Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Possible Explanation For The Hanbury Street Confusion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Possible Explanation For The Hanbury Street Confusion

    Quick questions for one and all...Nina and I discussed the Chapman murder and John Richardson last night and although you can bet I came up with the really impressive points, she had a big hand in this too.

    Let me start it off and please let me know what you think. Its been a while since I devoted much time to thinking ( no kidding) as most of my time is devoted towards newspapers and great captions. You'll notice I haven't put this into some sort of "formed" post.

    John Richardson lived at 2 John Street.

    Which John Street are we talking about here ?

    There's one in Camden Town....is this possibly that John Street ? Thats around two miles from Hanbury Street...IF.... this is the John Street in question.

    Point to ponder,if you would....

    ....for a man who was as concerned with the security at 29 Hanbury Street ( mentioning that he would go by the residence on market mornings regularly since the place had been broken into a month or so in the past ) ...why did he mention ( at the Inquest, in the Ultimate on page 86) that he hadn't gone into the yard since he doesn't appear to have been prompted ? I might be wrong in that he was prompted, but for the time being, it doesn't appear he had.

    Again, for someone apparently so concerned with Mom's security and to have traveled from John Street just to look at the front ( I am assuming the cellar could be accessed from the front here ) and not the back, where one would think it would be of equal importance towards Richardson's peace of mind to see if that part of the building had been burgled....something's not kosher about this at all.

    Would you travel a few miles to your Mom's and just look at the front but not in the back ?

    I also wonder aloud about this cold he is supposed to have suffered. It had to make him pretty miserable, wouldn't you think ?

    Therefore, why not alleviate this other problem about the leather on his shoe....and well before making it to Hanbury Street by removing it before he arrived.... .Simple enough I'd think. I know I would if I had a bad cold and my shoe was giving my troubles.

    Synopsis so far.....Richardson traipses all the way from John Street ( by foot ? ) with this issue with his shoe....and then doesn't look at the back of the building, but goes to the top of the step just to take care of something he could have easily done elsewhere and prior to arriving at Hanbury Street.



    What I am suggesting here, not that I am inferring that Richardson was her killer in the least... is that Richardson did see the body in Hanbury Street....as Chapman was dead when he got there. The voice that Cadosch heard say "No", was Mrs. Richardson's voice.

    Richardson, in this scenario, arrived at 29 Hanbury Street to do exactly what he said he went there for : To check the premises.
    However, in my little hypothetical situation here, he did go into the back yard, because to me it doesn't make much sense to travel all that way not to go, not just look, into the yard and check the back of the joint out. It simply makes no sense to halfass it after walking all that way...or even from a shorter distance.... In order to check the back of the building, he would have to go into the yard because from the top of the step, he couldn't see whether that area of the building had been tampered with.



    In this scenario, he sees her body and immediately gets in touch with Mom...who stated at the Inquest that she was unaware of immoral acts transpiring in the yard, yet being the same person who claims Johnny Boy has told her about lewd shenanigans going on in the passage of that very building... It doesn't require much imagination to figure that if people were as brazen to commit hanky panky in the passage, then they certainly would in the back yard.

    The sighting by Mrs. Long has already been in question for the time of death issue with Dr. Phillips. In my scenario, it becomes questioned even greater as Chapman was dead by the time she, Mrs. Long, walked by Hanbury Street that morning. Mrs. Long, in my scenario, isn't a liar. She was just mistaken.

    The Cadosch testimony doesn't suffer a bit, in my hypothetical situation. He did hear someone say "No..." The "no" he said he heard is not mentioned for its pitch or its timbre...any sense of urgency...just a plain old "No.."
    It would explain why whomever was on the 29 Hanbury Street side of the fence didn't bolt or leave as one might suppose a man who has just disemboweled a woman would do upon being cognizant of someone on the 27 Hanbury Street side of the fence. They didn't have to. They, or she, lived there.

    So, in essence and in closing,ladies and gents and Robert Linford, I am suggesting that the time of death was closer to 4:30 as Dr. Phillips suggested...Cadosch heard the voice say "No..", without describing whether it was an impassioned "no" or "no" uttered in terror...Richardson lied about not seeing the body, contacted Mom, they venture into the yard coinciding with Cadosch's own venture to the w.c.....and the cutting the excess leather off the shoe story is a bogus one.

    Neither Mom or John Richardson did anything other than put themselves near the body at the same time Cadosch was present...and as a result, the story had to be created just in case the packing case makers needed one.

