John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

It only needed to have been 5 minutes or so out. We don’t need to be looking at a 15 difference.

Its also worth looking at the other evidence Fishy. There’s a 10 minute gap between when Chandler said that he’d arrived and when Holland said that he’d seen Chandler arrive. Perhaps Holland heard the same clock that Long did….and it was fast?

That wasnt why i was asking tho , i merely want to know if is possible Long heard it chime twice? once at 5.15am and then at 5.30am as she said she left her house at 5.00am .

[GBinOz]

George ,the brewers clock ,any idea if it chimed at 15 min intervals?

Hi Fishy,

I haven't found any evidence to say one way or the other. I tend to favour sequences rather than clock times as there can easily be a 15 minute error in synchronisation.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Many things are debatable of course but one thing isn’t debatable. That Phillips estimate is neither here nor there. So Phillips can’t be used. We can’t say “Richardson was probably wrong because there’s a chance that Phillips might have been right.”

So the witnesses have to be judged alone and of themselves. So why do we have to start being so creating with the efforts to try and disprove witnesses who give us no reason for doing so.

Yes, Long might have been mistaken but it would have been a pretty sizeable coincidence for her to have seen Annie Chapman’s double with a man at just the right time and just the spot. And although witnesses can certainly be mistaken we can’t just eliminate her on a general point of principle.

Cadosch gives us no reason to suspect him of lying and the fact that he admitted to caution over the ‘no’ points toward honesty rather than dishonesty. And if he had heard a noise then there could be no innocent explanation. It had to be connected to the murder.

And Richardson is a really strong witness who we really have to enter Hans Christian Anderson territory to malign. There’s simply nothing against him. All that gets used is a rather strange sentence in the inquest testimony which neither the coroner or the jury picked up on and which would have been impossible for them not to have. Therefore it’s clear that the transcript, which isn’t verbatim, is at fault.

ALL the evidence has to be judged equally. ! We cant and shouldnt just eliminate that which we dont like or doesnt fit a perticular theory. AS this thread has shown many time over just how phillips , richardson ,long and cadosh clash with each of there testimonies , along with others at the inquest . As always the evidence leads me to my opinion on an earlier t.o.d, those that wish to claim later is only their opinion also based on the same evidence.

We just dont know and cant say for certain one way or the other .

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I haven't found any evidence to say one way or the other. I tend to favour sequences rather than clock times as there can easily be a 15 minute error in synchronisation.

Cheers, George

As i tend to do also George, however

How do we know the Brewers clock was out by 5,10 15 mins, if it chimed at exactly 5.30am as it is designed to do ? by what comparison to another clock or any clock at the time and location would anyone be able to say it wasnt ? unless we are assuming that at 5.25am the chimes went off instead of 5.30am. Surley not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

ALL the evidence has to be judged equally. ! We cant and shouldnt just eliminate that which we dont like or doesnt fit a perticular theory. AS this thread has shown many time over just how phillips , richardson ,long and cadosh clash with each of there testimonies , along with others at the inquest . As always the evidence leads me to my opinion on an earlier t.o.d, those that wish to claim later is only their opinion also based on the same evidence.

We just dont know and cant say for certain one way or the other .

I agree and it’s why I don’t do that because I don’t have a particular theory that requires a later TOD. Phillips clashes with the 3 witnesses but the witnesses don’t clash with each other. Nothing that they said at the inquest clash with each other either and this is the point. The same point keeps being added as a throwaway comment as if it’s some kind of fact but it’s simply not true. The three witnesses support each other. So you go for a Doctors TOD that we know for a fact can’t be relied upon and dismiss the witnesses for no specific reason other than the generality ‘witnesses can be mistaken?’

[Fleetwood Mac]

It is easy to imagine that Hanbury St was relatively deserted when Elizabeth Long claimed to have observed Annie Chapman and her murderer at 5:30am on Market Day. I discovered this photo of Brick Lane on Market Day in "Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates" by Evans and Rumbelow, in the section on Annie Chapman.



Would the street have been this crowded at 5:30am on Market Day? Possible indications that is was are:

John Richardson was already at work at his market stall by 5:00am.

Amelia Richardson at the Inquest:
"But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle.".

Elizabeth Long at the Inquest:
Did they appear sober? - I don't know, sir. I did not take particular notice of them. I did not see anything that made me think they were the worse for drink.
Was it not unusual to see a man and a woman talking together at that hour? - No; I see lots of them.

