John Richardson

[GBinOz]

I am amazed this discussion has gone on as long as it has. Surely the balance of probability indicates that the body and Richardson were never in the yard at the smae time. He would not have had to have seen it, the smell of the ripped innards and blood would have been overwhelming I would imagine. Plus if it was light enough in the yard to repair his boot, it was light enough to have seen the body.

But he admitted he didn't repair the boot, so the converse equally applies.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

The simplest explanations are usually the best ones imo.

After the discovery of the body John Richardson would naturally have discussed the events of that morning with his mother during which he would have told her about his sitting on the step and repairing his boot. This surely can’t be considered a stretch of anyone’s imagination? It would also have been very reasonable for her to have asked him if he was certain that he hadn’t been into the yard especially if she’d assumed that Richardson had usually checked the lock by doing just that. And it would have been an assumption on her part because she wouldn’t have been present when he usually checked the lock and there would have been absolutely no reason for her son to have told her how he checked the lock or where he’d usually stood. He’d have simply said “I’ve checked the cellar lock” if he’d seen his mother, and not “I stepped into the yard, took two paces to the right…..etc” or “I stood on the top step, ducked down, and turned to the right etc.” So no explanation as to how he’d usually checked the locks.

And so, when asked, Amelia Richardson stated that her son didn’t need to go into the yard to check the lock because he’d told her on the morning of the discovery of the body that he’d done it from a position sitting on the steps.

There’s nothing mysterious or sinister going on here. It’s simple.

So you are suggesting that mother and son colluded to get their story straight for the inquest?

[GBinOz]

Ola GB.
It seems Richardson and his ma couldn't keep their stories straight. I like when confronted with his ma's statement about robberies he's all like ask her again. Basically, after he's coached her what's about to happen. That really wouldn't fly in 2022. Also notice when asked if he went INTO the yard he said no and repeated the word into. Ok back to language again, in his mind he didn't go INTO the yard, but this still leaves the door open (pun unavoidable) for being in the yard like on the edge by the cellar steps. For all intents and purposes, he's not lying but playing with words while maintaining a truthful demeanor.

Hi Mac3,

Old people forget things and are sometimes confused (not me of course....or Dave). You have nicely expressed a way of making truth adjustment more palatable.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

A shoe may become uncomfortable over a period, but he had plenty of time to make further repairs in more opportune circumstances. Why pick the two minutes he usually spent checking the lock?

There is little to gain in pointing out what he could have said. No one knows why he didn't use those explanations. We only know what explanation he did use, and it doesn't pass the pub test.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

It passes with flying colours imo. I can’t see a single issue. A shoe can begin to be uncomfortable at any given point. Experience tells us all this fact. So if it started to hurt when he set out that morning he clearly wouldn’t have fixed it in the street. He probably just thought “I’ll do it when I get to number 29 where I can sit down.”

We are constantly in a position of having to assume stupidity or a complete lack of awareness on the part of Richardson. I don’t think for a second that he lied. It seems fairly self-evident to me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you are suggesting that mother and son colluded to get their story straight for the inquest?

No, just that there’s nothing mysterious or sinister for a mother and her son to talk. And on the morning where a mutilated corpse had been discovered in her backyard it doesn’t take much working out what the main topic would have been. In fact it would be unrealistic to suggest that they wouldn’t have talked. So what’s surprising or questionable about the suggestion that Ma Richardson would have wanted to know if he could possibly have missed the corpse? He then tells her no, because he’d sat on the steps and couldn’t have missed it. I don’t see the issue to be honest George.

[Losmandris]

Hi Tristan,

For JtR to escape justice, he would need to look like an unlikely candidate.

Cheers, George

Good point.

[The Macdonald Triad]

No, just that there’s nothing mysterious or sinister for a mother and her son to talk. And on the morning where a mutilated corpse had been discovered in her backyard it doesn’t take much working out what the main topic would have been. In fact it would be unrealistic to suggest that they wouldn’t have talked. So what’s surprising or questionable about the suggestion that Ma Richardson would have wanted to know if he could possibly have missed the corpse? He then tells her no, because he’d sat on the steps and couldn’t have missed it. I don’t see the issue to be honest George.

If Amelia was willing to lie about prostitute activity on the premises, what would stop her from trying to put a good spin on a ripped up corpse outside her window? Like mentioning Bible study groups, kissing the Bible. Keeping her son out of the yard at the T.O.D. If and it's a big if, John was the Ripper wouldn't some Mother's do everything to keep their son from being hanged? Not to mention her own "good name" was at stake..

