John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why do you assume he opened the door to the least possible angle? Why didn't he kick it open with his boot and yell "c#$ts!" You presume too much.

And of course John Davies opened the door in what we would assume to have been a normal way and he saw the body immediately.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's been suggested Richardson missed seeing the body.Most probably.It is clear he did not make a physical search of the yard,just a quick visual search from the top step as he closed the door on leaving.Where would his focus be.Not on the recess.That would have been in deep gloom and hidden by the door?

But he said that he could see all over the yard and that the body wasn’t there and he couldn’t possibly have missed it had it been there. So for him to have been wrong he’d have had to have lied or been monumentally stupid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The other side of the coin is Jeff,that two professional people,Chandler and Phillips have to be wrong.What it comes down to,is that Richardson gave an opinion as to whether the body would be seen if it was there.Yes a probing pysical search would have proved him true,but it appears that Richardson gave little more than a glance at the yard.The door hiding the recess did not,as far as I can tell,come into calculation.

We know that Phillips estimation was unreliable though. This is simply a fact that you won’t accept Harry. There will always be differences of in opinions and interpretations but when someone denies a fact then it’s an insurmountable issue and I’m afraid that’s exactly what you’re doing. That Phillips estimation is unreliable is simply a fact confirmed by all medical experts.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It is always fascinating when we study known facts and various bits of assorted information which may or may not be reliable, and we reach different conclusions.

This is my take on some of the main points. Chandler's evidence at the inquest about his conversation in the passage with Richardson was very brief, but apparently complete. He was told that Richardson had been at no. 29 earlier, why he was there, the time, and that he was certain that the body was not there then. This was all he needed to know to establish that Richardson was an important witness, and that someone else should take his detailed statement. He clearly didn't ask him any searching questions. The obvious question, "if you only called to check the cellar door lock on the right, how can you be certain that the body was not in the yard on the left?" was not asked, or it would have been part of Chandler's evidence. Chandler simply didn't ask, so he didn't establish any more information. He did not give the information that Richardson didn't mention the boot issue as part of his evidence, which he might well have done if he was suspicious of a change of story. He gave it only as an answer to a direct question. Nothing in his evidence at this point suggests that Chandler was in any way suspicious of Richardson. Chandler's detailed report of 8th September covering all of his actions at no. 29, didn't even mention his conversation with Richardson - that's how important he thought it was!

As all evidence was very urgently needed, and Richardson had made himself available to the police promptly, I think we may reasonably assume that he made a detailed statement virtually immediately, though obviously not with Chandler, who rushed off to the mortuary. We do not have that statement nor do we have any report from the interviewing officer. We therefore do not know what was said, and cannot assume that Richardson lied, suffered a memory lapse, changed his story, or was mistaken. There is, as far as I am aware, no evidence whatever to support this type of observation, as we simply do not know what was said in that statement. I am inclined to consider his inquest evidence as confused and incomplete under pressure from the coroner's questioning, which must have unnerved him.

The police, possibly because Richardson's story was rather odd, and certainly because it contradicted the estimated ToD, were suspicious, and we know from Swanson that they investigated his story thoroughly, and found nothing that concerned them. Agreed, the total lack of evidence of guilt is not conclusive proof of innocence. However, if they investigated his version of events thoroughly, they must have confirmed that he could see the lock from the steps, if he sat on the steps he must have seen the body, (Chandler says so), that his boot had been repaired by some removal of excess leather, and that he had borrowed a knife at the market to complete the job. If they didn't do this, they hardly investigated thoroughly!

Although the police seemed to be satisfied with Richardson's account, the inquest reports suggest that the coroner was not, and he seems to have given Richardson a tough time, even sending him away to get the knife he had used. On his return, the reports seem to show that Chandler was quite satisfied with Richardson's story, and in the final summary, the coroner seems to also have accepted it.

One thing about the knife intigues me. If Richardson was interviewed shortly after talking to Chandler, which is probably the case, then he would surely have still had the knife on his person. Is this the knife that some newspapers report that the police took possession of that day?

A minor point possibly, but Davis, who found the body at about 5. 50 am, reported that the front door was wide open at that time, and Richardson reported that he definitely closed it at appx 4. 45 am. It was possibly left open by another resident leaving, but it seems unlikely that a resident would be so casual as to not close it, and also that a resident wouldn't have used the outside loo that morning before leaving. If he had done so, he would have seen the body, of course. I am aware that chamber pots were in use in 1888, but I think the outside loo would have been used for a major event like morning ablutions. (Sorry about the necessary detail here!) So for me, this is evidence, though hardly conclusive, of someone leaving in a hurry between 4. 45 am and 5. 50 am.

