Just Another Early Morning Murder: Hanbury Street

[How Brown]

Inspired by Magpie...this thread is established to discuss the reasons any of us have for not necessarily believing that the Sept. 8th murder of Annie Chapman occurred around 5:30 A.M....and in fact, may or probably occurred earlier.

Please use weather reports, doctor's comments, witness testimony, or any other factors to enhance your position.

Thanks in advance.

[JTRSickert]

Well, as we know, Phillips places the time of death roughly at 4:30. If this is in fact, true, then it means that both Long and Cadosch's testimony are irrelevant and that the man and woman seen on Hanbury street at that time was not Chapman and Jack. Also, if Richardson admits to being in the yard at half past 4 and says there was no body, it raises the suspcion that he was lying and he may, in fact, be a good suspect.

Me personally, I think Phillips was off on his time of death, but in this case, a lot of things cannot be 100% certain.

[Magpie]

Basically I have a three-pronged argument for the earlier time of death.

1) Phillips said so
2) The Police believed Phillips.
3) Richardson was a lying toe-rag.

:canada:

[How Brown]

Mag:

Please expand on how or why John Richardson was lying about not seeing Chapman or that he saw nothing when he went out at that time of morning.

Thank you my friend.

[Magpie]

Hi How.

Mostly the changes in his story. One time he's peaking out the door, the next he's stepping down into the yard with a knife, then he was going to the market, but he comes back, then he says he told the cop one thing, but the cop's account doesn't support it.

I'll try and find the thread over at casebook from a few years ago where this was debated, but basically I think he might have seen the prossie in the yard, realized that it didn't look good for him to be in the vicinity of a corpse with a knife, so he scarpered to the market, ditched the knife with a friend and came back to act as surprised as anyone else.

I don't think he did it, or was involved--I just think that his story ballsed up the time of death and sent researchers on a few wild-goose chases over the years.

[Nemo]

Wouldn't Cadosche have to be mistaken or lying if that was the case?

[Magpie]

Wouldn't Cadosche have to be mistaken or lying if that was the case?


Yep, that's just one of the wild-goose chases--there's nothing instrinsically worthwhile about Cadosche's testimony. If it wasn't for Richardson's story, no-one would attach any importance to Cadosche's story at all. His account is so vague--it adds nothing to the case--but we're so desperate to have anything that we can call "witness testimony" that the holes in Richardson's story are overlooked so that we can use Cadosche account.

[Adam Went]

Already answered most of this in the other thread before I realised this one was here, but I think something needs to be said about Long-Cadosch as well....

Mrs. Long claims that she knew the time of the sighting was 5.30 because the clock of the Black Eagle Brewery tolled just as she reached Hanbury Street.
On the other hand, Albert Cadosch, claiming that he had heard voices and a thump from the yard next door at around 5.20, claimed to have passed Spitalfields Church at 5.32. Clearly, one or both of these witnesses are wrong!
If we believe Long's statement, then Annie was still alive 10 or so minutes after Cadosch heard the thump, and didn't die until after 5.30. If we believe Cadosch, Annie died at around 5.20 and the couple Mrs. Long saw didn't include Annie. Infact, if the couple were standing there when Cadosch left for work, you would think he would have noticed them as well, but I don't believe he made any statement as such.

I have an idea for a solution to this problem.
Mrs. Long was mistaken. As she turned into Hanbury Street and heard the clock strike, it was infact signally 5 am instead of 5.30 am.
By the time she had walked past the couple, Jack had got Annie into the yard of No. 29, had some sort of short conversation with her, and then did the deed....if we allow Cadosch 5-10 minutes of leeway with his time (he did only say "about" when mentioning the time - there was no reason for him to be keeping track of the exact minute it was) this places Annie's time of death between 5.10 - 5.15 am.

This then would make other factors more sensible - it would make it closer to Dr. Phillips assertion that Annie had been dead for two hours or more, it would have given Jack the extra 15-20 minutes of darkness or half-light to do the deed and make his escape, and it would fall right in between when John Richardson and John Davis entered the yards.

I could be well and truly wrong though....

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

Mag:

Thanks for that.

I guess my reluctance to dismiss Richardson ( in the situation where he did see a body and hightailed it outta the yard ) stems from any motive he would have for doing so. I think it might be more likely that someone would report finding a victim than not...but thats just what I "think".

If Richardson had had prior beefs with the police/courts or more importantly, any convictions involving women, I'd think it possible that that would be a motive for his feigning ignorance.