[Wickerman]

Jeff has pointed out that statements can be interpreted differently by different people. I am interpreting based on grammatical construction. Baxter already knew he sat on the second step to cut his boot and may have been trying to trap Richardson by asking, if all he did was cut his boot, and he didn't go in the yard, how come he said he was there to check the lock?

Hi George.
I was only having a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor with you in that last post, I wasn't serious.

That said... as regards him going into the yard (quote above), I don't take setting his feet on the flags of the yard as meaning he was "in the yard". I think it has been pointed out already that being "in the yard" would more likely mean walking a good distance away from the house towards the shed at the end of the yard. Don't ask me "how far, is 'in the yard'?"
It's just a matter of interpretation, he placed his feet on the flags but didn't walk away from the house-steps into the middle of the yard.

Jon, are you really suggesting that he was telling the coroner that he could only see the lock when he was sitting on the step? That the step sitting was part of the two month lock checking procedure? The coroner obviously had doubts about his story because he chose to double check with John's mother in John's absence.
My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.
Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door?-No, he can see from the steps.

I see in some cases the wording may not be as clear as we would like. There are two sets of steps, we cannot be sure which set he is referring to in every case.
I do think he sat on the house steps, and from there he could see the padlock of the cellar door. However, there are instances where the wording may refer to the cellar steps, which he didn't need to go down.

Richardson decided to attempt a second repair in the dark on the steps instead of a few minutes later at the market where he eventually succeeded. When do you suppose that he remembered that he had a knife in his pocket that he had mistakenly put there?

Why do you add 'in the dark", when he clearly told us he could see all over the place?
He may have trimmed his boot on the steps, but the knife not being sharp enough to do a good job, he borrowed another at the market to finish the job.

I accept your selection of quotes George. All is well.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Amelia was willing to lie about prostitute activity on the premises, what would stop her from trying to put a good spin on a ripped up corpse outside her window? Like mentioning Bible study groups, kissing the Bible. Keeping her son out of the yard at the T.O.D. If and it's a big if, John was the Ripper wouldn't some Mother's do everything to keep their son from being hanged? Not to mention her own "good name" was at stake..

Can we be sure that she lied though Mac? Perhaps John just kept it from here for whatever reason? If he was the ripper then yes I’d have to agree of course that she’d have lied for him.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Can we be sure that she lied though Mac? Perhaps John just kept it from here for whatever reason? If he was the ripper then yes I’d have to agree of course that she’d have lied for him.

Anything's possible, Herlock. I'm just suspicious of anyone acting like all twelve Saints at the inquest. It reminds me of the flag pin American politicians started wearing on their lapels after 9/11. Virtue signaling I think is the modern term.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

It passes with flying colours imo. I can’t see a single issue. A shoe can begin to be uncomfortable at any given point. Experience tells us all this fact. So if it started to hurt when he set out that morning he clearly wouldn’t have fixed it in the street. He probably just thought “I’ll do it when I get to number 29 where I can sit down.”

We are constantly in a position of having to assume stupidity or a complete lack of awareness on the part of Richardson. I don’t think for a second that he lied. It seems fairly self-evident to me.

But it didnt star to hurt that morning he stated he had made a repair the day before, again you are not reading and digesting what i have posted. see post #665

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it didnt star to hurt that morning he stated he had made a repair the day before, again you are not reading and digesting what i have posted. see post #665

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I did read it Trevor, the weirdest thing is that I think that you might not have.

What concerns me about Richardson and his boot cutting is that he stated he had cut some leather from it the day before and it was still giving him problems.

English language Trevor - that doesn’t mean that it was continually hurting from immediately after the repair. A repair, if not done as effectively as first thought, can at first seem ok then grow uncomfortable in time. Surely you wouldn’t debate this? Then again….

That being said I have to ask why did he not make a second repair that day,

Because it probably didn’t start hurting again until he put his boots on again on the morning of the murder and after he’d walked in them a for a while.

or why did he not make the repair that morning before he left his home address.

Again…..because he wouldn’t have walked around much or at any pace in his own house. But as he set out on a brisk walk to work his shoe began to hurt again. Not rocket science Trevor.

On both occassions he would have had access to the right knives available to him to make the second repair.

So when did you discover that he had a complete set of shoemakers knives at home?