Finally, a question for every reader. You are Richardson, your boot is giving you hell, and you decide as you have a knife in your pocket, to try to cut a protruding piece of leather. You sit on the step, and attempt this important task which requires some careful attention to detail, and which is made more difficult because the knife isn't really very sharp. Do you -
a) attempt it with the door on a spring banging against your arm throughout the job, or
b) shut the door so that you can concentrate on what you are doing.

Should any reader have chosen "a)", I am sure that some help, guidance or counselling can be made available.

For what it is worth, I am just about as satisfied with Richardson's evidence as I can be - I don't see any strong or remotely compelling evidence to doubt it. However, I do feel far less satisfied with Long and Cadosch, and it is their accounts which truly contradict the estimated ToD, rather more than Richardson.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I just can't see how, given his position how the body could be obscured, even if he did the unlikely and had door against him while working on his boot.

Furthermore, Trevor is arguing from a position that does not take into account what Richardson told Chandler during their initial conversation.

Richardson told Chandler that he was sure the body wasn't there. You have to infer that he could see into that part of yard, no matter where he was stood/sat. Based on the words that came out of his mouth, as opposed to rewriting or ignoring his statement, Richardson cannot possibly be mistaken. In the event Annie's body was there at the time then it follows Richardson was lying in at least some part of his statement and not mistaken.

Richardson didn't say to Chandler: "well, I don't think the body was there, but then again I only opened the door so far"; he said: "I'm sure the body wasn't there". No attempt to ignore or rewrite what he actually said can change that, and the issue of Richardson being mistaken is a redundant exercise.

We even have the doctor pointing out he may have miscalculated how quickly the body would have cooled, indicating that he's not objecting to the ToD suggested by the witness statements and allowing for his estimate to be off.

We don't. Dr Phillips was confident that the latest time of death was 4.30am, and that Annie was probably killed earlier than that. Dr Phillips' point about the body cooling was not intended to cast doubt on the latest possible TOD of 4.30am, it was intended to clarify that while he couldn't state with certainly Annie was killed prior to 4.30am due to the cold morning, he believed it to be the case. That much is evident from what Dr Phillips actually stated, and once again it is there in black and white for us to read and there shouldn't be an attempt to rewrite what Dr Phillips actually stated nor infer a conclusion that is absolutely at odds with the words that came out of his mouth.

What we have is another of the many conundrums in this case. A well respected, experienced doctor believed Annie was murdered around 1 or 2 hours prior to 4.30am (it's not clear exactly how many hours he is talking) and he viewed the body only one hour after the body was found; while John Richardson told Chandler he was 'sure' Annie's body was not there at 4.45am.

[JeffHamm]

The other side of the coin is Jeff,that two professional people,Chandler and Phillips have to be wrong.What it comes down to,is that Richardson gave an opinion as to whether the body would be seen if it was there.Yes a probing pysical search would have proved him true,but it appears that Richardson gave little more than a glance at the yard.The door hiding the recess did not,as far as I can tell,come into calculation.

Hi harry,

Well, I am not sur Chandler has to be wrong. Richardson may not have mentioned the boot repair on his first conversation for entirely innocent reasons, so Chandler can state what he was told trulu without it being "the whole truth". And Phillips even admits his claims could be wrong, so I don't see a problem. But that is me, we all draw out own conclusions

Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I see this as a three part discussion.

1. What was Richardson's everyday routine? - My view is he opened the door enough to check the padlock and then left. I believe he would have missed the body in this circumstance.

2. Did JR sit on the step and cobble his boot? - requires an assessment as to whether his changed story was an adding of detail or an augmentation.

3. If he did sit on the step mending his boot, could the door have obscured his view of of the area where the body was found? - For this question there are too many variables to make the answer anymore than personal opinion. How far did he open the door, how did he position his feet to sit on the step, was he faced down the yard or angled to the right to avoid the door fouling his hands working on the boot. When he got up, did he turn to the left or the right before going up the stairs. Posters have expressed their opinions on these questions, usually with absolute certainty. I don't believe there is any certainty on these points, only speculation.