    It explains why no one darted away when Cadosch made his presence ( assuming he wasn't walking on little cat feet to not disturb his neighbors on each side ) known.

    Lets also consider that Chapman was out and about from 2 AM (ballpark figure) according to Tim Donovan at Crossingham's on Dorset Street.
    We have had to believe or to imagine Chapman being out for over 3 hours on the streets...walking...in search of doss money without doing so...since sleeping on the street could land you in jail. Being in jail meant not having her medicine... I do not believe she would have been still pounding the pavement after 3 1/2 hours of no success. I believe she made contact with the killer in the early part of Sept. 8th..well before the Mrs. Long version of events.

    We have also had to imagine that the Ripper would be on the lookout at that time of morning ( 5:30 AM...one of the eternal problems with this whole story anyway you look at it...) which he had not done before,nor would he do again in the list of canonicals...or victims such as Coles & Mackenzie. Only in the Hanbury Street murder has the killer worked so deep into the morning.

    I'd like to get some feedback on this and whether it makes sense to you.

    Thanks for your time.
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

  • #2
    The English ain't known for saying too many brilliant things and I oughta know because I'm English...but this is one of them:

    Its a bad cook that won't taste his own wares.

    I moved the thread into the Oblivion Sector of the site because I got pissed off that no one responded to it.

    All I asked for and didn't get from you people that did read it...was an opinion. Does it have some merit to it...or does it smell like the privy in the back of Big Jon's shotgun shack down on the banks of the Severn River or Sir Bob's socks ?

    Don't play nice...go for the jugular or point out its merits...if any.
    I ain't thin skinned. Thick headed maybe...but not thin skinned.
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Sorry How,

      Just when I thought Jonathan's theory was long and complicated you throw this one in here... LOL.. just kidding Jonathan.

      Richardson could have tried to work on his boot after he got to No. 29 if it didn't start bothering him until he left and got worse as he went along... been there, done that myself.

      I'll have to sleep on the rest of it and post back tomorrow. The reason being that I can't swallow that this murder was commited so late in the morning myself and you might just have something here.
      Best Wishes,
      Cris Malone
      ______________________________________________
      "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

      Comment


      • #4
        Maybe this will make Howie happy.

        Originally posted by How Brown
        Quick questions for one and all...Nina and I discussed the Chapman murder and John Richardson last night and although you can bet I came up with the really impressive points, she had a big hand in this too.

        Let me start it off and please let me know what you think. Its been a while since I devoted much time to thinking ( no kidding) as most of my time is devoted towards newspapers and great captions. You'll notice I haven't put this into some sort of "formed" post.

        John Richardson lived at 2 John Street.

        Which John Street are we talking about here ?

        There's one in Camden Town....is this possibly that John Street ? Thats around two miles from Hanbury Street...IF.... this is the John Street in question.
        <<That's a long way to walk, in a very rough area at that time of the day. Anything's possible here, but how far off was the other John Street?>>

        Point to ponder,if you would....

        ....for a man who was as concerned with the security at 29 Hanbury Street ( mentioning that he would go by the residence on market mornings regularly since the place had been broken into a month or so in the past ) ...why did he mention ( at the Inquest, in the Ultimate on page 86) that he hadn't gone into the yard since he doesn't appear to have been prompted ? I might be wrong in that he was prompted, but for the time being, it doesn't appear he had.
        <<Maybe he had put a better hasp and lock on the door and there was then a smaller likelihood of a break-in..>>

        Again, for someone apparently so concerned with Mom's security and to have traveled from John Street just to look at the front ( I am assuming the cellar could be accessed from the front here ) and not the back, where one would think it would be of equal importance towards Richardson's peace of mind to see if that part of the building had been burgled....something's not kosher about this at all.

        Would you travel a few miles to your Mom's and just look at the front but not in the back ?
        <<Not if it was the back that had been broken into, and was also where vagrants sometimes loitered.>>

        I also wonder aloud about this cold he is supposed to have suffered. It had to make him pretty miserable, wouldn't you think ?
        <<Depends. There are varying severities, and people back then were a lot tougher than they are today.>>

        Therefore, why not alleviate this other problem about the leather on his shoe....and well before making it to Hanbury Street by removing it before he arrived.... .Simple enough I'd think. I know I would if I had a bad cold and my shoe was giving my troubles.
        <<Depends on how far he actually had to walk, how uncomfortable it was, and if he had a knife on him at the time. There may have also been no other suitable or safe location for him to use prior to arriving.>>

        Synopsis so far.....Richardson traipses all the way from John Street ( by foot ? ) with this issue with his shoe....and then doesn't look at the back of the building, but goes to the top of the step just to take care of something he could have easily done elsewhere and prior to arriving at Hanbury Street.