In regard to Cadosch, I notice you mention that no one would have paid much attention to him, without Richardson's statement.

As with the original request, could you explain why Cadosch's input might not be of value to the events that morning, at your leisure of course.

Thanks.

[Magpie]

Mag:

Thanks for that.

I guess my reluctance to dismiss Richardson ( in the situation where he did see a body and hightailed it outta the yard ) stems from any motive he would have for doing so. I think it might be more likely that someone would report finding a victim than not...but thats just what I "think".

If Richardson had had prior beefs with the police/courts or more importantly, any convictions involving women, I'd think it possible that that would be a motive for his feigning ignorance.


The other possibility is that he saw the body, assumed she was drunk or otherwise passed out and went merrily on his way--only upon returning did he learn that not only was she dead, but a Ripper victim.



In regard to Cadosch, I notice you mention that no one would have paid much attention to him, without Richardson's statement.

As with the original request, could you explain why Cadosch's input might not be of value to the events that morning, at your leisure of course.

Thanks.

Well How, when it comes right down to it, what does Cadosche offer? A bump and possibly a "no" heard from the confines of his privy. Even he wasn't sure it came from 29--only the testimony of Richardson and the reluctance to dismiss possibly the only person have witnessed, however tenuously, Jack in action-- grants any importance to Cadosche's testimony.

[Magpie]

I think it might be more likely that someone would report finding a victim than not .


A person lurking in a backyard at 4am with a knife in his pocket might not see it that way, especially since his story of checking the shed seems a little weak, given that he doesn't appear to have actually checked it.

[How Brown]

Good points Mag....thanks for replying:sad:

IF Cadosch had heard someone utter "No", and if it had emanated from 29 and Chapman had already been dead, the person uttering "No", would have seen the body. Now we'd have to deal with the proposition that whoever uttered "No" in 29 would have not seen the body either.

Back to you and anyone else...

[Magpie]

Good points Mag....thanks for replying:sad:

IF Cadosch had heard someone utter "No", and if it had emanated from 29 and Chapman had already been dead, the person uttering "No", would have seen the body. Now we'd have to deal with the proposition that whoever uttered "No" in 29 would have not seen the body either.

Back to you and anyone else...

Ah, but that's two big "if's", How. Cadosche's account is so vague that it can't be said for sure where it was coming from or what it was he actually heard. Especially if we're working from his inquest testimony--did his memory of events change to accomodate what he now "knew" about the events he "witnessed"?

[Adam Went]

Mag:

Good thoughts, but Richardson really didn't need to walk right down into the yard to check the door. He made it clear at the time that he could see that the lock was still fastened from the steps and so had no need to go any further into the yard than that. If he had seen the body, knife or not, I'm sure he would have reported it - he was still placing himself at the scene of the crime anyway!

It's true that Cadosch's statement really adds very little, but what it does is help tie in the time of Annie's murder. I've had another thought about the clock since I made my earlier post, and this may seem like a stupid question, but here goes.....would that particular clock have tolled every quarter hour or only every half hour? I mentioned earlier that it's possible Mrs. Long heard the clock tolling at 5 am rather than 5.30, but if it was infact 5.15....and then Cadosch heard the thud from the next door at 5.20...it just about fits perfectly. Almost too good to be true, and I bet that's exactly what it is....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Magpie]

Mag:

Good thoughts, but Richardson really didn't need to walk right down into the yard to check the door. He made it clear at the time that he could see that the lock was still fastened from the steps and so had no need to go any further into the yard than that. If he had seen the body, knife or not, I'm sure he would have reported it - he was still placing himself at the scene of the crime anyway!



His testimony states that he sat on the middle step with his feet in the yard to trim/not to trim the leather from his shoe. This was long after he told the police that he never came down from the top step. However pictures of the back door at 29 Hanbury St. show that the cellar door was covered by some sort of canopy that would have rendered it impossible to see the lock just by opening the door and sticking his head out.

edit: Actually after checking out the photos of the rear of Hanbury St provided by Mr. Clack, it's pretty obvious that the padlock would not be visible to someone standing in the doorway canopy or not. The door is quite deeply recessed and the angle is all wrong.

[Magpie]

Mag:


It's true that Cadosch's statement really adds very little, but what it does is help tie in the time of Annie's murder. .

