Chapman and the thud on the fence

[Rubyretro]

On another thread the subject of Annie Chapman's murder was touched on,
and specifically the 'No!' heard by Cadoche, followed by a thud against the fence as opposed to the TOD according to the police pathologists, which put the murder at about an hour earlier.

There was of course two other witnesses, Mrs Long who claimed to have seen the victim alive and with a man outside number 29, which despite a minor discrepancy over the time would tend to support Cadoche, and Richardson who came into the yard of 29 slightly earlier and did not see a body.

Wolf Vanderlinden wrote a beautiful dissertation ('Considerable Doubt and the Death of Annie Chapman') which showed how the Coroner prefered to take
the three witnesses accounts above that of the doctors. I was much taken with his account, and it sucessfully showed how Mrs Long and Mr Richardson
could have easily have been mistaken. Even Cadoche wasn't certain that the voice that he heard came from the yard next door. However, that thud on the fence was ultimately too big a 'fly in the ointment' for me in the end, to discount Cadoche's testimony (how could he have been wrong about that ?), and taken together with Mrs Long's couple and the 'No !' there seemed too many coincidences to just sweep under the carpet, and so
finally I came down on the side of the coroner.

And now, I have switched right back to Wolf's side of the argument.

It was Phil H. who suggested that the thud on the fence could have been caused by the back door of 29 banging against it. He is right, because we can watch the clip of James Mason actually in the yard and the space is so tight, that the door could effectively touch the fence. This puts a different complexion on the things, because of course it logically explains the thud, and it need not be either Annie nor her killer who banged the door.

Phil suggested that it was Mr Richardson who lied about not seeing the body.
I had trouble with this, because I find that his statement does not sound
rehearsed (and if he had been sitting on the top step looking down at his boot, and glacing down to the cellar door, then the body would have been masked by the door), and it still left the 'coincidences' of the 'No!' and the couple in the street. And too many coincidences are problematic for me, as
is just throwing out witnesses because they don't fit our favourite scenarios.

But what if all the witnesses were right ? -and the police pathologists , too ?

What if Mrs Long's prostitute and client were about to go into the yard of 29
-but they weren't Annie and Jack (Mrs Long said she didn't pay attention to the couple, as she often saw such couples at that time in the morning).
This explains why the description of 'Jack' is at odds with Lawende's description (I don't buy Jack-of-many-hats).

The prostitute led her client to the yard, and it was they who saw the body
and this unknown woman who Cadoche heard exclaiming 'No!' It may even have been this woman who took Annie's rings -because although I think that Jack stole his victim's money, the rings could have been incriminating. It is one of these people who lean't against the door and made it bang the fence.

I think that it would make perfect sense why a prostitute would not come forward to the police to admit that she had taken a customer to the yard
-it was illegal, and why a man would not come forward to have his name linked to using a prostitute (particularly if he had a wife and family).

In this way the 'coincidences' between Cadoche's statement and Mrs Longs disappear, but Wolf Vanderlinden is still right in his assessment of the murder.

[kensei]

Ruby,

Just some first impressions on your post as I'm preparing for bed and a bit tired. Firstly, a "bang" and a "thud" are two completely different sounds. A door banging into a fence would make a very sharp sound of wood on wood, but a body falling against the fence would make a much softer and duller sound. I doubt Cadoche would have mistaken one for the other, especially since if he lived next door to #29 he would have been well familiar with the sound of the door banging. Secondly, I personally don't think there is any discrepancy between the descriptions given by Long and Lawende, or even Diemshutz for that matter. I think "deerstalker cap" and "peaked cap" could easily be referring to the same thing given lighting conditions, excitability of witnesses, etc. (perhaps even foreigners not being aware of the term "deerstalker"). That cap, and a general dark overcoat, appear in all the eyewitness descriptions of the Ripper except for Hutchinson's Astrakan Man.

Good night,
kensei

[Phil H]

My doubts over the cause of the "No!" and the thud being "Jack and Annie, are based on my very strong feeling that the murder was actually committed when it was still dark.

I just do not believe that "Jack" would have taken the risks entailed by entering a confined yard, with no back way, in daylight, when that yard was overlooked by so many windows and the houses were (evidently) coming to life.

The position would be much different if the couple entered the yard in darkness or near such, and the earlier timing would be consistent with the murders (and circumstances - i.e. relative darkness) of Nichols and Eddowes.