So Elizabeth Long was proceeding through the street on her way to work with no idea that a murder was about to take place in the backyard of a house on her route, and out of a crowd of people, and by not taking any particular notice of them, she was able to identify the victim of the murder four days later.

Long's story sounds pretty thin to me, but I accept it has its adherents.

Cheers, George

I think you can take it that there was a lot of activity in the street. 'Not necessarily to the level in the photograph, but still a decent amount of activity.

We know that people were coming from and going to the market, we know that Elizabeth Prater walked past men harnessing horses in Dorset Street at half 5 in the morning, we know Elizabeth Long was used to seeing couples at that time in the morning, we know there were workers turning up at Hanbury Street at that time of the morning, we know the pubs were open again at half 5 in the morning and there was a market for beer as people in the Victorian age had different sleeping habits and didn't trust the water on offer to quench their first.

And of course, it wasn't only the people coming into or leaving a building in Hanbury Street but those passing through for work or pubs or whatever.

The pan of water wasn't touched at the back of 29 Hanbury Street and so you'd imagine the murderer had blood on his hands when he left the scene. 'Could put his hands in his pockets of course, but taking a risk not seen at any other crime scene. 'Just as the risk of continuing murder and mutilation with someone a few yards away in broad daylight, was a risk not taken at any other crime scene.

Having said all of that, I think there are more solid arguments as to why Annie wasn't murdered at 5.20am to 5.30am. The medical evidence and the inconsistencies in the witness statements, and of course John Richardson misleading the coroner.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And on we go.

Medical evidence of Phillips - has to be dismissed if the case is viewed honestly. If Phillips TOD is tipped either way past past 50-50 purely on medical grounds then we can only assume dishonesty.

The Richardson misled the jury is an invention.

Later TOD over earlier to all but the biased.

Dr. Biggs statement ends it. Anyone disputes it is calling Biggs a liar or an incompetent.

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted... I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s put this myth about Richardson misleading the inquest to bed because it’s being used in an attempt dismiss the inconvenient Richardson as a witness.

I’ll use The Telegraph version of the inquest testimony to begin with. This is what Richardson said about the knife:


“Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.”


So he mentions the knife he used at Hanbury Street but not the knife that he then used at the market. Is this any issue that should concern us? Clearly not because the Coroner wasn’t interested in what occurred after he’d left number 29. The Coroner asked no further questions about the knife or for any further details on the work that he’d done on his boot. So at this stage the second knife was completely irrelevant and Richardson had very obviously misled no one.

He then returned to the inquest with:


“..a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.”


So this is what all of the fuss is about. But if we hold back on the hysteria what do we notice? After hearing people tell us that Richardson had said that he’d cut a piece from his boot but then he ‘mislead’ the inquest by telling them that he couldn’t cut a piece from his boot we can see that this isn’t what he’d said at all according to The Telegraph.

He simply said: “…as it was not sharpe enough he had borrowed another one at the market.” He didn’t say he ‘it wasn’t sharp enough to cut a piece from his boot’ only that ‘it wasn’t sharp enough.’ This could also mean of course, to anyone that understands English, that it simply wasn’t sharp enough to do a sufficiently good job and so he used a sharper one at the market.

Of course the alternative interpretation makes absolutely no sense at all because we would have Richardson in effect telling the Coroner ‘I cut a piece from my boot at number 29 but my knife wasn’t sharp enough so I couldn’t cut a piece from my boot!’ This is what we are being asked to believe that the lying Richardson said. Can anyone seriously believe that this is what he’d said? This is what we are being asked to dismiss Richardson on the strength of though. How many of us would have heard that kind of statement and not picked up on it? Of course we would have. A child would have picked up on it. It’s too obvious to have been missed and yet we are being asked to believe that a Coroner and his jury, investigating a knife murder and at the time discussing a man’s knife, completely ignored this piece of gibberish. Didn’t notice it, mention it or question Richardson on it. So what is more believable; that the Coroner and Jury were all deaf or inattentive or plain stupid or….. that what Richardson said to them wasn’t suspicious in the slightest. In fact it made complete sense.

Can we take it that the Press versions of the inquest testimony is wholly accurate? Well we only have to look at The Times version to see that the answer to that is clearly no. At first they said:


“He did not go into the yard, but went and stood on the steps.”