Hi Adam--but it only helps tie in the time of Annie's death if we believe Richardson's claim that there was no body there when he first visited. If there was, then what Cadosche heard was just the everyday hustle and bustle of the street, suddenly given new focus by the sensational events of that morning.

[Magpie]

It's also possible that what Cadosche heard was Richardson finding the body ("no!") and the slam of the door as he hauled tucchus out of there....

Just spekerlatin there....

[How Brown]

Ah, but that's two big "if's", How. Cadosche's account is so vague that it can't be said for sure where it was coming from or what it was he actually heard.

Agreed that any vaguery rests upon the location of the word "no" but not so much as what was uttered.

but it only helps tie in the time of Annie's death if we believe Richardson's claim that there was no body there when he first visited.
If there was, then what Cadosche heard was just the everyday hustle and bustle of the street- Mag

..which is possible,Mag.

.... suddenly given new focus by the sensational events of that morning.-Mag

..which is rather unlikely,old bean, since her body hadn't been discovered yet.

[Adam Went]

Hi Mags,

Not sure it would have made much, if any difference whether he just stood on the top step or whether he sat down on the steps. Either way, there's a dead body within a matter of inches of him - if the light was good enough to be able to see whether the lock was fastened or not from the steps, then the light was good enough to make it near impossible to not see the body.

I have to admit that I haven't seen the photo of the yard you speak of, but even if we assume that he didn't/couldn't see the lock from where he was standing, perhaps he just had a look to see if the door was ajar. Satisfying himself that it wasn't, he assumed that the lock must also have been in place, removed the leather from his shoe, and went on his way.

As for the canopy, surely that would have been placed there after the murder?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Magpie]

.... suddenly given new focus by the sensational events of that morning.-Mag

..which is rather unlikely,old bean, since her body hadn't been discovered yet.

Hi How.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm saying that after all the hubbub and kerfuffle, perhaps the mundane sounds attending Cadosche's privy became important, and perhaps even sinister.

For instance: You wake up to drain the lizard in the early a.m. While you are creeping back into the bedroom desperately hoping to avoid the beating that Nina's going to lay on you if you disrupt her sleep, you hear what sounds like a car door slam and a car pulling away. Well and good, you praise the gods that Nina didn't rearrange your face for waking her up and roll over and go back to sleep.

Two possible scenarios: 1) You wake up the next day, complete your morning rituals, head out to work and the general generalness of your day. You come home, have dinner and Nina asks how your day went--do you mention the car? Does it even cross your mind?

scenario 2) As per 1) except as you're clearing the dinner plates away, Nina says "Isn't it awful about what happened to the neighbours last night? I hope they catch whoever's responsible." How does your perception of that car change? Do you suddenly remember (or at least think you remember) every detail?

[Magpie]

Hi Mags,

Not sure it would have made much, if any difference whether he just stood on the top step or whether he sat down on the steps. Either way, there's a dead body within a matter of inches of him - if the light was good enough to be able to see whether the lock was fastened or not from the steps, then the light was good enough to make it near impossible to not see the body.



Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Adam, you've pretty much summed up my point. It's possible Richardson did see the body, the body was there and he saw it (possibly, just possibly not realizing it was a dead body), and then he took off and pretended that he didn't see the body because it wasn't there.



As for the canopy, surely that would have been placed there after the murder?


Not sure--the newspaper sketches of the crime scene show a canopy (can't help thinking that's not the right word) over the door, but all the photos I've seen show it missing. But as I said, the door was deep set and at an angle rendering it impossible to see the padlock without going down the stairs (and of course once Richardson had time to think about the hole in his story, it changed so that he did go down the stairs...)

[Magpie]

Speaking of which--Can anyone tell me where Richardson lived? I can't find a John St, Spitalfields on google maps--was it previously named something else?

[Adam Went]

Mags:

You can be sure that if he had seen the body, he would have taken more notice than "Oh it's just a drunk woman, leave her be." He was, after all, in the building to check on the safety of the cellar - a complete stranger laying in the yard hardly brings the word "safety" to mind. Besides that, her skirts had been lifted up, there was a gash in her throat and blood around - even just a cursory glance would have told him that this was no drunk person.

I doubt there would have been a canopy over the door at the time of the murder. It was probably placed there later to help disguise the entrance to morbid sight-seers.

