John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m getting a little tired of these inventions. Yes inventions….live with it.

I have never mentioned anything about Kosminski writing the grafitto.

I said…….we don’t know who the killer was or wasn’t……fact.

I said…….we don’t know if the killer wrote the grafitto or not……fact.

This is not the first time you have accused me of invention.

I have not kept count, but I would not be surprised if it is approaching 10 times now.

Not only did I not invent anything, but what I wrote is perfectly true.

You did indeed write that Kosminski was capable of having written the message:



What I'm saying is that he was a Polish Jew who could quite easily have been able to write a limited amount of English in a competent manner, like many Polish Jews could in England in the 1880s, and that, at the same time, as a foreigner, he might easily have mistakenly spelt the word "Jews" as "Juwes"

(Herlock Shomes, # 672,The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?)

[Ms Diddles]

There seems to be a leaning towards Chapman frequenting Hanbury street for whatever reason on previous occasions. Pethaps she knew an occupant or two. It would be nice if we were to firmly establish this. If we have somebody saying this in press or statement then look plausible. A couple of people saying this and we are starting to tie locations together. Remember the letter received by Mrs Hardiman at number 29 about the Bucks Row murder. If we can get Pearly Poll linked. There is a suggestion she knew Chapman and well we are starting to get some merging together. Will keep reading.

Hi N.W!

I'm working from memory here, but didn't someone (Amelia Richardson?) state that they recognised Annie's body as being that of "the dark lady who sold trinkets door to door"?

Apologies if I've misremembered this!

[Wickerman]

I think that is wrong.

Some of the Jews in the East End were actually British-born.

Of course, across the East End, you're talking about thousands of Jews.
This concerns the residents of 108-119 Goulston Street and how many of the tenants could 'read' English, they all might have spoke English. It's the residents that pass in and out of that doorway, not the population of the East End, plus the fact the scribble was less than 3/4 inch tall.

No-one realized it was there until the piece of apron was dropped nearby

is unfounded.

The fact it was not mentioned by anyone living there that they remember seeing it can be explained in one of two ways.
Either it was there, and because they couldn't read it, it is just as invisible as if it wasn't there, or
It was newly scribed on the wall as theorists would like to believe.

Somehow, Kosminski could speak English at his 'trial' and, according to Herlock, could even have authored the graffito himself, and yet none of the Jews living inside that building could have read the message?

Correct, neither Kozminski's nor Lawende's literacy has anything to do with the residents of 108-119.

If you think the murderer did not write the message and it was just any old anti-Semite who did, and that no Jews living in the building would pay it any attention, then why did he take the trouble to write the message on a building inhabited almost entirely by Jewish people?

Schoolboy prank, there was a school around the corner - it was in "good schoolboy's round hand", and it reads very simply as a complaint that Jews will not take the blame for what they do. The subject of the complaint is not given. Just as likely it was some schoolboy repeating what he heard his father say at home.

That's just my view, it's nothing of consequence.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

Yes. The more one thinks about it, the less Lech had any link to the sites apart from walking down Buck's Row. And so what for that? When I lived and worked in London, I walked past so many places (as would anyone) that it would be easy to link me to virtually anything. And we don't know how many thousands of others had better links.

Still, one can't deny Lech was on the scene, for one of the killings. I'm sure the old Bill would have noted the significance of this and acted accordingly.
best,

Paul

Agreed, and several of the suspects lived close to where the murders occurred, so it seems near certain that most of them would have also walked past the murder sites.

Yes, he was on the scene for one of the killings, so I wouldn't reject him entirely as a possibility, I just that that there are numerous more likely suspects.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m not interested in any of that PI. It’s a tangent. Please read what I’m about to say….

From previous posts on previous threads it’s amply clear that you have been determined that the killer couldn’t have been Jewish. You have made Jews exempt. You even made a point about the difficulty of naming any Jewish serial killers. So my question again is……why do you exempt Jews when we have no idea who the killer was?

I suggest you become more broad-minded and when someone whom you continually insult - for example by accusing him of invention (yet again in # 6313) - takes the trouble to write you a detailed reply to your enquiry, you treat it with some respect, and not reply that you are not interested.

