, yes.

Why are we discussing the supposed case against Lechmere, when neither the police nor the courts were interested 135 years ago?

Good question, as a suspect he's certainly not on my list. I take the whole theory as a fabrication but Christer was a close friend on here years ago so I do him the honour of not criticizing his theory, but thats just me, other's must disagree. The thread is still active.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Nobody replied, right?

Are you referring to Scott Nelson's not replying to me?

[Wickerman]

Are you referring to Scott Nelson's not replying to me?

No.
No-one replied about, The Mystery of Richardson's Missing Shoeleather, 2 pages, GBoz & FM, 2023.

[Wickerman]

...
It's not my business to decry others' hobbies, but I'll be honest - I'm interested in Ripperologists! Frankly, true-crime is in some ways a disgusting thing - and I'm obviously a follower. And it's been a perennial obsession, especially in this country.

So if I'm not misunderstanding you, your interest is in the killings as a crime, who did what and when?

If that's the case, unfortunately threads like that are in the archives. I haven't seen a thread devoted to a murder in a long time.
I can't answer the 'why' for that question, others might have an idea.

Have you read, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, Evans & Skinner, 2000.?
It's regarded as the Bible of Ripper studies, along with the, Jack the Ripper A-Z, Begg, Fido & Skinner, 1991.
I can imagine some would say the Ultimate is required reading, it's an excellent reference book, along with the newspaper archive (Press Reports) here on Casebook.
As for suspect books, all I can say is, to each their own.
The public are not going to learn much about the case by reading suspect books, there are one or two that are informative, but on the whole - not worth the money.
That's only my subjective view, in case anyone chooses to get upset.

[Lewis C]

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

Hi George,

If I had cut a piece of leather from my boot, I wouldn't have just left it in the yard, I would have disposed of it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If I had cut a piece of leather from my boot, I wouldn't have just left it in the yard, I would have disposed of it.

Even if your entire visit to the premises had lasted less than two minutes?

[Lewis C]

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!

Hi Paul,

I think it's debatable which is a riskier location. It's true that one can escape from Buck's Row if interrupted but not from Dutfield Yard, but on the other hand, one is more likely to be interrupted on the street than in Dutfield Yard.

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi George,

You've mentioned before that the "spring" found was from a child's gaiter, but I've just had a re-look at the inquest testimony as found on Casebook (under the official documents, etc), and Chandler's testimony there reads:
...
[Coroner] Did you find anything else in the yard? - There was a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water. It was about two feet from the water tap.
[Coroner] Was it shown to the doctor? - Yes. There was also a box, such as is commonly used by casemakers for holding nails. It was empty. There was also a piece of steel, flat, which has since been identified by Mrs. Richardson as the spring of her son's leggings.
[Coroner] Where was that found? - It was close to where the body had been. The apron and nail box have also been identified by her as her property. The yard was paved roughly with stones in parts; in other places it was earth.
...

I don't think Richardson would be considered a "child" in the sense of being pre-teen, although of course he was Mrs. Richardson's child in the strictest sense.

Knowing you, however, I presume that somewhere there is another news report that refers to it as belonging to a child? I'm wondering if, perhaps, there might have been some confusion in that report where due to referring as Richardson only as "Mrs. Richardson's son" that the reporter (or editor) misunderstood that and presumed Richardson was a young child? Or is the above version the odd one out? As you know, I think the legging spring belonging to Richardson is an important point, but if it was indeed not his but a child's, then it is a red-herring.

- Jeff

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul,

I think it's debatable which is a riskier location. It's true that one can escape from Buck's Row if interrupted but not from Dutfield Yard, but on the other hand, one is more likely to be interrupted on the street than in Dutfield Yard.

Hi Lewis,

Yes. The more one thinks about it, the less Lech had any link to the sites apart from walking down Buck's Row. And so what for that? When I lived and worked in London, I walked past so many places (as would anyone) that it would be easy to link me to virtually anything. And we don't know how many thousands of others had better links.

Still, one can't deny Lech was on the scene, for one of the killings. I'm sure the old Bill would have noted the significance of this and acted accordingly.
best,

Paul

[Paul Sutton]

So if I'm not misunderstanding you, your interest is in the killings as a crime, who did what and when?

If that's the case, unfortunately threads like that are in the archives. I haven't seen a thread devoted to a murder in a long time.
I can't answer the 'why' for that question, others might have an idea.

Have you read, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, Evans & Skinner, 2000.?
It's regarded as the Bible of Ripper studies, along with the, Jack the Ripper A-Z, Begg, Fido & Skinner, 1991.
I can imagine some would say the Ultimate is required reading, it's an excellent reference book, along with the newspaper archive (Press Reports) here on Casebook.
As for suspect books, all I can say is, to each their own.
The public are not going to learn much about the case by reading suspect books, there are one or two that are informative, but on the whole - not worth the money.
That's only my subjective view, in case anyone chooses to get upset.

My real interest is in the mythology and cultural side, of JtR - and of serial killers in general. How they've this slightly shameful but vital role, somehow. Maybe pretentiously, I link this to previous myths and legends, especially of the 'big bad Wolf'. I write a lot about this - one case (Jack the Stripper) was behind this book (which was a Poetry Book Society Recommended Reading):

https://www.poetrybooks.co.uk/products/jack-the-stripper-by-paul-sutton

I'm an obsessive, and so find other obsessives fascinating.

I've got the Sourcebook, but only dip in. Just finished the Scotlandd Yard investigates - good, but I skipped bits!

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi George,

If I had cut a piece of leather from my boot, I wouldn't have just left it in the yard, I would have disposed of it.

Considering he said the knife in his pocket wasn't adequate to the job and he finished it off with a better knife at work; if the offending leaher was a bit on the inside of the boot that was rubbing his toe, just how much leather do people think he trimmed from his boot in Hanbury Street?

Considering that he had previously done the same thing due to it irritating him, and had put his boot back on and not immediately taken it back off again realising that he needed to do a bit more work on it suggests that we are talking about a pretty tiny bit of leather

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you refuted something that another poster had written, and you reminded him seven times, and still he did not reply, how would you feel if someone accused you of being obsessed?

You have sent me a post in which you were all worked up because I had not replied to one post, soon after you had sent it, even though I simply had not had a chance to get round to doing it.

There does appear to be an obsession with Jewish suspects among certain posters.

I am entitled to refute their claims and that does not mean that I am obsessed, as you well know.

I wasn’t talking about one specific post PI. I really don’t understand your reaction. Ok….I’ll remove the word ‘obsessed.’ Perhaps it was a poor choice of word. Let me put it another way….

You appear to me to be absolutely determined to dismiss any possibility of a Jewish ripper.

That’s what I meant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anderson continued:


And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.


And yet he never even referred to one single piece of incriminating evidence against his alleged suspect.

He never even mentioned any arrest nor interrogation of his alleged suspect.

He never responded when challenged to produce or refer to any evidence.

He never substantiated his claim that his colleagues shared his view, even when challenged to do so.

It is not just that his case was grounded in prejudice, but that it lacked any substance at all.

PI, we’re going off topic here. I said that you appear determined that the ripper couldn’t have been Jewish. You said that because the Jewish suspects were selected for anti-Semitic reasons. I pointed out that we have no evidence for that and that 2 of the ones that you named were suggested by a modern day researcher. I added 2 other by modern day researchers. I also mentioned that Pizer was arrested because it was claimed that he’d been menacing prostitutes. So we can’t blame prejudice for the existence of Jewish suspects anymore that we could accuse Trevor of this due to his suggesting Feigenbaum.