Even if we assume that Richardson was telling fibs and the body was there a whole lot earlier than 5.30, what about Mrs. Long then? Is it not more than coincidence that a couple got seen standing outside the entrance to No. 29 a matter of minutes before the victim was found? It fits the descriptions of how JTR approached his victims - think the Lawende sighting and, if you believe him, the Hutchinson sighting, as 2 examples. Also, why would Mrs. Long then identify the body as that of the woman she had seen? She had a good view of the woman. Not the man so much, as he had his back to her, but as she walked past, she was facing the woman. And it was partially daylight. How do we get around that?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Adam Went]

John Richardson lived at 2 John Street, Spitalfields.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Magpie]

John Richardson lived at 2 John Street, Spitalfields.

Cheers,
Adam.

Thanks Adam, I reread the testimony an caught that:) But where in Spitalfields was John St.?

[How Brown]

Points taken Mag.

I'll get back to you tomorrow with some counterpoints. One would be that unless Cadosch was accustomed to others in the yard at that time, might the sound of a voice saying "no" have been sufficiently startling for him to remember with an above normal clarity....and, not to forget, that 29 had been broken into prior to that...which its highly likely he knew about, not that he cared or was concerned about it, but at least he might have known of the previous break in.
************************
I'd be very interested in knowing the particulars in terms of when Cadosch got in touch with the police and how.

Since the discovery of Chapman's body happened very shortly after he had taken off for work...might he not have heard about the murder and where it occurred that very morning ? News travels awfully fast and bad news even faster.

We don't know,do we, whether he voluntarily offered his input by going to the police...or whether # 27 was canvassed by the police, which means unless he came home early, they canvassed late and he supplied it then.



I agree with you, Adam...for one crucial reason on Richardson and the body.

If it was there, he would have had to have smelled it. No offense for the visual.

Back to you guys until later....

[Magpie]

even just a cursory glance would have told him that this was no drunk person..

And a cursory glance and a moment's thought would have told him that this was not a good place to be at dawn with a knife in his pocket, too...:p

But seriously, speaking of cursory glances, if he'd stuck to his original story (stood on the top step, opened the door to the left and looked down to the right) then there wouldn't be any debate, because according to Chandler under such conditions he might have not seen the body, even in full daylight. It's only the new and improved story of makeshift cobblery that precludes Annie being dead in the yard when Phillips said she likely was.

[Magpie]

Is it not more than coincidence that a couple got seen standing outside the entrance to No. 29 a matter of minutes before the victim was found?.

I'd feel better if Long had known Annie and wasn't primed by circumstances to associate the body in the morgue with the woman she saw. I wonder what her response would have been if they police had shown her the photo of Polly, for instance.

[Magpie]

....and, not to forget, that 29 had been broken into prior to that...which its highly likely he knew about, not that he cared or was concerned about it, but at least he might have known of the previous break in.

Interesting point, How. It would be helpful to know just when that break in had occurred. John and his mother certainly seem to have had somewhat different perspectives on the break in and it's significance:

John Richardson, ... I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.

Mrs. Richardson, recalled, said she had never missed anything, and had such confidence in her neighbours that she had left the doors of some rooms unlocked. A saw and a hammer had been taken from the cellar a long time ago. The padlock was broken open.

It's also quite interesting that Mrs. R didn't mention the breaking until she was recalled to corroborate her son's testimony. And even then, she never backed up John's claim to check the padlock every market day.

She also was quite adament that she didn't hear her son go through the passageway that morning:

On Saturday morning you feel confident no one did go through? - Yes; I should have heard the sound. They must have walked purposely quietly? - Yes; or I should have heard them.

[Adam Went]

Mags:

Had a look through a couple of maps, struggled to find John St at first but I think I can see it....if it is, it runs directly onto Hanbury St!
Take a look at this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/1882_Reynolds_Map.jpg

Hanbury St stands out fairly well, and it looks as if John St is directly to the north of it.

As for Richardson's knife....it was a pocket knife, so small that he could fit it into his shoe to cut the leather out. Hardly the same knife that could have mutilated Annie's body so severely.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Magpie]

Right off to bed.