I answered you fully.

I have in the past pointed out that there is no recorded case of a Jewish serial killer in this country.

I have also pointed out that there is no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial killer.

Your comment You have made Jews exempt is inappropriate.

I have cited an abundance of facts in my two posts # 6243 and # 6308.

i stand by what I have written and, frankly, am not interested in whether you are interested.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Schoolboy prank, there was a school around the corner - it was in "good schoolboy's round hand", and it reads very simply as a complaint that Jews will not take the blame for what they do. The subject of the complaint is not given. Just as likely it was some schoolboy repeating what he heard his father say at home.

That's just my view, it's nothing of consequence.

And would you not agree with me that at the school around the corner, the boys read the New Testament in English?

And that the word 'Jew' or 'Jews' is mentioned in the New Testament 185 times?

And that many of the boys there may have read the novel Oliver Twist, which had been published only half a century before?

And that the word 'Jew' occurs 257 times in the first 2/3 of that book?

How likely is it that they would have been unable to spell the word 'Jews' correctly?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I made it perfectly clear in the first place that I was referring to sightings of the victim while she was still alive.

I did not include sightings of dead victims, e.g. Mary Kelly being 'sighted' about 7 hours after she had been murdered.

You would test the patience of a saint.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is not the first time you have accused me of invention.

I have not kept count, but I would not be surprised if it is approaching 10 times now.

Not only did I not invent anything, but what I wrote is perfectly true.

You did indeed write that Kosminski was capable of having written the message:



What I'm saying is that he was a Polish Jew who could quite easily have been able to write a limited amount of English in a competent manner, like many Polish Jews could in England in the 1880s, and that, at the same time, as a foreigner, he might easily have mistakenly spelt the word "Jews" as "Juwes"

(Herlock Shomes, # 672,The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?)

Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was talking about in this conversation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not something I said 7 months ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suggest you become more broad-minded and when someone whom you continually insult - for example by accusing him of invention (yet again in # 6313) - takes the trouble to write you a detailed reply to your enquiry, you treat it with some respect, and not reply that you are not interested.

I answered you fully.

I have in the past pointed out that there is no recorded case of a Jewish serial killer in this country.

I have also pointed out that there is no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial killer.

Your comment You have made Jews exempt is inappropriate.

I have cited an abundance of facts in my two posts # 6243 and # 6308.

i stand by what I have written and, frankly, am not interested in whether you are interested.

I haven’t insulted you on here. If I posted what I actually thought….then I’d be insulting you.

Jack the Ripper could have been Jewish or Welsh or Polish or Argentinian. He could have been a Christian or a Jew or an atheist or a satanist. He could have preferred Stilton or he could have preferred a bit of Wensleydale. He could have taken size 7 shoes he could have taken size 11 shoes.

We don’t know.

I don’t know.

You don’t know.

To quote Clement Attlee “a period of silence on your part would be greatly appreciated.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

And would you not agree with me that at the school around the corner, the boys read the New Testament in English?

And that the word 'Jew' or 'Jews' is mentioned in the New Testament 185 times?

And that many of the boys there may have read the novel Oliver Twist, which had been published only half a century before?

And that the word 'Jew' occurs 257 times in the first 2/3 of that book?

How likely is it that they would have been unable to spell the word 'Jews' correctly?

[JeffHamm]

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

Thanks George. I think the perambulator is an error in the press, but wow, what a leap! ha ha I think that's an error as it's the only time I'm aware of that it isn't referred to as a legging spring (which was worn somehow, but I'm not sure if it is to hold the trouser leg in or what exactly).

As you know, I think Richardson's legging spring is an important bit of physical evidence that backs up his boot repair as removing his boot would, presumably, require removing it or could cause it to come off. And given it was found where he said he did the boot repair, it becomes an independent link to that story (and not one he mentioned - he may not have realised that is where he lost it - but one that the police found), and I've been familiar with the above report of it. However, it would be good to compare various sources and see what the majority record it as (being careful not to count two versions that are clearly just one paper copying the same story verbatim from another - that's one record presented twice, not two independent coverages, if that makes sense).

