John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

Ok thanks , btw have you been on a break lately ? i havent seen you post for a while .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ok thanks , btw have you been on a break lately ? i havent seen you post for a while .

Yes.

I took a long break.

[GBinOz]

“As late as five o'clock yesterday morning it is said the woman was drinking in a public-house near at hand called the Three Bells.”

This is from Lloyd’s on the 9th. Has anyone seen this mentioned anywhere else? I’m assuming that this refers to The Ten Bells?

Theres this in The People, also on the 9th

Another report states that the discovery of the crime was not made until six o'clock, and that the murdered woman was seen drinking as late as five o'clock in the morning

Hi Herlock,

I came across that report many years ago and considered it the defining evidence. However,
Vanderlinden's dissertation has this:
What she did during those four hours remains a mystery, even though newspaper reports indicate that the police had been thorough and systematic in their attempts to fill in the blanks of that morning. There were stories of Chapman being seen in the Ten Bells on the corner of Commercial and Church Streets, sometimes misidentified as the Bells in Brick Lane, at 5:00 a.m., however the barmaid couldn't confirm this and another witness, who was an employee of the pub, failed to identify her body in the mortuary.

I came to the conclusion that since no-one was called to the inquest to testify on this matter that it was determined to be rumour. However, it still resides on my balance scale of evidence, although only as a feather weight.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I came across that report many years ago and considered it the defining evidence. However,
Vanderlinden's dissertation has this:
What she did during those four hours remains a mystery, even though newspaper reports indicate that the police had been thorough and systematic in their attempts to fill in the blanks of that morning. There were stories of Chapman being seen in the Ten Bells on the corner of Commercial and Church Streets, sometimes misidentified as the Bells in Brick Lane, at 5:00 a.m., however the barmaid couldn't confirm this and another witness, who was an employee of the pub, failed to identify her body in the mortuary.

I came to the conclusion that since no-one was called to the inquest to testify on this matter that it was determined to be rumour. However, it still resides on my balance scale of evidence, although only as a feather weight.

Cheers, George

Cheers George,

It didn’t ring any bells for me.

Sorry, couldn’t resist it.

[FISHY1118]

Yes.

I took a long break.

Good to see you back

[Hair Bear]

The knife isn't described as a "blunt rusty broken handled knife", it is described by him as " an old table knife about five inches long, which I brought from home. I had been cutting a bit of carrot with it...".

"rusty" comes from The East London Observer (15th), Jeff.

"John Richardson having returned at this point, red and out of breath, produced the rusty little table knife without a handle, which was closely examined by the jury without remark."

It should be noted that this line follows directly - "Henry John Holland - a thin, sickly-looking youth, with straw-coloured hair - who, clad in a rusty-black suit and a red neckerchief, stood, hat in hand, and half frightened, before the Coroner, gave merely formal evidence as to seeing the body". So it is possible, although not necessarily probable, that when transcribing notes "rusty" has become mixed up with both. Or maybe the reporter just had a thing for "rusty" lol

Hi Hair Bear,

Is that your conjecture as to what may have been said, or do you have a reference to an actual conversation?

My conjecture.

If Richardson didn't know where the body was found he could have looked very suspicious telling Chandler that he went to the back door and didn't notice the body had it been found in the house near the back door.

Good job he went and looked at the body exactly as he described. Can't say I would have done any different.

[JeffHamm]

Just compiled from the Press reports on here Jeff. If I’ve missed any it was unintentional.

Hi Herlock,

I didn't mean to imply you left any out in your compilation, only that Casebook doesn't have all the press reports that exist, and I'm sure there are some that are not well known and haven't been posted here despite some write-ups using them. Wolf V's dissertation apparently describes the knife as George mentioned, so perhaps he indicates where he gets such a description from. Having never read WV's write up, I haven't seen the knife described that way before (or if I have, it is one of the many things I've lost over time). The one you included that indicates it was a white handled knife was the first time I saw any description beyond a very generic 5"-6" kitchen knife (which to me sounds like a dinner knife type thing, rather than one used for cooking, but sounds like and is are not the same of course).