There is no proof of this, but Mr Verlinden's dissertation provides some grounds for doubting the conventional wisdom (Richardson's evidence etc). I think the doctors estimate of the time of death is also doubtful enough to be questioned in this case.

On that basis, I believe that Rubyretro's proposal that the couple seen by Mrs Long (but NOT "Jack" and Annie) might have entered the yard and found the body, quite worthwhile. It does not mean any witness was "wrong" simply re-asseses the interpretation.

Incidentally, I have always thought that IF the Chapman murder happened at the time usually assumed it should tell us something meaningful about "Jack".

Anyone who knew the East End could have known Buck's Row, Mitre Square, even Berner's St or Castle Alley and thus have been familiar with the alternative means of access and egress. But the backyard at Hanbury St would have been an unknown unless "Jack" already knew what lay behind the front and yard doors, which then should tell us that he was familiar with it having used it as a place of assignation before or for some other reason. Moreover, for all "Jack" knew there could have been others concealed there to trap him. OK - he may have been a extreme risk taker: but I'd find that situation extreme! So he must have felt safe to enter, and relatively secure in his ability to leave once his work was done. On balance, I feel that darkness would be a better cover for that than daybreak.

I don't want to divert this useful thread onto other issues, so if anyone wants to discuss the Lessons we can learn from No29 (see the preceeding paragraph), I'll gladly open a new thread for that purpose.

Phil

[kensei]

Oh shoot, I said "Diemshutz" when I meant to say "Schwartz." I really am tired. Again, good night.

[Rubyretro]

Kensei -infact, Cadoche didn't use 'bang' or 'thud', he said something falling against the fence -however it was a sound that he was used to hearing, which he assimilated with the packing case makers, and hence he paid it scarce attention. It is a very great shame that we can't question him
now about the precise nature of the sound, but whatever it was didn't ring any alarm bells for him, and certainly didn't appear to be a frightened woman being murdered. It could easily be Mrs Long's couple, trying to be quiet so as not to be caught in the yard, but making some involuntary noise when startled by finding the body.

I think that there are very big differences between the shabby genteel man in a deerstalker, perhaps a foreigner, and the 'threatening' gentile sailor type seen by Lawende. If we add in the various wideawakes and billycocks of Kelly's murder, We are obliged to believe in a chameleon like Jack with a wardrobe of different hats.

If we throw out either Long's or Lawende's descriptions as being that of Jack and victim, we have to buy into two couples of prostitute and client, just outside the murder scene, minutes before the murder was committed, going to different places -that's if we accept the Coroner's verdict.

In Chapman's case, the police pathologists put the murder at least an hour before Mrs Long's couple appeared on the scene , and like Phil H. I think that makes far more sense.

Phil - I think that 'Jack' probably knew the yard in Hanbury St before the murder of Chapman, but obviously that might be for any one of a variety of
reasons. Some that I've wondered about are:
-he might have dossed in the passage before
-he might have already have been led there by a prostitute, without him agressing her
-he might have been employed casually by the packing case business
-he might have attended a religious meeting in the rooms above
-he might have been invited before by one of the people living in the building , as a friend or aquaintance.
-he might have passed prostitutes soliciting in front of the entrance before,
and simply checked it out.

[Errata]

In case it is relevant at all, At the time Cadosh heard the "No", about 5:30 am, was only a few minutes after sunrise (technically when the tip of the sun is first visible on the horizon). So broad daylight, especially given London's weather and the shade of the yard, may have been quite a ways off.

[Phil H]

Good post Rubyretro. Any of your ideas about how "Jack" might have sussed the joint previously could be right.

Another thought occurs to me:

I have never been able to picture what the fence between the yard of No 29 and Cadoche looked like. Some of the contemporary sketches suggest there were huge gaps between the upright (planks), and I have seen differing descriptions of its height.

The photograph at the top left of this casebook page shows a densely closed fence, but that is definitely later. I think the "London Nobody Knows" sequence also shows a closely planked fence.

Now, if the fence were more open than now and stood lower, even if Cachoche had glanced towards No 29 on hearing the word/bump, he would have seen nothing through the gaps if the man/woman/whomever was responsible was/were standing atop the steps. On the other hand, if Jack had been working on Chapman at that moment, he might well have been visible (if only slightly). Yet Cachoche saw nothing.

We also know that cadoche had some sort of bladder problam and was rushing back and forth to the toilet. Preoccupied with his urgent "need" he might not have been focusing properly on what was going on around him, just picked up an impression.