I don't believe that the spring can be used as corroboration as it attracted various descriptions, one of which was identification as the spring from a "child's gaitor".

What some see that Phillip's so called caveat was an explanation for how he may have miscalculated, I see and an explanation for a factor that he included in his calculation. Richardson's testimony was the crucial evidence that challenged the medical evidence.

Cadosch changed his story from one visit to the toilet to two visits 3 to 4 minutes apart. Voices would be commonplace at the time of morning and would echo in the space between the buildings. When the coroner asked Cadosch why he didn't even take the time to glance over the fence he replied that he had heard nothing out of the usual to prompt him to do so. Long walked down the street which she said had many people and couples. When the coroner asked if the couple she focussed on were doing anything to attract attention, she replied no, and added that she paid no attention to them. Three days after the event she comes forward and the day after she identifies, in the morgue, a woman she has never seen before as the woman on the street that day. There is nothing to be added to the case as evidence by these two people.

Phillips determined his ToD estimate from body temperature, rigor and digestion of stomach contents. By today's standard such estimates are considered unreliable, but to what extent. The estimated ToD for Eddowes, whose body suffered very similar conditions, proved to be very reliable. Phillip's estimate may have been in error, but I don't believe that it was as gross an error as is proposed.

There are those that wish to take JR's testimony as gospel and Phillip's testimony as unreliable, and those who have doubts about both. I don't think it is clear cut either way, but I do lean it one direction. JMO.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Not sur I can do this justice as I'm into my cups. But, first point I am not sur I am keen on dividing things up. I tend to view JtR as a case that requires accepting that all evidence is flawed, so if we get too focused on detail we only see error, but if we move our focus back a bit we can see the gist of the truth.

With that in mind, i see you first point as irrelevant because it really doesnt matter what he did on any other day, only on this day. For example, boot repair is not something anyone suggests he always did, only something he might have done on that day. So usual goes out the door.

your 2nd point, well, that has been addressed a few times over the course of this thread. Personally, I think it makes no sense to believe he lies about sitting and fixing his boot, so I think he did. I guéss if if thinking he lied about that is acceptable, then different conclusions will be reached.

And then, with point 3, since I think he did sit on the steps, and as I have covered in previous posts, I really cannot see how he çould have missed her. Hence, I really cannot come to the conclusion she was there.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

And Phillips even admits his claims could be wrong, so I don't see a problem. But that is me, we all draw out own conclusions

Jeff

Dr Phillips very clearly stated that Annie was murdered no later than 4.30am and probably (meaning in his belief) hours before that. It is pretty obvious that the cold morning/condition of the body comment is a clarification as to why he stated 'probably' hours prior to 4.30am rather than 'definitely', his reluctance to be more exact does not relate to the 'no later than 4.30am' part of his statement. He was empathic in his belief that Annie had been by murdered the time John Richardson was at the back door - and that includes a consideration of the cold morning/conditions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I asked a friend of mine to have a look through the newspaper reports as I don’t have access to them except for the ones on here. I did this because of the suggestion that Richardson changed his story even though even if he hadn’t initially mentioned his reason for sitting on the step then there would have been nothing suspicious about it.

……..

Regarding newspaper reports on the day of the murder, it seems that we are limited to the evening newspapers (as the morning papers of 8th September didn't report the murder). So we can go through them in respect of the surviving editions of the London evening papers:

The Echo

"One singular circumstance in connection with the discovery is the statement of a lad, named Richardson, that at half-past five he passed through the yard and the body was not there".

Evening News

No mention of Richardson.

Globe

No mention of Richardson

Star

"John Richardson, of 2, John-street, E.C., said to a Star reporter :- I am a porter in Spitalfields market. I always go round to mother's (Mrs. Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street) on market mornings just to see that everything is right in the backyard, where her underground packing-case workshops are. The place was burgled a short time back. This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure. I heard in the market at 6.20 a woman had been found murdered at mother's, and went round and saw the body. The police, by the doctor's order, took possession of my leather apron and knife that were on the premises, and also a box of nails, as well as three pills found near the body."

Pall Mall Gazette

No mention of Richardson.

Evening Standard

No mention of Richardson

Evening Post

No mention of Richardson

As you can see then, on 8 September there was no mention in the press of Richardson either standing or sitting. The Echo, however, said that he passed through.

As for the next morning's (Sunday) papers, I see no mention of Richardson in Reynolds, LWN, the Weekly Dispatch or the People.