- Jeff

P.S. Go figure! Just above Hair Bear points out where rusty comes from (East London Observer, 15th).

[JeffHamm]

"rusty" comes from The East London Observer (15th), Jeff.

"John Richardson having returned at this point, red and out of breath, produced the rusty little table knife without a handle, which was closely examined by the jury without remark."

It should be noted that this line follows directly - "Henry John Holland - a thin, sickly-looking youth, with straw-coloured hair - who, clad in a rusty-black suit and a red neckerchief, stood, hat in hand, and half frightened, before the Coroner, gave merely formal evidence as to seeing the body". So it is possible, although not necessarily probable, that when transcribing notes "rusty" has become mixed up with both. Or maybe the reporter just had a thing for "rusty" lol
...

Hi Hair Bear,

Thanks! Ok, so above the knife has no handle, though in another report it is described as having a white handle (although I think the latter is reporting how Richardson described it). Using a rusty broken handled knife seems a bit odd to cut up carrots with, but then, broken handled doesn't mean no handle of course. It may just sound worse than it was to me. The double use of the descriptive rusty could be "artistic flair", I suppose, but it would be nice if we had at least one other paper giving a description. It may be that it was a colourful way to ensure the public that the knife used could not have been the murder weapon, or it may be that this reported did get a closer look than others?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I didn't mean to imply you left any out in your compilation, only that Casebook doesn't have all the press reports that exist, and I'm sure there are some that are not well known and haven't been posted here despite some write-ups using them. Wolf V's dissertation apparently describes the knife as George mentioned, so perhaps he indicates where he gets such a description from. Having never read WV's write up, I haven't seen the knife described that way before (or if I have, it is one of the many things I've lost over time). The one you included that indicates it was a white handled knife was the first time I saw any description beyond a very generic 5"-6" kitchen knife (which to me sounds like a dinner knife type thing, rather than one used for cooking, but sounds like and is are not the same of course).

- Jeff

P.S. Go figure! Just above Hair Bear points out where rusty comes from (East London Observer, 15th).

Hi Jeff,

I didn’t think that for a second. When I got those reports together I didn’t bother adding the part where Richardson returned with the knife (perhaps I should have done) because I assumed (a mistake of course) that this part was pretty much the same in all reports and that I’d be adding a couple of meaningless, repeated sentences.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Hair Bear,

Thanks! Ok, so above the knife has no handle, though in another report it is described as having a white handle (although I think the latter is reporting how Richardson described it). Using a rusty broken handled knife seems a bit odd to cut up carrots with, but then, broken handled doesn't mean no handle of course. It may just sound worse than it was to me. The double use of the descriptive rusty could be "artistic flair", I suppose, but it would be nice if we had at least one other paper giving a description. It may be that it was a colourful way to ensure the public that the knife used could not have been the murder weapon, or it may be that this reported did get a closer look than others?

- Jeff

I don’t know about you but I find this a little strange Jeff…..


The East London Observer, Sept 15th

"John Richardson having returned at this point, red and out of breath, produced the rusty little table knife without a handle, which was closely examined by the jury without remark."

——————

The Daily News, Sept 13th

John Richardson, re-called, handed to the Coroner a small table-knife with half the blade broken off. At the request of the Coroner he had been home to fetch it. It was the one with which he cut a piece off his boot last Saturday morning while sitting on the back doorstep at 29, Hanbury-street, and appeared to be a very ineffective weapon

——————

The Telegraph, Sept 13th

John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - 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.

——————

The Eastern Post & City Chronicle, Sept 15th

John Richardson recalled, handed to the coroner a small table-knife with half the blade broken off. At the request of the coroner he had been home to fetch it. It was the one with which he cut a piece off his boot last Saturday morning while sitting on the back doorstep at 29, Hanbury Street, and appeared to be a very ineffective weapon

——————

Evening Standard, Sept 13th

John Richardson now returned with the knife with which he cut his boot on the morning of the murder. It was an ordinary white handled table knife with a short blade.