Then a few lines later we have:


“He did not sit upon the top step, but rested his feet on the flags of the yard.”


So it’s clear that these non-verbatim reports can contain larger errors so can it really be doubted that The Telegraph report might have been slightly unclear? This has to be more believable than Richardson coming up with some pointless gobbledegook at the inquest which was ignored by everyone present. And why did Richardson use a knife that wasn’t completely up to the job? Simply because, as he said, he’d tried repairing his boot the day before but didn’t do a sufficiently good job (sound familiar?) and so he didn’t realise that his boot was still hurting until he set out for work and so he tried to do a bit of repair with the knife that he had on him at the time. But due to the inadequacy of the knife he couldn’t do a good enough job so he used one at the market.



No mystery. Nothing sinister and certainly nothing misleading. And all that was required was the reading of the evidence and the application of reason and unbiased common sense. There should be no more talk of Richardson ‘misleading’ the inquest but I won’t be holding my breath on that.

[Aethelwulf]

Let’s put this myth about Richardson misleading the inquest to bed because it’s being used in an attempt dismiss the inconvenient Richardson as a witness.

I’ll use The Telegraph version of the inquest testimony to begin with. This is what Richardson said about the knife:


“Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.”


So he mentions the knife he used at Hanbury Street but not the knife that he then used at the market. Is this any issue that should concern us? Clearly not because the Coroner wasn’t interested in what occurred after he’d left number 29. The Coroner asked no further questions about the knife or for any further details on the work that he’d done on his boot. So at this stage the second knife was completely irrelevant and Richardson had very obviously misled no one.

He then returned to the inquest with:


“..a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.”


So this is what all of the fuss is about. But if we hold back on the hysteria what do we notice? After hearing people tell us that Richardson had said that he’d cut a piece from his boot but then he ‘mislead’ the inquest by telling them that he couldn’t cut a piece from his boot we can see that this isn’t what he’d said at all according to The Telegraph.

He simply said: “…as it was not sharpe enough he had borrowed another one at the market.” He didn’t say he ‘it wasn’t sharp enough to cut a piece from his boot’ only that ‘it wasn’t sharp enough.’ This could also mean of course, to anyone that understands English, that it simply wasn’t sharp enough to do a sufficiently good job and so he used a sharper one at the market.

Of course the alternative interpretation makes absolutely no sense at all because we would have Richardson in effect telling the Coroner ‘I cut a piece from my boot at number 29 but my knife wasn’t sharp enough so I couldn’t cut a piece from my boot!’ This is what we are being asked to believe that the lying Richardson said. Can anyone seriously believe that this is what he’d said? This is what we are being asked to dismiss Richardson on the strength of though. How many of us would have heard that kind of statement and not picked up on it? Of course we would have. A child would have picked up on it. It’s too obvious to have been missed and yet we are being asked to believe that a Coroner and his jury, investigating a knife murder and at the time discussing a man’s knife, completely ignored this piece of gibberish. Didn’t notice it, mention it or question Richardson on it. So what is more believable; that the Coroner and Jury were all deaf or inattentive or plain stupid or….. that what Richardson said to them wasn’t suspicious in the slightest. In fact it made complete sense.

Can we take it that the Press versions of the inquest testimony is wholly accurate? Well we only have to look at The Times version to see that the answer to that is clearly no. At first they said:


“He did not go into the yard, but went and stood on the steps.”


Then a few lines later we have:


“He did not sit upon the top step, but rested his feet on the flags of the yard.”


So it’s clear that these non-verbatim reports can contain larger errors so can it really be doubted that The Telegraph report might have been slightly unclear? This has to be more believable than Richardson coming up with some pointless gobbledegook at the inquest which was ignored by everyone present. And why did Richardson use a knife that wasn’t completely up to the job? Simply because, as he said, he’d tried repairing his boot the day before but didn’t do a sufficiently good job (sound familiar?) and so he didn’t realise that his boot was still hurting until he set out for work and so he tried to do a bit of repair with the knife that he had on him at the time. But due to the inadequacy of the knife he couldn’t do a good enough job so he used one at the market.