I wonder if there's an official police report that mentions it anywhere, as I would trust that more than the press coverage. I tend to prefer the press coverage that is transcript format more than reporter summaries of the inquest as summaries mean there's filtering through the reporters understanding, placing us one step further from the words of the witness. Transcript format is closer to the actual statements, and will only suffer from transcription errors, with the occasional deletion for space. The more we can combine, the better idea we get of what it is we're working with.

If it turns out it is only referred to as Richardson's in this one report, and all others indicate it was a child's, then I would have to reduce my emphasis on it in my thinking. At the same time, one doesn't want to overlook something that could be very important. Often, a key bit of information can be something as apparently trivial as this.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

I asked that question several thousand posts ago. No answer was the stern reply. The spring from a child's gaiter was found, but not pieces of leather that Richardson told the coroner (twice) that he had cut from his boot. Curious.

Cheers, George

A point well made then.

It certainly does need some explaining.

Chandler examined the yard; Dr Phillips searched the yard.

They took away an empty box, used for nails.

No mention of John's leather. According to John it was five inches long: that's a decent bit of leather.

John was hardly the epitome of order and tidiness, leaving his apron lying around in the yard. It's hard to believe John put the leather in his pocket in order to keep the place tidy.

Yet, John's five inches long leather went unnoticed during the examination/search of the yard by two different people.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was talking about in this conversation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not something I said 7 months ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What I'm saying is that he was a Polish Jew who could quite easily have been able to write a limited amount of English in a competent manner, like many Polish Jews could in England in the 1880s, and that, at the same time, as a foreigner, he might easily have mistakenly spelt the word "Jews" as "Juwes"

(Herlock Shomes, # 672,The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?)



Kosminski, according to Herlock, could even have authored the graffito himself ...

(PI 1, #6312)




I’m getting a little tired of these inventions. Yes inventions….live with it.

I have never mentioned anything about Kosminski writing the grafitto.

(HS, #6313)



Not only did I not invent anything, but what I wrote is perfectly true.

You did indeed write that Kosminski was capable of having written the message:...

(PI 1, # 6316)



You must consider yourself to be in a very privileged position if you think your posts are covered by a statute of limitations.

You wrote:

I have never mentioned anything ...

and then, when I refuted your statement, quoting your comment from another thread, you cited a supposed statute of limitations.

I suppose eventually we can expect you to plead insanity.

[Wickerman]

And would you not agree with me that at the school around the corner, the boys read the New Testament in English?

And that the word 'Jew' or 'Jews' is mentioned in the New Testament 185 times?

And that many of the boys there may have read the novel Oliver Twist, which had been published only half a century before?

And that the word 'Jew' occurs 257 times in the first 2/3 of that book?

How likely is it that they would have been unable to spell the word 'Jews' correctly?

Ok, I'll tell you why, you don't have to believe it, but I'll share my reason with you anyway.

I think it was spelt correctly, I realize that it's easy for me to say now that the original on-line post has vanished. But, back before this forum was hacked I had posted a Jewish schoolgirl's letter where she actually wrote Juwes.

It could be argued the example was a unique case, possibly the girl made a spelling mistake herself, so just a coincidence, I don't know.
I know it's a weak argument from the point of view of proof. I wasn't in a position to communicate with the girl to query her on why she spelled the word that way. It was just an on-line post where a Jewish schoolgirl happened to write the word spelled the exact same way as in the graffito.
It's something I can't un-see, it's a shame the post is lost, but I can in all good faith say I saw it spelled that way so to me it suggests that some Jewish children will spell their own ethnicity precisely that way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A point well made then.

It certainly does need some explaining.

Chandler examined the yard; Dr Phillips searched the yard.

They took away an empty box, used for nails.

No mention of John's leather. According to John it was five inches long: that's a decent bit of leather.

John was hardly the epitome of order and tidiness, leaving his apron lying around in the yard. It's hard to believe John put the leather in his pocket in order to keep the place tidy.

Yet, John's five inches long leather went unnoticed during the examination/search of the yard by two different people.

Where does it say that the leather was 5 inches long?