——————

Morning Advertiser, Sept 13th

John Richardson now returned with the knife with which he had cut his boot on the morning of the murder. It was an ordinary white-handled table-knife with a short blade.

——————

The Times, Sept 13th

John Richardson, recalled, produced the knife with which he cut the piece of leather from his boot. He found the knife on his table.

——————

Woodford Times, Sept 14th

John Richardson now returned with the knife with which he cut his boot on the morning of the murder. It was an ordinary white-handled table-knife with a short blade.

——————

8 versions of the part of the inquest where Richardson returns with the knife. Only one version mentions the knife having no handle and being rusty. And yet this is the one used in an article?

[Hair Bear]

"John Richardson (recalled) produced the old table knife - a small and rusty specimen"

Irish Times Sept 13

[Herlock Sholmes]

"John Richardson (recalled) produced the old table knife - a small and rusty specimen"

Irish Times Sept 13

Cheers HB,

The part that I find strangest is the ‘without a handle’ part but it’s always a little strange when we see these variations on the same couple of sentences.

[JeffHamm]

Cheers HB,

The part that I find strangest is the ‘without a handle’ part but it’s always a little strange when we see these variations on the same couple of sentences.

Yah, the variations in the descriptions are interesting. A few just say "the knife", most of the others call it a table knife, which is a bit generic, though one says dessert knife (which would be a specific type of table knife).

The handle, if mentioned, is either absent (in the ELO, of the 15th, it says "without a handle") while others say it had a white handle (which are mutually exclusive possibilities).

Two say the blade was broken to about 1/2 sized.

And in the ELO (15th) and the Irish Times (13th) the knife is described as rusty, but neither mention the blade being broken.

It's hard to work out from these various descriptions what the knife was like, other than a knife not suitable to be the murder weapon (which occasionally is mentioned in some of the articles).

I can't tell if the details (like no handle/white handle; rusty; broken blade; desert knife; etc) are creative license on the journalists' part, to convey the idea that the knife couldn't be the murder weapon, or if they reflect what the journalists at the inquest thought the knife looked like from where they were positioned (but didn't get a good look at it), or what.

This is the sort of thing that can be maddening. While it is clear the knife he produced could not be the murder weapon, some of the descriptions sound like a knife that one wouldn't even use to cut the carrots (no handle, 1/2 blade missing, etc), which one would think might raise a comment from the jury or the coroner.

It seems to me that the knife he produced must have, in the jury's and coroner's opinion, been adequate to do the things Richardson said he did with it (although the coroner does question its use for boot repair, which results in Richardson admitting it didn't do a good job and he had to work on his boot more later). However, perhaps their lack of interest was due to it being incapable of being the murder weapon?

Anyway, the details of such things can sometimes be very important, and sometimes irrelevant. Personally, I would rather sift through a thousand irrelevant details if it meant I wouldn't be missing the one that turns out to be important.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Good job he went and looked at the body exactly as he described. Can't say I would have done any different.

Hi Hair Bear,

Were it I, and I discovered that the murder was where my mother lived, I would have immediately sought entry and asked to see the body to determine if it was my mother. To join the paying spectators in an adjoining premises strikes me as bizarre. It could almost be construed that he needed to know where the body was before he spoke to Chandler.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Hair Bear,

Were it I, and I discovered that the murder was where my mother lived, I would have immediately sought entry and asked to see the body to determine if it was my mother. To join the paying spectators in an adjoining premises strikes me as bizarre. It could almost be construed that he needed to know where the body was before he spoke to Chandler.

Cheers, George

How do we know he hadn't already ascertained that his mother was fine and that he hadn't tried to enter but had been denied by the police at the front door controlling the scene?

- Jeff