I think most people faced with the same situation would make the right repair at the first attempt,

So not only is Harry an expert on Forensic medicine and Law but you’re a trained cobbler too? Undoubtedly John Pfizer would have made a good job of it first time but Richardson was a market porter. Why am I having to explain this? People make failed repair attempts every day. My brother had his car repaired 2 weeks ago and he hadn’t driven 250 yards before it broke down again. How much greater the chance of a bit of amateur shoe repair going wrong….especially when someone might be a little cautious in how much material they cut away in case they ruin a pair of boots that they can I’ll afford to replace.

after all if your boot is hurting you and you make a repair surely you would after making the first repair make sure that repair had fixed the problem with the boot.

People try things and fail. As your bending over backwards attempt to discredit Richardson illustrates.

We don’t know the exact situation with Richardson’s boot but your trying to pluck problems out of thin air. What if Richardson had haemorrhoids? He wouldn’t have sat on a cold step? What if he was partially blind? He might have missed the body. What if he had severe arthritis in his hands? He wouldn’t have been able to repair his boot. What’s next in the plan?

[Wickerman]

Hey George, betcha thought I'd forgotten about this?.....you'd be right.

As I said previously, I think Richardson was very lucky to escape far more scrutiny than he did. He was considered a suspect and questioned, but under English law, no proof, no prosecution.

What LAW?, this isn't good enough!, I'm not tolerating anyone talking about the LAW in general, you have to quote chapter and verse,...etc...etc..



Back to the real world...

Firstly, compare Richardson with the profile established for JtR. Richardson was 35 years old, tall but stout with dark brown hair and a dark moustache. He worked for his mother, who was a widow (I don't know when his father died) with strong religious beliefs. He can be placed at a murder scene with a knife. He lived locally at 2 John St in the heart of Ripper territory so he would have known the area and been known in the area. No-one saw or heard him arrive at No 29, or leave, so we have only his word as to times. His freshly washed apron and his knife were found on the premises. He had access to a nice underground cellar to use as a bolt hole for a clean-up.
Anything so far that rules him out?

Nothing, but you have to admit this is very general, except he didn't live with his mother like some modern suspects.
The knife, well, if you called it what it was, a butter-knife, and with a broken blade too. It's not the instrument the doctors were describing, so it might as well have been a spoon.

He spoke to Chandler within 30 minutes of the body being discovered and told him:
1. He had been there to check the lock, which he did from the steps and
2. He had not gone into the yard.

In the next few days he would have worried that he may come under suspicion, and his fears were realised. He needed a reason why
1. he broke his 2 month routine that
2. also involved him carrying a knife (which the police already knew), but
3. didn't involve him going into the yard, and
4. also proved that he could not have murdered Chapman as the murder had not yet taken place.

This to me is over dramatic. If I had been to the yard, where a body was later found. It wouldn't take me hours/days to realize I'd have to be careful of what I say to police of they could get the wrong impression.
So, "in the next few days" doesn't work for me, and as I mentioned before, if I'm "going into the yard" then I'm saying I went several feet away from the house, not just stepped on the flags at the bottom of the house steps.

If I recall correctly, Richardson had no knowledge that Phillips thought the murder had taken place before he (Richardson) got there. So he wasn't making things up to avoid suspicion, he was just telling it like it was.
It's not like Chandler is going to tell him "she was murdered about 4:15, so what were you doing here?"
Richardson had no clue when she was murdered, he had no cause to make excuses. He said he could see all over the yard because as far as he was concerned the murder took place after he left.

[Wickerman]

George
What concerns me about Richardson and his boot cutting is that he stated he had cut some leather from it the day before and it was still giving him problems. That being said I have to ask why did he not make a second repair that day, or why did he not make the repair that morning before he left his home address. On both occassions he would have had access to the right knives available to him to make the second repair.

He didn't say he was at home when he first trimmed the boot.

I think most people faced with the same situation would make the right repair at the first attempt, after all if your boot is hurting you and you make a repair surely you would after making the first repair make sure that repair had fixed the problem with the boot.

Say's Mr Perfection here....look Trevor, we don't know what the repair was, or whether it held for a few hours, then came loose.
You're raising questions that are unreasonable, but your intent is obvious, to create doubt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He didn't say he was at home when he first trimmed the boot.



Say's Mr Perfection here....look Trevor, we don't know what the repair was, or whether it held for a few hours, then came loose.
You're raising questions that are unreasonable, but your intent is obvious, to create doubt.