Just like to say how refreshing it is to discuss this particular topic with aspersions on my intelligence, lineage and sexual proclivities being hurled in my direction :thumb:

[Adam Went]

Dr. Phillips was basing his estimated time of death purely on the temperature of the body and its state of rigor mortis. As I mentioned before, this can be highly variable, depending on the person themselves, the outdoor temperature and the position of the body. If my earlier theory is correct about Mrs. Long mistaking the time, Annie had been dead for roughly 1 1/2 hours when Dr. Phillips did his examination, meaning he was out by only half an hour. He was more or less guessing the time of death so half an hour either way is hardly significant.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Magpie]

Mags:

Had a look through a couple of maps, struggled to find John St at first but I think I can see it....if it is, it runs directly onto Hanbury St!
Take a look at this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/1882_Reynolds_Map.jpg

Hanbury St stands out fairly well, and it looks as if John St is directly to the north of it.

As for Richardson's knife....it was a pocket knife, so small that he could fit it into his shoe to cut the leather out. Hardly the same knife that could have mutilated Annie's body so severely.

Cheers,
Adam.

Thanks Adam.

Well, actually the knife he fetched to the inquest was a small knife that was (oops, story changes again) so dull that he actually didn't manage to cut the leather from his shoe and therefore had to borrow another knife from an unnamed (and one supposes unquestioned) friend at the market.

The inquest was the first time that Richardson mentioned the knife or the leather or entering the yard--he certainly didn't tell the police about it.

Then when he'd cornered himself (again) and had to produce the knife, he shows up with a little joke of a jam-spreader that couldn't cut soft butter and then has to find a way to explain why this particular piece of cutlery was the one in the yard with him and not the one that was actually sharp enough to cut carrots and leather.

[Magpie]

Dr. Phillips was basing his estimated time of death purely on the temperature of the body and its state of rigor mortis. As I mentioned before, this can be highly variable, depending on the person themselves, the outdoor temperature and the position of the body. If my earlier theory is correct about Mrs. Long mistaking the time, Annie had been dead for roughly 1 1/2 hours when Dr. Phillips did his examination, meaning he was out by only half an hour. He was more or less guessing the time of death so half an hour either way is hardly significant.

Cheers,
Adam.

True, but the only thing that argues against the time of death given by Phillips is the ever-changing testimony of John Richardson.

It all hinges on Richardson's testimony. If he was honest and correct in his inquest testimony, then Phillips was definitely wrong and Long and Cadosche's testimony is likely significant.

If Richardson's original story is factual, then it's possible he missed the body, or it's possibly that it wasn't there--if the first, Cadosche and Long's account are of questionable importance, if the second then it's back to being significant.

However if Richardson saw the body, panicked, then fibbed about it for whatever reason (and to re-iterate those reasons aren't necessarily sinister ones), then Long and Cadosche's evidence is totally worthless and have served no purpose but to sidetrack the investigation and lead researchers on a merry goose-chase for the last century and a bit.

[Adam Went]

Mags:

I see where you're coming from, but Richardson is the one that placed himself at the scene of the murder in the first place. He could quite easily have gotten away with it if he'd kept his mouth shut and said nothing, but he chose to involve himself - why would he do that if he weren't telling the truth? If he did that just to tell lies, he must be a very silly man, because he could have implicated himself in the murder.

Let's quickly run through the statements again. Richardson goes as far as the steps into the yard of No. 29 at around 4.45, sees nothing in the yard out of the ordinary, sees no body there. Cadosch hears muttered voices and a "no", accompanied by a thud, at around 5.20. Mrs. Long sees a couple standing outside No. 29 talking at (what she thinks is) 5.30. All 3 of these statements combined point entirely to Annie being killed somewhere between 5 and 5.30 am.

This means that in order to believe what you're saying is correct, we have to discredit not one, not two, but three witnesses, all for the sake of believing the testimony of just one person - Dr. Phillips. Which seems a little extreme. More likely that the old doctor, perhaps a little rattled by what he saw in the yard, mis-judged the time of death slightly.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Magpie]

But yes, even today a 1/2 hour difference in ToD would be well within acceptable limits.

On the other hand Phillips said at least two hours, and probably more. It's possible that she was killed anytime after she was last seen at 1:35 am or thereabouts. But I agree that Phillips conclusion was, at best, an educated guess.

[Magpie]

Mags:



This means that in order to believe what you're saying is correct, we have to discredit not one, not two, but three witnesses, all for the sake of believing the testimony of just one person - Dr. Phillips. Which seems a little extreme. More likely that the old doctor, perhaps a little rattled by what he saw in the yard, mis-judged the time of death slightly.

Cheers,
Adam.

Not at all, because Long and Cadosche's testimony is only important in relation to Richardson's; once Richardson's testimony is discredited (and he doesn't need me for that--he did a fine job all on his lonesome) their testimony only relates to each other's.