        What I am suggesting here, not that I am inferring that Richardson was her killer in the least... is that Richardson did see the body in Hanbury Street....as Chapman was dead when he got there. The voice that Cadosch heard say "No", was Mrs. Richardson's voice.
        <<Possible, but unlikely. Surely she would have said more than that, and it seems like an awful risk to run for a very small reward.>>

        Richardson, in this scenario, arrived at 29 Hanbury Street to do exactly what he said he went there for : To check the premises.
        However, in my little hypothetical situation here, he did go into the back yard, because to me it doesn't make much sense to travel all that way not to go, not just look, into the yard and check the back of the joint out. It simply makes no sense to halfass it after walking all that way...or even from a shorter distance.... In order to check the back of the building, he would have to go into the yard because from the top of the step, he couldn't see whether that area of the building had been tampered with.
        <<Do we know this for sure? But even so, it would have only taken a minute to check the site of the former break-in. and he still might not have noticed the body if it was there at the time, since he would not have had any reason to be looking there in the gloom.>>>>



        In this scenario, he sees her body and immediately gets in touch with Mom...who stated at the Inquest that she was unaware of immoral acts transpiring in the yard, yet being the same person who claims Johnny Boy has told her about lewd shenanigans going on in the passage of that very building... It doesn't require much imagination to figure that if people were as brazen to commit hanky panky in the passage, then they certainly would in the back yard.

        The sighting by Mrs. Long has already been in question for the time of death issue with Dr. Phillips. In my scenario, it becomes questioned even greater as Chapman was dead by the time she, Mrs. Long, walked by Hanbury Street that morning. Mrs. Long, in my scenario, isn't a liar. She was just mistaken.
        <<I concur.>>

        The Cadosch testimony doesn't suffer a bit, in my hypothetical situation. He did hear someone say "No..." The "no" he said he heard is not mentioned for its pitch or its timbre...any sense of urgency...just a plain old "No.."
        It would explain why whomever was on the 29 Hanbury Street side of the fence didn't bolt or leave as one might suppose a man who has just disemboweled a woman would do upon being cognizant of someone on the 27 Hanbury Street side of the fence. They didn't have to. They, or she, lived there.
        <<Or he was a hand and not prone to panic.>>

        So, in essence and in closing,ladies and gents and Robert Linford, I am suggesting that the time of death was closer to 4:30 as Dr. Phillips suggested...Cadosch heard the voice say "No..", without describing whether it was an impassioned "no" or "no" uttered in terror...Richardson lied about not seeing the body, contacted Mom, they venture into the yard coinciding with Cadosch's own venture to the w.c.....and the cutting the excess leather off the shoe story is a bogus one.
        <<I have to disagree. I think the 5:15ish time frame is correct. If the Richardsons were going to concoct a story, surely they could have done a better job than that. Hard to imagine that they would not find a PC immediately if they had known a body was there.>>

        Neither Mom or John Richardson did anything other than put themselves near the body at the same time Cadosch was present...and as a result, the story had to be created just in case the packing case makers needed one.
        <<Seems far-fetched and dangerous. Why take such a risk at such a time when the authorities were looking for blood themselves?>>

        It explains why no one darted away when Cadosch made his presence ( assuming he wasn't walking on little cat feet to not disturb his neighbors on each side ) known.
        <<All this proves is that Tumblety wasn't the guy.>>

        Lets also consider that Chapman was out and about from 2 AM (ballpark figure) according to Tim Donovan at Crossingham's on Dorset Street.
        We have had to believe or to imagine Chapman being out for over 3 hours on the streets...walking...in search of doss money without doing so...since sleeping on the street could land you in jail. Being in jail meant not having her medicine... I do not believe she would have been still pounding the pavement after 3 1/2 hours of no success. I believe she made contact with the killer in the early part of Sept. 8th..well before the Mrs. Long version of events.
        <<She could have rested, visited, found money for drink, slept on a stoop, any number of other things if she had not actively been soliciting all that time.>>

        We have also had to imagine that the Ripper would be on the lookout at that time of morning ( 5:30 AM...one of the eternal problems with this whole story anyway you look at it...) which he had not done before,nor would he do again in the list of canonicals...or victims such as Coles & Mackenzie. Only in the Hanbury Street murder has the killer worked so deep into the morning.
        <<But this one may simply have been a spur-of-the-moment crime of opportunity where Jack just took his chances and got away with it. I think Jack was most always 'on' even if he wasn't actively planning to commit a crime. A vulnerable Annie Chapman would have been hard for such a man to pass up, particularly if he were familiar with that immediate area.>>

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks for the responses Tim and Cris.
          Its not really a complex issue.