As for the papers of Monday, 10 September, there was no mention of Richardson in the Daily Chronicle but I find mentions in the following newspapers of that date:

Daily Telegraph

"At a quarter before five o'clock John Richardson of 2, St. John-street, son of the landlady of 29, Hanbury-street, the proprietor of the packing case business, as usual went to his mother's to see if everything was right in the back yard. A short while before there was a burglary in this place. Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot. The door would then partially hide the corner between the house and the fence. This man is quite clear he saw nothing to attract his attention before he left."

Morning Post [also in the Morning Advertiser]

"Mrs. Richardson, the landlady at 29, Hanbury Street, the house where the body was found, in the course of an interview said.. My son John came in at 10 minutes to five, and he gave a look round before he went to market. He went through to the yard, but no one was there then, and everything was right."

Times

"John Richardson, son of a woman living in the house, stated that he entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall Market, and at that time - 4:50 - he was certain no one was in the yard."

Daily News

"John Richardson, living in the house, states that he, in accordance with his usual practice, entered the place when on his way to work at Leadenhall Market, and at that time, 4.50, he was certain no one was in the yard."

Thus, the Telegraph said that Richardson sat down. I don't find any other pre-inquest newspapers specifically saying that he was standing (but it's possible I've missed something as I was a little pushed for time). As far as I can see, the first mention of him standing on the steps was in the Evening Standard report of the inquest published on 12 September 1888 in which Richardson is reported as having said "I stood on the steps, but did not go into the yard." But that report adds that he then said: "The back door was closed. I opened it, and sat on the doorstep and cut a piece of leather off my boot..." The Times report of the inquest published on 13 September also mentioned Richardson saying that he stood on the steps but omitted to include his evidence that he then sat down to cut a piece of leather from his boot. So anyone reading that account might think that he stood up the entire time.

Note also that the Evening Standard of 12 September 1888 carries the following crucial question and answers from Richardson's evidence at the inquest:

Did you sit on the top step? - No, sir, the second step.

Where were your feet? - On the flags of the yard, sir.

You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? She was found lying just where my feet were.

…….

I don’t see an issue to be honest. The evidence taken as a whole is massively in favour of Richardson telling the truth. All that we have is Chandler’s version of what was said in the passage way and Richardson never had the opportunity of responding so we can only speculate as to what he might have said?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Phillips very clearly stated that Annie was murdered no later than 4.30am and probably (meaning in his belief) hours before that. It is pretty obvious that the cold morning/condition of the body comment is a clarification as to why he stated 'probably' hours prior to 4.30am rather than 'definitely', his reluctance to be more exact does not relate to the 'no later than 4.30am' part of his statement. He was empathic in his belief that Annie had been by murdered the time John Richardson was at the back door - and that includes a consideration of the cold morning/conditions.

He was using algor mortis to estimate the TOD which modern day experts inform us is an unreliable method. It’s also a method where temperature should be taken by a rectal thermometer but Phillips just used the touch of his hand.

[JeffHamm]

Dr Phillips very clearly stated that Annie was murdered no later than 4.30am and probably (meaning in his belief) hours before that. It is pretty obvious that the cold morning/condition of the body comment is a clarification as to why he stated 'probably' hours prior to 4.30am rather than 'definitely', his reluctance to be more exact does not relate to the 'no later than 4.30am' part of his statement. He was empathic in his belief that Annie had been by murdered the time John Richardson was at the back door - and that includes a consideration of the cold morning/conditions.

Thanks for explaining your view - Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Thanks for explaining your view - Jeff

Its a 'view' based upon what Dr Phillips said. So, when you said: "we all have our own conclusions", that may be the case but some are built upon stronger foundations than others.

In the event you're going to discount what Dr Phillips stated and choose to infer the highly unlikely, then it follows you're discounting his words because they don't fit with your pre-conceived idea/theory.

[Fleetwood Mac]

He was using algor mortis to estimate the TOD which modern day experts inform us is an unreliable method. It’s also a method where temperature should be taken by a rectal thermometer but Phillips just used the touch of his hand.

That may be the case, but it's an entirely different scenario to Jeff claiming Dr Phillips acknowledged that Annie may have been murdered after 4.30am due to the cold morning/condition of the body.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for explaining your view - Jeff

No worries. ,- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Its a 'view' based upon what Dr Phillips said. .....

Are you sure that is what I meant?

- Jeff