Hanbury Street Photos

[The Grave Maurice]

If there was enough light for Richardson to have trimmed his boot, how could he possibly have missed seeing Annie?

Perhaps because she wasn't there yet.
Anyway, what I want to know is where Mason got that brolly. It's a beaut.

[Supe]

Garry,

With all due respect I would defer to a carpenter rather than a journalist. Carpenters do not estimate board lengths in comparison to their own height--then or now. You may chose to put your faith in whomever you want--I will stick with Albert. Too bad he wasn't a mortician, who in the days of custom coffins were reputed to estimate heights within a quarter-inch at a glance. But then I suppose they would not have satisfied you either.

Don.

[Chris Scott]

In 1881 Albert Cadosch was listed as a glass cutter, as was his father Paul, and by 1891 Albert and his wife had moved out to Essex and were running a fruit shop

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/castofthousands.albert-cadosch.html

[Supe]

Chris,

At the Chapman inquest he was identified as a carpenter, but perhaps Garry is right and Cadosh moved from glass cutter to carpenter and then fruit seller because he couldn't measure glass or wood. All you need measure with fruit is weight (and how to hide your thumb on the scale).

Don.

[Monty]

Supe, Chris,

Glass Cutter do take on some carpentry duties. The two kinda fit hand in glove. Basically a Glass Cutter was a glazer and worked upon the completion/refitting of doors with glass panes and windows.

This in an age where the two materials were often used together.

Monty

[Stephen Thomas]

Anyway, what I want to know is where Mason got that brolly. It's a beaut.

Probably here GM

Top of the old St Giles Rookery

And the shop is still there.

http://www.james-smith.co.uk/

[Monty]

Probably here GM

Top of the old St Giles Rookery

And the shop is still there.

http://www.james-smith.co.uk/

Stephen,

Its not far from Bloomsbury Street is it?

I was in there last month, when it snowed.

Monty

[The Grave Maurice]

Thanks, Stephen. I had forgotten about James Smith & Sons. I went there years ago to buy an umbrella with a whangee handle---you know, like the one John Steed had in The Avengers. Still got it, still love it. What a great shop.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Thanks for posting those screen caps Gary, they are really great quality. The only ones I had to work from were from an old video and they were rubbish.
Now I know they're on the net, I'll go and grab some good quality files!

The fence has been discussed before on the board, and some really interesting stuff came out of it.

I think that Cadosche's estimate, whatever his trade, must have been pretty accurate. He had to walk right alongside it to get to loo - he knew how tall he was and surely would have judged it against his own height. And it is true that a glazier needs to be able to judge lengths just as well as a carpenter, otherwise there would be a lot of window panes falling out. (There was a smiley here, but it disappeared!) Someone is going to come back now and say he might not have known how tall he was, I bet you.

That is definitely not the original fence, as the original was in very poor shape and practically fell to pieces as the investigation progressed. It was also not as closely built as that one, with at least some gaps between the planks. There is also a possibility that whoever rebuilt it pinched a few inches of 29's back yard as well, as later photos seem to show a slighter smaller gap between the steps and the fence!

The fence is described as 'palings' in some newspaper reports and the sketches below, although probably skewed by artist interpretation, do show that there were likely to be at least some gaps between the planks. The object draped over the fence in one of them is a tarpaulin by the looks of it.

When I first painted the backyard with a closed plank fence, Howard Brown was good enough to point out that it was too sturdy for the fence that was there at the time. Thanks to him, I did some more research and it led to a great discussion about it. Let's hope we can revive the topic and get some interesting debate out of it!

Hugs all round because I've not posted for ages,

Jane

xxxx

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks for posting those screen caps Gary, they are really great quality. The only ones I had to work from were from an old video and they were rubbish … Now I know they're on the net, I'll go and grab some good quality files!

You’re most welcome, Jane. If you’re looking for quality, though, I’d give the internet freebies a wide berth. The DVD is far superior and avaiable on Ebay for less than seven pounds.

I think that Cadosche's estimate, whatever his trade, must have been pretty accurate. He had to walk right alongside it to get to loo - he knew how tall he was and surely would have judged it against his own height.

Couldn’t agree more. But the same is also true of the journalists who visited the crime scene.

And it is true that a glazier needs to be able to judge lengths just as well as a carpenter, otherwise there would be a lot of window panes falling out.

On the contrary, Jane. Such trades require more precise measurements – hence the use of templates, jigs and rules. But this is an irrelevance anyway, since there is not an atom of evidence to support the notion of Cadosch being a qualified carpenter.