          Tim...lets look at this :

          Me :Would you travel a few miles to your Mom's and just look at the front but not in the back ?
          You : <<Not if it was the back that had been broken into, and was also where vagrants sometimes loitered.>>

          Then why go at all or claim that you went to your Mom's out of some concern but wimp out when it comes time to look out back and not just stand on the top step or sit on the steps and play with your shoes ? He's tough enough to walk all that way with this cold...but wimps out when its show time ?

          To Join JTR Forums :
          Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

          Comment


          • #6
            I think there is a possibility that the noises heard by Cadosche were made by someone finding the body

            Who would that be?

            Well, obviously it could be one or both of the couple seen outside by Mrs Long

            Comment


            • #7
              I`d always assumed Richardson lived in the John St that was about a hundred yards west of Hanbury St (where the Weavers Arms was located on the corner of Hanbury St).

              Dear J.G....thanks for this. I couldn't find a John Street closer to Hanbury Street and this is most appreciated. I should have asked around but I have a head like concrete.

              Neems...thats a good suggestion too about two others finding the body.
              Without drifting off too far from the thread...two people intending to engage in some fencehugging in the back yard and upon finding it do the old 23 skidoo. They're not going to go to the police and tell them that right at the time they were on the way to the backyard together they came upon the body of a murdered woman.
              ....again,for me,this problem with the time of day...most men are on their way to work at 5:30 to be with their ass of a boss not to scarf some boss ass ...
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

              Comment


              • #8
                My apologies to one and all for making the statement that the Ripper was out at 5:15 AM looking for female action as if this was a given. I have to be a little more careful in how I present these statements. I know what I meant, but the reader wouldn't.
                I did not mean to suggest that the Ripper was out at that time of day specifically looking for coitus...or at least it can't be shown that at any time prior or afterwards he had been.

                What I meant was that in comparison to the times women had been murdered and who have been theorized as being killed by the Ripper, it just doesn't add up to me that in the case of Mrs. Chapman, he was out and about looking to murder someone at that time of morning....although his approach to any or all of the victims may well have been based upon the presumed desire to fornicate irrespective of the time.

                Sorry for misstating what I meant.
                To Join JTR Forums :
                Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by How Brown
                  Me :Would you travel a few miles to your Mom's and just look at the front but not in the back ?
                  You : <<Not if it was the back that had been broken into, and was also where vagrants sometimes loitered.>>

                  Then why go at all or claim that you went to your Mom's out of some concern but wimp out when it comes time to look out back and not just stand on the top step or sit on the steps and play with your shoes ? He's tough enough to walk all that way with this cold...but wimps out when its show time ?
                  Look at page 87 of The Ultimate Companion, where this issue is discussed. It specifically states that Richardson did not go into the backyard, did not sit on the top step (but rested his feet on the flagstones of the yard), and could see from the steps that the cellar door was still padlocked.

                  Well, if he could see that padlock from the steps, he would surely have been able to see a body near them, had it been there then. This whole thing sounds fishy to me, as by all reports it was only just beginning to break daylight at 4:45 AM. That must have been some padlock.

                  Originally posted by How Brown again
                  it just doesn't add up to me that in the case of Mrs. Chapman, he was out and about looking to murder someone at that time of morning
                  But what if he too had been out all night, unsuccessfully searching for that perfect victim? Those times when he was on the prowl, there would have been a start time and a stop time; why couldn't or wouldn't the stop time have been at or near daybreak?

                  Or maybe this murder was just a crime of opportunity as related earlier. Being so early in the canon, at a time when public sensibilities and suspicions were not yet aroused, Jack may have been brimming with confidence in his abilities and was not paranoid about his own safety. I'd bet that this murder would never have taken place as it did, after the Double Event, when the public saw bogeymen everywhere.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
                    John Richardson lived at 2 John Street.

                    Which John Street are we talking about here ?

                    There's one in Camden Town....is this possibly that John Street ? Thats around two miles from Hanbury Street...IF.... this is the John Street in question.
                    Hi How,

                    As Jon said, the John Street in question was a continuation of Wilkes Street and was renamed Wilkes Street in the early 1890s. Number 2 John Street was just across the road from the Weavers Arms and became 33 Wilkes Street after the name change. It would be about a 30 second walk to 29 Hanbury Street.