No mystery. Nothing sinister and certainly nothing misleading. And all that was required was the reading of the evidence and the application of reason and unbiased common sense. There should be no more talk of Richardson ‘misleading’ the inquest but I won’t be holding my breath on that.

of course it makes sense to anyone that has any sense. unfortunately, conspiracy theorists don't have any sense, so they won't let it drop

[Herlock Sholmes]

And Mrs Richardson:

“[Coroner] At what time was this? - Between half-past three and four o'clock. I could hear anyone going through the passage. I did not hear any one going through on Saturday morning.”

So we’re also being asked to believe that she would have heard the killer at around 5.25 so, as she didn’t, this means that the killer was never there at that time. But she also didn’t hear her son at around 4.45 either. So….

a) she suffered from some previously unknown to science selective hearing problem.
b) she fell into a particularly heavy sleep for the 2 minutes that Richardson was there.
c) John Richardson lied and for absolutely no reason placed himself at alone at the scene of the crime with a knife.

Was Mrs Richardson misleading the inquest? Should we dismiss her as a witness? Or does that criteria only apply to witnesses who dispute the earlier TOD?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Inspector Chandler said that he arrived at the scene at 6.10 but Henry Holland said that he saw him arriving at 6.20.

So which one of these do we dismiss because they were misleading the inquest?

[FISHY1118]

I agree and it’s why I don’t do that because I don’t have a particular theory that requires a later TOD. Phillips clashes with the 3 witnesses but the witnesses don’t clash with each other. Nothing that they said at the inquest clash with each other either and this is the point. The same point keeps being added as a throwaway comment as if it’s some kind of fact but it’s simply not true. The three witnesses support each other. So you go for a Doctors TOD that we know for a fact can’t be relied upon and dismiss the witnesses for no specific reason other than the generality ‘witnesses can be mistaken?’

Equally , as has been shown witnesses can be mistaken, and therefore it is also fact they too mustn't be relied upon , just as dr Phillips, So in the end one must make up his/ own mine and to determine who they choose to believe. All the evidence as we know it from all participants at the inquest can't be proven to support a definitive t.o.d We just don't know and may never know.
I happen to choose an earlier time from the many inconsistencies from the witnesses as i myself see them .Others may form a different view. Seeings how the same reasons for both for and against are being repeated ,I don't see the need to debate the topic and go round in circles trying to prove or disprove a particular point . Which im sure we know by now can't be .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Equally , as has been shown witnesses can be mistaken, and therefore it is also fact they too mustn't be relied upon ,

A general comment that means nothing and doesn’t need repeating.

just as dr Phillips,

No, Phillips is completely different. We know for a 100% certainty that his TOD death can’t be relied on. Nothing like the witnesses. Totally different.

So in the end one must make up his/ own mine and to determine who they choose to believe. All the evidence as we know it from all participants at the inquest can't be proven to support a definitive t.o.d We just don't know and may never know.

But they overwhelmingly favour a later TOD. 3 witnesses support this. There isn’t one witness supporting an earlier TOD. So it’s not even close.

I happen to choose an earlier time from the many inconsistencies from the witnesses as i myself see them

That don’t exist. If you wish to rely on inventions then that’s certainly up to you Fishy.

.Others may form a different view.

Those that assess the evidence without a preconception.

Seeings how the same reasons for both for and against are being repeated ,

And only one sides are valid.

I don't see the need to debate the topic and go round in circles trying to prove or disprove a particular point .

There hasn’t been a debate from both sides. Just me and some others stating the facts and assessing fairly. And others making things up.

Which im sure we know by now can't be .

We know for a fact that the evidence favours a later TOD by a mile. I’m happy with that.

[FISHY1118]

We know for a fact that the evidence favours a later TOD by a mile. I’m happy with that.

Are I see your up to your old tricks again.
just can't let people have their own opinion can you ,

Therefor, we also know for a fact that you have exaggerated your estimate by a mile .
The evidence does not favour one way or the other. That's also a fact .

And when this thread gets canned ,as it surely will now , it will because you couldn't let it be ..

[FISHY1118]

Hi Et , ''Thats fine, in your view your certainly welcome to think that way'' , i merely pointed out that when i read Georges post #3175 and added mind own view, that i do see concerns with Richardsons testimony for thoses reasons mentioned . As for Long and Codosch ,i see more obvious concerns. Just my opinion tho .

Spot the difference. ?

It would certainly be much easier to debate this topic if this simple rule of thumb was followed.