In order to accept Richardson's testimony at face value, you would also have to discredit three witnesses: Dr. Phillips, Inspector Chandler and Richardson's own mother. As well you have to discredit one of the two Richardsons (the one who never entered the yard and the one who did) or is that three Richardsons? (the one who cut the leather from his shoe or the one who was unable to).

[Magpie]

He could quite easily have gotten away with it if he'd kept his mouth shut and said nothing, but he chose to involve himself


He could have, until someone mentioned that Mrs. Richardson's dutiful son checked the cellar door regularly because of a previous break in--then the police would have been looking for him for sure, and he'd have to come up with an explanation for why he either a) broke from his routine and didn't check the cellar that day or b) didn't come forward with information.

Of course no-body that we know of did mention his visits (including Mrs. Richardson, oddly enough) but he would have had no way of knowing that.

[Adam Went]

Mags:

The testimony of Long and Cadosch is still important even without Richardson. Again, Long identified the body as that of the woman she had seen. She had no reason to lie about this. Cadosch heard a "no" followed by a thud coming from next door - what else could this possibly be? Unless somebody else had managed to enter the yard at No. 29 at that time and they too managed to miss the body. And that's a bit too far-fetched.

As for Richardson's testimony, the idea that he only went to the top of the steps came from a brief conversation he had with the policeman at 29 Hanbury Street shortly after the body had been found - the policeman misunderstood him. Technically, he never did go into the yard. He wasn't lying. He sat on the steps. Once he had satisfied himself that the door was secure, he had no reason to go any further.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Adam Went]

Amelia Richardson was sound asleep at the time all of this was happening, so there was very little that she could tell the police.

The police would have had no grounds to suspect him if he chose not to come forward - like his mother, if he didn't see or hear anything out of the ordinary, there wasn't much that he could say. Whatever the case, he chose to come forward that very morning and speak to the police, which seems a fair indication that he was telling the truth.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Magpie]

As for Richardson's testimony, the idea that he only went to the top of the steps came from a brief conversation he had with the policeman at 29 Hanbury Street shortly after the body had been found - the policeman misunderstood him. Technically, he never did go into the yard. He wasn't lying. He sat on the steps. Once he had satisfied himself that the door was secure, he had no reason to go any further.

Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Adam.

Sorry, but this doesn't wash. Richardson arrived at a major crime scene, managed to pass through the throng to enter the yard and speak to the presumably very busy Inspector Chandler. At the time he was the best (nay only) viable witness the police had, and to top it all of admitted to being in the yard a short time before the presumed time of the murder.

These weren't two blokes having a natter--it was a police inspector questioning an important witness. In order to describe what transpired as simply a brief chat that was so trivial that Chandler completely misunderstood it, you 'd have to believe that Chandler was either incredibly stupid or incredibly lazy (and by his own testimony he stood on the top step and checked the field of vision, which suggests he was neither).

Had Richardson told him the tale of sitting on the step and trimming his shoe, I'm sure that not only Chandler, but Phillips and everyone else in that yard would have demanded to see the knife PDQ.

[Magpie]

Amelia Richardson was sound asleep at the time all of this was happening, so there was very little that she could tell the police.


She could have told them her son stopped by to check the cellar door every market day--but she didn't. Even at the inquest, she confirmed there'd been a break-in, but didn't say anything about John checking the cellar every morning.


The police would have had no grounds to suspect him if he chose not to come forward - like his mother, if he didn't see or hear anything out of the ordinary, there wasn't much that he could say. Whatever the case, he chose to come forward that very morning and speak to the police, which seems a fair indication that he was telling the truth.

Cheers,
Adam.

I'm not arguing that he didn't tell the truth to the police that very morning: I'm quite sure he did. However that truth doesn't gibe with the "truth" that he told at the inquest.

Let's face it, Hutchinson's story was a lot less hinky than Richardson's, and yet Hutchinson's been raked over the coals for the last 120 years while Richardson's testimony--contradictions and all--is simply accepted at face value.

[Nemo]

There has been speculation in the past regarding the link between the Ripper and the Cat's meat trade going on at 29 Hanbury St

I never really questioned Richardson's statement before with this in mind, but it may explain him lying if he knew who the Ripper was, or if he was related to him for example

It's interesting that Cadosche may have heard someone find the body and say "No!"