That is definitely not the original fence, as the original was in very poor shape and practically fell to pieces as the investigation progressed. It was also not as closely built as that one, with at least some gaps between the planks.

Agreed. But the gaps were clearly insufficient to permit Cadosch to observe the unfolding scene involving Chapman and her killer.

The fence is described as 'palings' in some newspaper reports and the sketches below, although probably skewed by artist interpretation, do show that there were likely to be at least some gaps between the planks.

If the fence was paled, the assertion expressed by several posters relating to a one- or two-inch gap at ground level is entirely misplaced owing to the fact that ‘palings’ are driven into the ground.

Let's hope we can revive the topic and get some interesting debate out of it!

Absolutely. But any such debate would be meaningful only if it addressed the evidence rather than paying lip-service to opinion masquerading as fact.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Magpie]

Hi Jane

Thanks for the pictures.

Again I note that every one of them show some sort of marquee structure covering the cellar door, rendering it impossible for Richardson to stand on stand on the top step and check the padlock on the cellar.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I will be ordering the DVD tomorrow.

Just a few more thoughts:

I would be a little less accepting of Cadosche's estimation if it were not for the fact that John Davis(ies) gave an estimate of around 5ft 6 inches as well, when he testified at the inquest - which tends to lend credence to Cadosche's guesstimate.

No-one at the inquest queried Cadosche's and Davis' estimate of the height of the fence, even though it was extremely important evidence. The coroner certainly didn't question it, and simply asked why Cadosche didn't think to look over, when he heard the noise.

By the time the journalists got there, the fence was in a serious state of disrepair, as confirmed by Inspector Chandler at the inquest, which means that the reporters were not seeing the fence exactly as it was when Cadosche passed every day.

We can't say how badly the fence had been damaged, but even if it was only bowing outwards and slightly damaged it it might well have been enough to skew the reporters' estimate of the height of the fence. I seem to recall that one newspaper report stated that there was a large hole broken along the top of the fence - that would make a huge difference to guessing the height of it. However much the fence was damaged though, it certainly could account for the different height estimates.

It might also explain why all the artists' sketches are so diverse......they were literally having to fill the gaps, because the fence was so badly damaged they couldn't quite see what it looked like by the time they got there.

A couple of those are extremely competent sketches done by a very skilled artist at the scene. If they got the palings wrong, then there would be a very good reason for it. They wouldn't put so much detail into the rest of the sketch and then just ignore perfectly good railings that were there in favour of making them up. It just doesn't happen like that. The most likely reason for the differences is that there wasn't actually much of a fence left to draw.

As confirmation that the press might well have been seeing a very different fence to the one Cadosche saw - or how unreliable press reports could be, the Star of the 8th September describes the fence thus:

The yard is a small one, square in shape, with a 4ft. fence on either side.

So even the press reports don't agree, and bearing in mind that the newspapers got so many other facts wrong about the murder(s), I personally would still prefer to accept Cadosche's estimate, but I'm open to friendly persuasion.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Supe]

Garry,

If the fence was paled, the assertion expressed by several posters relating to a one- or two-inch gap at ground level is entirely misplaced owing to the fact that ‘palings’ are driven into the ground.

Once upon time, that was indeed true, but by the time we are discussing palings were synonomous with a picket when talking about fencing. But believe what you want.

Don.

[Garry Wroe]

I would be a little less accepting of Cadosche's estimation if it were not for the fact that John Davis(ies) gave an estimate of around 5ft 6 inches as well, when he testified at the inquest - which tends to lend credence to Cadosche's guesstimate.

I tend to agree, Jane. But then, compare the image featuring James Mason standing in the doorway with the contemporaneous illustrations. If anything, the ‘modern’ fence is slightly higher than its Victorian counterpart. If James Mason really was a six-footer, the modern fence could only have been five or so feet in height. And this would seem to call into question the fence height estimations of Cadosch and others.

Some might consider the height of the boundary fence to be immaterial since it was clearly sufficient to obscure Chapman and her killer from Cadosch’s view. Perhaps. Yet one advantage of determining the specific dimensions of the fence relates to the killer’s height. Assuming him to have been standing upright when Cadosch heard what is presumed to have been Annie’s body impacting with the fence, the actual height of the fence would serve to define the maximum height of the killer, thereby allowing for the elimination of taller ‘suspects.’ Similarly, it might also be of help in the evaluation of eyewitness testimony. Hence I absolutely concur with your view that this is a topic deserving of further discussion.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.