John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Chandler got to the yard at around 6.10. He spoke to Richardson around 6.45. He would have left for the mortuary around 7.00 (probably just after) I’d have thought he’d have looked around the yard before Phillips arrived but he doesn’t mention it (although that doesn’t mean that he didn’t have a look though but he might not have) Chandler said that he checked the yard after the body had been removed so considering that he was at the mortuary a few minutes after 7.00 this couldn’t have been a very detailed search which was possibly focused more on the area directly around the body. Chandler also said that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair when he’d spoken to him so even if he or Phillips had found a tiny piece of leather they wouldn’t have considered it as being of significance. Also, if Richardson had chucked it into the grass it would have been far less noticeable, especially a tiny piece.

[GBinOz]

Did Richardson not say at some point that he had not cut the piece off after all and had had to borrow a more suitable knife from a stall in the market?

Hi PI1,

Yes, after testifying twice that he had cut leather from the boot, when he returned with the knife he told the coroner that the knife was not sharp enough and he had borrowed a knife at the market to achieve his result. There are attempts to deny that this is a change of his story.

[GBinOz]

How do you get ‘crowded street’, George?
I was quoting Jon's post, which was supported by John and Amelia Richardson with their descriptions of the noise and bustle in the street.
How can you know that there was someone in that street that knew her?
I can't, but the odds are higher that someone who knew her would have seen her, over someone that didn't know what she looked like having seen her.
Why is Long unreliable but Lawende isn’t when she saw Chapman under much better conditions than he saw Eddowes?
I don't know. I don't find the assumption behind Lawende's evidence all that reliable: a murder was committed in Mitre Sq - an entirely unremarkable couple was seen nearby - must have been the victim and her killer. Logical fallacy, the same as Long and Cadosche.
Why would she lie? (I can only assume it’s the 15 minutes of fame point?)
A chance to be part of all the excitement, and to escape the grinding monotony of her life.

Hi Herlock,

JMO

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

You don't have to buy it George, I just stated factual data. Take it or leave it.
I'll take the factual data and leave Long's testimony.
Why should we assume everyone who lived in Whitechapel was crouched at the starters gate ready to run to the police every time a woman is murdered, just to declare "I saw her!!"
People just don't like to get involved, then there will be others who don't have a good rapport with the authorities anyway, so the last place they want to show their face is at a police station.
Emily Holland, Mary Ann Monk, William Marshall, James Brown, Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, Caroline Maxwell, Sarah Lewis, Julia Vanturney and Maria Harvey are some that gave evidence and showed their faces at police stations.

Two things we can be sure of here:
1 - Chapman was seen by someone between 1:50 - 5:20.
2 - Jack the Ripper was seen by someone leaving the scene.

The expression 'Not seeing the wood for the trees' reflects reality George.

Hi Jon,

1. Just the ripper.
2. Who?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I'd hazard a guess that no-one replied because no-one here thought it of any importance. Like the press couldn't be bothered to look for it, the coroner wasn't concerned about it, the police gave no importance to it but, here, a hundred & thirty five years later someone thinks it matters so much to be crucial evidence against a witness possibly lying, or even worse, being the killer himself?
Shameful how the authorities missed such an opportunity...

Hi Jon,

Of no importance? A witness testifies he cut leather from the inside of a boot with a blunt knife, but no leather shavings are found on the flags where he rested his feet. He then tells the coroner the knife wasn't sharp enough to cut leather, that he had to borrow a knife to finish the job. Which story is it?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

JMO

Cheers, George

Hello George,

No problem.

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Jeff,

I am very sure that one report contained the words "child's gaiter". I have read it recently but have searched to relocate it without joy. I did find this from the Daily New 14 Sep:
Anything else? - A box commonly used by case makers for holding their nails. It contained no nails. There was also a piece of flat steel which has since been identified as the spring of a perambulator.

I agree that John could not be considered a child, and I would be drawing a long bow to suggest that she meant her grandson or John's son, so I find myself at a loss for an explanation. Even finding the reference to a "child's gaiter" isn't going to clarify the discrepancies, but I'll try find the report.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi PI1,

Yes, after testifying twice that he had cut leather from the boot, when he returned with the knife he told the coroner that the knife was not sharp enough and he had borrowed a knife at the market to achieve his result. There are attempts to deny that this is a change of his story.

It’s not an attempt to deny George.

The Telegraph….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 Times…recalled, produced the knife with which he cut the piece of leather from his boot. He found the knife on his table.

The Daily News….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.

Evening Standard…….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.

———

Nowhere did Richardson say that the knife wasn’t good enough to cut a piece of leather off. He only said that it wasn’t ‘sharp enough.’ The Tines doesn’t mention it at all. The DN only mentions it as an ineffective weapon. The ES mentions nothing.

So what is the likelier explanation (in a newspaper report that can’t be considered verbatim) - that Richardson, in effect said, I cut the boot but I couldn’t cut the boot (in the same breath) and neither the Coroner nor a single member of the jury picked him up on this.

or,

He said something like - I used the knife to cut my boot but it wasn’t sharp enough to do a good enough job.

I know which is the only one that makes sense.

Unless you permanently look at Richardson as if he’s a proven liar of course.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

Feigenbaum was not Jewish.

He was a German sailor.

[New Waterloo]

Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post
Not a criticism, just a point.

If you look at the photos of the front of 27/29 Hanbury Street you'll notice that there are three front doors practically next to each other.
If you lived back then you'd know that there were passages running through terraced properties granting direct access to the back without having to go through the main part of the rooms in the house. (The old nightsoilmen would have not been welcome dragging their treasures through the living areas...)