However, after all is said, I think the simplest explanation is still that Dr Phillips was mistaken in his estimated time - probably working from a tried and tested mathematical method based on the temperature of the body, which must have cooled more quickly than a non-eviscerated body

[Magpie]

Here's a possible, non-sinister explanation for Richardson's kedgeree of stories--perhaps he had been a little slack in his checking of the cellar, and in fact hadn't been anyway near Hanbury that morning, but didn't want his dear old mum to know that he hadn't been that morning. So he gives Chandler the encapsulated version of his routine when he did bother to check the cellar--but sometime between the morning of the murder and the inquest, he figures he needs a better story/more details, so then we get the whole carrot/step/leather pantomime.

[Adam Went]

Mags:

Indeed, Inspector Chandler was a busy man. He didn't give Richardson a thorough examination at the time because of that very reason, they were still dealing with the crime scene. So, while trying to give his story amongst the panic and the noise of the curious onlookers, it's entirely believable that Chandler mis-heard, or mis-understood Richardson. Even if he had told him the story of something so trivial as a piece of leather in his boot at the time he'd entered the yard, and even if Chandler had asked him to produce said knife, it would have been a small, dismal, seemingly blunt knife, nothing close to the offending murder weapon.

And here's another problem with the "Annie died earlier" theory. Mrs. Long claims to have seen a couple, including the dead woman, outside 29 Hanbury St at 5.30 am. So, the same question applies to these two as it does to Pipeman in Berner Street.....if we assume that Annie was already dead and this couple were just innocent passers-by, once they realised the couple being described was themselves, why not come forward to the police, explain the situation and have their names cleared?
Even if the man was too fearful to come forward to police incase he would be incriminated, there was nothing stopping the woman.

At the end of the day the timeline of events between Richardson, Cadosch and Long all point to Annie being killed at or slightly before 5.30 am. To write off Richardson as a bit of a liar, to say Cadosch heard something else, and to say Mrs. Long saw a completely different couple, all so it fits in with the testimony of an old doctor basing his statements entirely on educated guesswork, makes little sense.

Nemo:

I could be wrong here but I thought Cadosch said the word "No!" was the voice of a woman? Maybe I imagined it.....still, if it was somebody discovering the body, you'd think they'd be saying something a little more than a fairly quiet "No!". This was, according to Cadosch, also accompanied by a bumping sound - perhaps Annie falling against the fence?

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

Adam:

Regarding Cadosch and the voice uttering "No" being female, let me go find a source.
Here's two handy and slightly different Cadosch related excerpts for this thread....

.
Birmingham Daily Post Monday, September 10, 1888

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/cadosche2.jpg

Glasgow Herald
Thursday, September 20, 1888;

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/cadosch.jpg

[Adam Went]

Thanks for that How.

What surprises me with all of this is that even during the height of the Ripper scare, nobody bothered to check these things out - if Cadosch had taken a couple of seconds to peer into the yard of No. 29, he may well have caught Jack red-handed. Likewise, in the MJK murder, if anybody had bothered to check the yell of "Oh Murder!", same thing. Little bit complacent, these East Enders....

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

If anyone can locate that reference to Cadosch hearing a female voice say "no" ( obviously in a newspaper and maybe in The Ultimate ) please put 'er up here.
Thank you. I'm tired and busy at the moment.....

Adam:

The odds to me at the moment are that he heard a voice in 29. I wish we knew whether the people in #25 were queried and whether anyone in that dwelling was actually in the yard at the same time Cadosch claimed to have heard the word "no" uttered. That would seal it, again to me, that he was only a few feet away from the two in 29 when it was going down.

I also think he booked out the back of the yard over an available fence....how about you ?

[Adam Went]

How:

If we assume the noise came from No. 29, then Cadosch's testimony also supports that Jack was not an overly tall man. If he was, the top of his head and hat, if he was wearing one, would have been visible to Cadosch over the top of the fence. Annie was not tall herself and it's reasonable to say she would have been hidden.

He could have jumped the fence - this again though would be the act of a reasonably strong, agile man. I for one would have struggled to jump the wooden fence at Hanbury Street without attracting attention to myself. Just as easy to escape the same way he came in, through the street door, I'd say - IIRC, the door to the yard was closed, but this was because it had a spring lock attached (i.e. closed itself), but the door to the street had been left open. This wasn't unusual, but could point to Jack being keen to make a quick escape via the street entrance and not bothering to close the second door on his way out.

Cheers,
Adam.