Hanbury Street Back yard photo

[Shelley]

Thanks John,

It's a nice pic of the pub...

I'll have to visit London again sometime and find it, look for the old parts in case there has been any refurbishments

[John Bennett]

btw when i was in London a few years ago, i couldn't find the ' Ten Bells ' does it still exist? Or has it had either a name change or been demolished as well?

It certainly does. 84 Commercial Street, right by Christ Church.

http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Ten_Bells

[Shelley]

Yes, you are right John. I remember seeing it on the wall at the Ten Bells.

[ATTACH]12858[/ATTACH]

Stewart,

Here is a video of James Mason in the 1967 film ' The London Nobody Knows ' showing 29 Hanbury Street as it was when Annie Chapman was found before the demolition of the house in the 1970's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GWvAhHdx_8

btw when i was in London a few years ago, i couldn't find the ' Ten Bells ' does it still exist? Or has it had either a name change or been demolished as well?

[Brenda]

.

I always tend to go a little easy on Richardson. Sometimes I am in my own thoughts so deeply that a hundred million dollars could be laying in the yard and I would miss it. Especially first thing in the morning like that. And before coffee??

However, if there had been as much problem with people using that yard for "immoral purposes", then it seems like he might would have been a bit more vigilant in looking around and making sure all was as it should be.

[Rixa]

Pretty hard not to have seen the body from the top, bottom or middle of the stairs.

Hello drstrange169 - I don't think think that I've seen that photo look so good before. Is is published somewhere in that much detail? I also wonder when it was taken.

[Magpie]

"If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body."

Pretty hard not to have seen the body from the top, bottom or middle of the stairs.

Hi drstrange.

However, if John's original story is true, there would have been no reason to open the door all the way, so it's entirely possible that he would't have seen a body in the position where Chapman was found

1) Go to back door
2) open back door just enough to lean out and look down and to the right.
3) Use xray and infra-red vision to make sure the lock was intact
4) close door and head off to the market.

[Magpie]

Thank you both for the drawings. Interesting view of the covers, but comparing the drawings to the photos, neither of them convey how deeply recessed the cellar door seems to be.

[drstrange169]

This was the picture I was thinking of with the wooden covering.
Looks like if you lent out of the door you would be able to see the cellar door.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sketch

The below sketch of the scene of the murder appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette at the time. It seems to be pretty accurate and may give a better idea of the back door, the steps and the cellar entrance.

[drstrange169]

"If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body."

Pretty hard not to have seen the body from the top, bottom or middle of the stairs.

[Raoul's Obsession]

aha... very interesting indeed.
I'm still unconvinced though - I'm not convinced that Chandler interpreted the intent of the questions the same way that we are using them now. This is an issue that sweeps through much of the testimony that we talk about on these boards. I think his statement to Chandler is consistent with his statement that he didn't go down to the cellar to check the lock itself. The difference appears to be in whether he stood on the top step only, or moved one or two steps further - I don't think Richardson would have seen the importance of a difference in these two as in either case he would (or should) have been able to see a body next to the steps. I take his statement to Chandler not as being inconsistent, but rather, being a shorter re-telling of the circumstances.

Ultimately, he is probably as honest a (nonPC) witness as you will get in this case. He has a legitimate reason for being there and no reason for lying (unless you want to suggest he's JR - though I think that would be a murder that's a little too close to home).

Raoul

[Magpie]

Raoul: that was Richardson statement at the inquest--after he'd had some time to think about things. Here's what he told Chandler at the scene:

Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

[Raoul's Obsession]

[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.


Personally, I disagree. I think it is clear from his statement that he didn't just look out the door at the cellar. My interpretation is that he went out to at least the doorstep - which we could even take as the bottom of the three steps without him being a liar. Now, if the latch is on the left hand side of the cellar door, I don't think the recess of the door is so far as to be prohibittive of him seeing it. I think all of this is consistent with his statements. I think this is one of those situations where we, 120 years later, cannot make a definitive case one way or the other - I think it's too close to tell.

Raoul

[The Grave Maurice]

Thanks for finding that quote, Wolf. We all remember, more or less, what Richardson said, but it's handy to have the actual text. Still, Magpie makes a very good point: the basement door, from the photo, appears to have been recessed to an extent that it would have been difficult for Richardson to see a lock simply by peering down from the back door of the house.

And my comments in post #20 were badly phrased. What I meant to say was that, if Richardson sat on the step, it would have been virtually impossible, even in half-light, for him not to notice whether or not a body was lying to his left.

[Magpie]

Mrs. Richardson, recalled… My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market. [Coroner] Do you understand that he goes down to the cellar door? [Mrs. Richardson] No, he can see from the steps.
The Eastern Post, Saturday September 15, 1888.

Wolf.

Exactly, Wolf. Now look at the how deep the doorway is in the picture, then add the wooden cover to that. There's no way Richardson just poked his head out the door (at dawn, no less) and checked the lock.


Also, it looks like Mrs. Richardson was referring to the steps to the cellar, rather than the steps from the back door.