Interesting thread.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

I think that it is pretty relevant to Richardson's statement, Errata. If he only sat at the top of the steps, looking at his boots, at the cellar door, with the open back door between him and Annie's body, -and it was very gloomy and dark; Well then, he could have been in the yard and have been yards from Annie's body -and genuinly not seen her.

[Phil H]

IErrata

In case it is relevant at all, At the time Cadosh heard the "No", about 5:30 am, was only a few minutes after sunrise (technically when the tip of the sun is first visible on the horizon). So broad daylight, especially given London's weather and the shade of the yard, may have been quite a ways off.

But it was not just about the "quality" of the light. From dawn on it would be getting consistently lighter, and we know that the house and its residents were waking up. Anyone going to a rear window of 29 and perhaps in neighbouring houses could have looked down into the yard.

People were about: Richardson had been into the yard; people like Cross/Lechmere and Paul (from the Nichols killing) would have been at or well on their way to work; Davis went into the yard not much later; Cadoche was about.

I cannot help but feel "Jack" would have been aware of that. If he was consistent with the murder of Nichols, he struck earlier and when it was darker and safer to do so. Bt that's just my opinion.

[Rubyretro]

Yes, I think that you are right, Phil..

One thing that always got me, was that there was a water pump in the garden, but no indication that Jack had used it...of course, if it was dark when he went there, then he might not have seen it or remembered it.

[Phil H]

there was a water pump in the garden, but no indication that Jack had used it...of course, if it was dark when he went there, then he might not have seen it or remembered it.

Of course, that might also be an indication that he was unfamiliar with the yard, wanted to get away immediately his work was done, and also perhaps an unconcern about bloodstains, or a certainty he was not too bloody from his work.

If "Jack" was Kosminski - for instance - and it was dark, he might have had quite a short walk in the darkness back to his family home.

Something else I have thought of : If you look at the pictures of the corridor between the front door and the yard of No 29 (their in both Philip Hutchinson's book and Robert Clack's, I think) it must have been VERY dark in there before dawn. So either "Jack" or Annie would need to have known the layout - there was a "kink" in the hallway by the stairs - in order to avoid banging and crashing and falls. I suspect she had used the yard before - rather than him - and knew her way, hence led him. But that does not rule out a familiarity on his part with the house and rear yard.

Finally on the thump/bang:

The back door of 29 was on a sping was it not/or rising butts/hinges? It closed automatically? If so, the noise might have been the door closing as whomever said "No!" retreated and the door swung (softly?) closed - a thump rather than a bang.

I'd be interested in your thoughts,

Phil

[Abby Normal]

On another thread the subject of Annie Chapman's murder was touched on,
and specifically the 'No!' heard by Cadoche, followed by a thud against the fence as opposed to the TOD according to the police pathologists, which put the murder at about an hour earlier.

There was of course two other witnesses, Mrs Long who claimed to have seen the victim alive and with a man outside number 29, which despite a minor discrepancy over the time would tend to support Cadoche, and Richardson who came into the yard of 29 slightly earlier and did not see a body.

Wolf Vanderlinden wrote a beautiful dissertation ('Considerable Doubt and the Death of Annie Chapman') which showed how the Coroner prefered to take
the three witnesses accounts above that of the doctors. I was much taken with his account, and it sucessfully showed how Mrs Long and Mr Richardson
could have easily have been mistaken. Even Cadoche wasn't certain that the voice that he heard came from the yard next door. However, that thud on the fence was ultimately too big a 'fly in the ointment' for me in the end, to discount Cadoche's testimony (how could he have been wrong about that ?), and taken together with Mrs Long's couple and the 'No !' there seemed too many coincidences to just sweep under the carpet, and so
finally I came down on the side of the coroner.

And now, I have switched right back to Wolf's side of the argument.

It was Phil H. who suggested that the thud on the fence could have been caused by the back door of 29 banging against it. He is right, because we can watch the clip of James Mason actually in the yard and the space is so tight, that the door could effectively touch the fence. This puts a different complexion on the things, because of course it logically explains the thud, and it need not be either Annie nor her killer who banged the door.

Phil suggested that it was Mr Richardson who lied about not seeing the body.
I had trouble with this, because I find that his statement does not sound
rehearsed (and if he had been sitting on the top step looking down at his boot, and glacing down to the cellar door, then the body would have been masked by the door), and it still left the 'coincidences' of the 'No!' and the couple in the street. And too many coincidences are problematic for me, as
is just throwing out witnesses because they don't fit our favourite scenarios.