                    Rob

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      it just doesn't add up to me that in the case of Mrs. Chapman, he was out and about looking to murder someone at that time of morning-HB

                      But what if he too had been out all night, unsuccessfully searching for that perfect victim? Those times when he was on the prowl, there would have been a start time and a stop time; why couldn't or wouldn't the stop time have been at or near daybreak?--Tim

                      How likely is it that he couldn't find someone walking about prossing themselves before it became light outside ?

                      Or maybe this murder was just a crime of opportunity as related earlier. Being so early in the canon, at a time when public sensibilities and suspicions were not yet aroused, Jack may have been brimming with confidence in his abilities and was not paranoid about his own safety. I'd bet that this murder would never have taken place as it did, after the Double Event, when the public saw bogeymen everywhere.

                      Thats a good theory Tim. That because the public was not as aroused as it would become after the Double Event three weeks later...or the morning following her murder...or even two days later on the 10th when the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee was formed, people in general might not have been "as" alarmed to the skein.

                      Yet if that is the case, then the prosses & women in general, including women on the street at that time for any reason... would likewise not be as alarmed as the average citizen and if not, out in force in greater numbers prior to September 8th.

                      Easier fishing when there are more fish in the lake....and prior to Chapman's murder, that would seem to be the case, not more afterwards.
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Dear Rob:

                        Thank you very much ( along with J.G.) for setting the record straight. The street is obviously on the Whitechapel map I have right in front of me, although I did not see it last night and I was sober. I also used GoogleMap and came up with one as mentioned in Camden Town...and one in Surrey, if I recall.
                        To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by How Brown again II
                          How likely is it that he couldn't find someone walking about prossing themselves before it became light outside ?
                          I'm sure there were harlots everywhere then, but Jack was looking for the perfect victim and/or circumstances, which might have been a good deal more difficult to locate. There must be a very good reason why Jack was never caught or identified, and why all this remains such a mystery after 122 years. The fact that Jack didn't engage the first prossie that he ran across, and was by most indications quite discriminating in his choice of victims and venues probably has a lot to do with that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Tim:

                            While I at once agree/accept/understand what you state and how you present it, I likewise find no:

                            A. Evidence that he looked for a perfect victim. There were several ways in which to achieve his goal without approaching the risks taken in any of the murders following Nichols ( include her as well if you wish). He took risks in doing what wouldn't have been risky had he chose to do so.

                            B. Counter evidence to demonstrate that the Ripper bypassed any woman prior to the one he would inevitably kill on any night in question. There's no way of determining whether he skipped over any potential victims and he may indeed have selected the first available one.
                            To Join JTR Forums :
                            Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by How Brown
                              While I at once agree/accept/understand what you state and how you present it, I likewise find no:

                              A. Evidence that he looked for a perfect victim. There were several ways in which to achieve his goal without approaching the risks taken in any of the murders following Nichols ( include her as well if you wish). He took risks in doing what wouldn't have been risky had he chose to do so.

                              B. Counter evidence to demonstrate that the Ripper bypassed any woman prior to the one he would inevitably kill on any night in question. There's no way of determining whether he skipped over any potential victims and he may indeed have selected the first available one.
                              Actually, there is no evidence whatsoever concerning JTR and his victimology, or most anything else about the crimes, except for maybe the apron scrap found near the GSG. But researchers agree that in 1888 you couldn't swing a dead cat in the East End without hitting a prossie. We have no idea what criteria Jack used for selection of his victims, but it is highly unlikely that he selected the first that he saw, which would probably have been right outside of his own door. There were numerous sightings of might-have-been Jacks, but there remains today no absolute sighting of the man, if JTR was indeed a man, and we don't even know that for sure.

                              His motive might have been like Ted Bundy's, where only a certain type of female would do. Or he might have sought out victims that had few witnesses around them. Or ones that knew him and would trust him enough to go with him. Or that he had ascertained were desperate enough to do so. There are many permutations and combinations possible, but the point is that he evidently had some criteria to apply or he certainly would have been seen in the act of solicitation, if not caught in the act itself. The success of his brazen crimes must have been due to more than just luck, and, while maybe there were no 10/10 victims on the streets the nights that he was active, he was probably willing to settle for 7/10. I think Annie Chapman was a conspicuous exception to his criteria and that the key to the mystery lies in the circumstances of her death.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X