That central door was a doorway to such a yard. A lot of those passages were simply open, or may have had a gate at the yard end. Hanbury Street was built with doors to the passage, and a set of stairs leading to landings on the other levels.
The yard, and stair landing on occasion, was also known to "plenty" of nocturnal shaggers. (See my post #6132 above in reply to Lewis' query about whether they were at it between dawn and dusk.)

Hello AP, all

I have given this some more thought possibly we can get somewhere with this.
You make an important point which may give us another step in the right direction.

If a passageway was selected at random because they were a frequent part of the housing design back then and I believe that fact to be well established. Then it follows that it would be highly unlikely that a person would enter and find that one of the occupants was JTR (yes it could happen but very unlikely I would suggest)

Then we can confidently say that it is highly unlikely any of the occupants were anything to do with the murder. Unless we can establish that Chapman was on her own and went into the passage to meet an occupant or somebody who frequented there we can clear all the occupants of any involvement.

I still believe there is serious mileage in looking at these locations from a different angle.

I suppose to simplify. If choice of location for a bunk up is chosen opportunistically at random it could be reasonably suggested that none of the occupants were JTR. It is obvious I suppose but would work with the Stride murder as well.

Does remove several people from the equation.

Probably talking a load of rubbish again

What do we think

NW

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Of no importance? A witness testifies he cut leather from the inside of a boot with a blunt knife, but no leather shavings are found on the flags where he rested his feet. He then tells the coroner the knife wasn't sharp enough to cut leather, that he had to borrow a knife to finish the job. Which story is it?

Cheers, George

Hi George.

How big was this piece of leather?
You should admit it only needs to be the size of the head of a match to be really uncomfortable inside the boot.
Why you think it is of importance is yet to be understood, when the coroner didn't, neither did the police, nor the press.
Are you sure you are not exaggerating this innocuous item for some other purpose?
I know we all like to approach a problem with the eye of a Sherlock Holmes, but where is this leading?
What is the great reveal?
Do we know it was never found?, do we know the yard was not covered with little bits of leather, wood chips, nails, leaves, etc.?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Feigenbaum was not Jewish.

He was a German sailor.

I was aware of that PI. The point that I was trying to make is that we can no more eliminate a Jewish ripper than we can a German one or an American one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George.

How big was this piece of leather?
You should admit it only needs to be the size of the head of a match to be really uncomfortable inside the boot.
Why you think it is of importance is yet to be understood, when the coroner didn't, neither did the police, nor the press.
Are you sure you are not exaggerating this innocuous item for some other purpose?
I know we all like to approach a problem with the eye of a Sherlock Holmes, but where is this leading?
What is the great reveal?
Do we know it was never found?, do we know the yard was not covered with little bits of leather, wood chips, nails, leaves, etc.?

And even if Chandler found this tiny piece of leather why would Chandler have bothered with it? Especially as it appears that the boot cutting hadn’t been mentioned that morning. And would anyone have noticed it if Richardson had chucked it into the grass?

I really can’t see why this is considered an issue Wick?

[Wickerman]

...

He said something like - I used the knife to cut my boot but it wasn’t sharp enough to do a good enough job.

I know which is the only one that makes sense.

Unless you permanently look at Richardson as if he’s a proven liar of course.

Good point.

Or, from Richardson's point of view, not good enough

Good that you compared press versions, I had not realized the blade was broken in half. There's no wonder the thing was dismissed as a murder weapon.

[A P Tomlinson]

Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post
Not a criticism, just a point.

If you look at the photos of the front of 27/29 Hanbury Street you'll notice that there are three front doors practically next to each other.
If you lived back then you'd know that there were passages running through terraced properties granting direct access to the back without having to go through the main part of the rooms in the house. (The old nightsoilmen would have not been welcome dragging their treasures through the living areas...)

That central door was a doorway to such a yard. A lot of those passages were simply open, or may have had a gate at the yard end. Hanbury Street was built with doors to the passage, and a set of stairs leading to landings on the other levels.
The yard, and stair landing on occasion, was also known to "plenty" of nocturnal shaggers. (See my post #6132 above in reply to Lewis' query about whether they were at it between dawn and dusk.)

Hello AP, all

I have given this some more thought possibly we can get somewhere with this.
You make an important point which may give us another step in the right direction.

If a passageway was selected at random because they were a frequent part of the housing design back then and I believe that fact to be well established. Then it follows that it would be highly unlikely that a person would enter and find that one of the occupants was JTR (yes it could happen but very unlikely I would suggest)

Then we can confidently say that it is highly unlikely any of the occupants were anything to do with the murder. Unless we can establish that Chapman was on her own and went into the passage to meet an occupant or somebody who frequented there we can clear all the occupants of any involvement.

I still believe there is serious mileage in looking at these locations from a different angle.

I suppose to simplify. If choice of location for a bunk up is chosen opportunistically at random it could be reasonably suggested that none of the occupants were JTR. It is obvious I suppose but would work with the Stride murder as well.

Does remove several people from the equation.

Probably talking a load of rubbish again

What do we think

NW

I think Ms Diddles may have pointed us in the right direction earlier on this. When she was talking about where Chapman might have been.
If Chapman was seen around Hanbury Street and found Dead IN Hanbury Street I think there's a pretty good chance she was in Hanbury Street fairly shortly before she died.
As I think most people at least agree the possibility of, it's likely SHE was the one who chose the location.
If she had previoulsy used 29 the way others had - the way Richardson described - and had been unable to find doss money and was exhausted to the point of literally needing sleep, it would be somewhere LIKE where that she would get her head down.
The worst that would happen would be Richardson turning her out with a flea in her ear.
IF she was familiar with the place, and was hanging round Hanbury Street, met a punter after having seen Richardson leave, she may well have considered it less of a risky place to take a client knowing the man most likely to throw them out had left.