But what if all the witnesses were right ? -and the police pathologists , too ?

What if Mrs Long's prostitute and client were about to go into the yard of 29
-but they weren't Annie and Jack (Mrs Long said she didn't pay attention to the couple, as she often saw such couples at that time in the morning).
This explains why the description of 'Jack' is at odds with Lawende's description (I don't buy Jack-of-many-hats).

The prostitute led her client to the yard, and it was they who saw the body
and this unknown woman who Cadoche heard exclaiming 'No!' It may even have been this woman who took Annie's rings -because although I think that Jack stole his victim's money, the rings could have been incriminating. It is one of these people who lean't against the door and made it bang the fence.

I think that it would make perfect sense why a prostitute would not come forward to the police to admit that she had taken a customer to the yard
-it was illegal, and why a man would not come forward to have his name linked to using a prostitute (particularly if he had a wife and family).

In this way the 'coincidences' between Cadoche's statement and Mrs Longs disappear, but Wolf Vanderlinden is still right in his assessment of the murder.

Hi Ruby
Good post and interesting points. My take is that Long probably saw JtR and Chapman, Cadosch heard chapman say no and then either heard her body brush up against the fence or JtR as he lowered her to the ground. Boot man did not see any body because she was not their yet.

At 5:30 in the back corner of a building and fence with the sun just coming up I think would have still been sufficiently dark enough for JtR. i go with the witness statements on this one for TOD because the Drs TOD was not that far off from 5:30 anyway. I guess I go with the conventional view on this one as it seems to make the most sense.

However it is possible she was killed earlier and bootman missed her because it was too dark and his attention was drawn to the other side of the steps to the cellar and then to his boot. But I cant help but think that if he could have seen his boot and the cellar he should have seen a body right there.

[lynn cates]

passage way

Hello Ruby.

"I think that 'Jack' probably knew the yard in Hanbury St before the murder of Chapman, but obviously that might be for any one of a variety of
reasons. Some that I've wondered about are:
-he might have dossed in the passage before
-he might have already have been led there by a prostitute, without him agressing her
-he might have been employed casually by the packing case business
-he might have attended a religious meeting in the rooms above
-he might have been invited before by one of the people living in the building , as a friend or aquaintance.
-he might have passed prostitutes soliciting in front of the entrance before,
and simply checked it out."

I think you are on to something here. Recall the story of the man in the passage way with the foreign sounding voice? Sugden feels sure that he was in that passage way a month before.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

The back door of 29 was on a sping was it not/or rising butts/hinges? It closed automatically? If so, the noise might have been the door closing as whomever said "No!" retreated and the door swung (softly?) closed - a thump rather than a bang.

Hi Phil !
-No, this is something that I've never been able to go with ...that Cadosche
was mistaken about something hitting the fence.

Cadosche is a perfectly believable witness by his total lack of drama and embellishment to his account. He said that he heard something falling against
the dividing fence -and whilst he is candid that he couldn't tell where the 'No!' came from, he was sure about the 'thud'. That's not just an audible sound, that's an -perhaps barely perceptible- vibrating of the fence.
It was also not an alarming sound to him, it was an habitual occurance.

As Kensei said -Cadosche must have been used to the door closing next door, and he was also used to things thudding on the fence, and I believe that he knew the difference. This is just the reason why I had so much trouble with Wolf's " (Cadosche) must have been mistaken" in the first place.

However, if it were Long's 'couple' who lean't heavily against the door/fence when bending down -and if they were intending to be quiet and not be caught together in the yard-then that would explain the noise adequately.
They were not panicked when they saw Annie's body at first, since they couldn't know the extent of her injuries in the dark, nor know that she was a Ripper victim. They probably thought that she was drunk ; they might have seen that she was dead, but they left sharpish.

[Rubyretro]

I think you are on to something here. Recall the story of the man in the passage way with the foreign sounding voice? Sugden feels sure that he was in that passage way a month before.

Well, you know Lynn, there must have been loads of men with foreign sounding voices in London in 1888. There must of been loads of men dossing in buildings in which they could enter.

Why do you think that Jack had a "foreign sounding voice" ? He may or may not have done.

I don't think that the man that Mrs Long saw with a prostitute outside Number 29 Hanbury Street was 'Jack' -which is one purpose of this thread.