Why Hanbury St. No. 29?

[Scott Nelson]

Trying to pull in Issenschmid again. Give it up man.

[lynn cates]

dancing with JI

Hello Scott. No chance of that.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

So JI was hanging around Winthrop Street like some kind of horse slaughter yard voyeur and Polly Nichols staggered straight into him to be dispatched with dispatch?
But the three horse slaughtermen, the night watchman Mulshaw and the various policemen who passed around those streets saw no one lurking?

K and Mrs Retro, why 29?
If it was 27, would you say why 27? Maybe it had an open door. I don’t know that there needs to be a reason for 29 specifically.
If the question really is why that general end of Hanbury Street then we might be getting somewhere.
Most of the victims, canonical and non canonical, were found just off main roads – Whitechapel Road- Whitechapel High Street, Poplar High Street, Commercial Road, Commercial Street. This strongly implies that the killer located his victims on the main road and they went to find a more discrete location.
Was Chapman picked up on Commercial Street near where it meets Hanbury Street and they wandered down Hanbury Street until they found a suitable spot?
Or perhaps she found him (or rather he found her) on Hanbury Street. Hanbury Street was a secondary commercial street – not a total back street like Bucks Row for example, or the section of Wentworth Street that George Yard backed onto.

I don’t think it’s that much of a mystery as to why she was in this sort of vicinity looking for custom. She lived in Dorset Street a couple of minutes walk away.
It is I think relevant to ponder why the Ripper struck in that area and at that time.

[Jon Guy]

An interesting extra detail is picked up on by Stewart P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow in "Scotland Yard Investigates" (pg 78).

According to "The Suffolk Chronicle" 22nd Sept 88:
Mrs Long saw a man come to a woman and stand and talk with her near No. 29

[Lechmere]

29 Hanbury Street is about 150 yards at most from Corbett’s Court where Robert Paul worked. He was one of the witnesses in the Polly Nichols murder.
He started work at 4 am.
Annie Chapman was murdered on 8th September.
Robert Paul appeared at the Nichols inquest on 17th September.

On 30th September the Lloyds Weekly Newspaper carried this interesting report:
“Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day. John Richardson lost four days' work, and he was paid for three days one shilling each day. Cadosh came up from Enfield, and was paid 3s. for his three days' attendance. The coroner for some time demurred to allowing him his railway fares, but eventually did so, but his loss was 1l. 8s. 9d. John Davis, who discovered the body, lost two days, and was paid 2s., Mrs Long lost two days, and she was paid 2s. Other witnesses told the same story of what they naturally consider very unjust treatment.”

Those who keep asking why a witness might be reluctant to come forward and appear at an inquest need to digest this piece.

This report tells us that Paul was dragged out of bed and questioned for a day and then had to appear at the inquest for two days, although he only appeared on one day.
Paul made an earlier statement to the press on the very day Nichols was murdered (31st August) although it did not appear in the Lloyds Weekly until 2nd September.
He was critical of the police in it, saying:

“I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead... If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

It seems likely that the subsequent police ‘raid’ on Paul may well have been at least partially motivated by malice – as Paul had been publicly critical of the police’s actions.
However it also seems that Paul had failed to come forward in a timely fashion, after giving his brief statement to Mizen – the policeman he met with Charles Cross ‘the other man’. Cross actually accompanied Paul down Hanbury Street after they both left Mizen and they parted at the corner of Corbett’s Court. Cross also said he was late for work, but his quickest way to work wasn’t down Hanbury Street, but he chose to go that way nevertheless.
Cross appeared on day two of the inquest. Clearly he came forward promptly and without fuss.

So when was Paul dragged out of bed and why did the police question him for a day?

To help us take a look at the timeline for the Nichols and Chapman inquests, which overlapped and were both held at the Whitechapel Working Lad’s Institute:

Friday 31st August – Polly Nichols murdered – about 3.30 -3.45 am.
Saturday 1st September – Nichols inquest day 1
Sunday 2nd September – Lloyd’s Weekly interview with Paul published.
Monday 3rd September – Nichols inquest day 2 (Charles Cross appeared)
Saturday 8th September Annie Chapman murdered – between about 4.00 - 5.30 am
Monday 10th September – Chapman inquest day 1
Wednesday 12th September – Chapman inquest day 2
Thursday 13th September – Chapman inquest day 3
Monday 17th September – Nichols inquest day 3 (Robert Paul appeared)
Wednesday 19th September – Chapman inquest day 4
Saturday 22nd September – Nichols day inquest 4 (Robert Paul’s fruitless day off work)
Wednesday, 26th September – Chapman inquest day 5

I would suggest that Paul was dragged out of his bed after the Chapman murder because it took place so near his work place. I would suggest he was closely questioned as to his movements that night, but was cleared – as he had nothing to do with it.

I would also speculate that the murder of Annie Chapman in Hanbury Street, so close to Paul’s workplace, was no coincidence.

[jason_c]

I would suggest that Paul was dragged out of his bed after the Chapman murder because it took place so near his work place. I would suggest he was closely questioned as to his movements that night, but was cleared – as he had nothing to do with it.

I would also speculate that the murder of Annie Chapman in Hanbury Street, so close to Paul’s workplace, was no coincidence.

Can you explain why this may be no coincidence?

[lynn cates]

voyeur

Hello Lechmere. A perfect place for a defunct butcher to go. Yes, I believe he was drawn to the spot. Polly, in her drunken state, saw him and propositioned. She likely led him to Buck's Row.

Nothing remarkable here.

No one saw him? Not astonishing. They were occupied; he in the shadows.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

But Lynn – he would have been in one of his uncontrollable manic phases – talking to himself, marching up and down, fretting, twitching.
Not good for skulking in the shadows nor for being led around to Bucks Row – and no one saw the proposition in Winthrop Street taking place either?

Jason – in my opinion there is a very good chance that the Ripper found out that Paul worked at Corbett’s Yard and so carried out the next murder nearby to implicate him. Anywhere nearby would have done.

[DVV]

Jason – in my opinion there is a very good chance that the Ripper found out that Paul worked at Corbett’s Yard and so carried out the next murder nearby to implicate him. Anywhere nearby would have done.

Well, why not ? Just as he tried to put the blame on Jews three weeks later...

[Rubyretro]

K and Mrs Retro, why 29?
If it was 27, would you say why 27?

Certainly, Yes, Mr Lechmere.

I don’t know that there needs to be a reason for 29 specifically.

Maybe there doesn't, but maybe there does....it's worth considering.
If you had an abstract painting you might argue 'it doesn't represent anything at all. It's just an abstract' and yet the choice of paints, colours &
brushes would still tell an awful lot about the personality of the painter behind the abstract. Anything a human being does, even if it appears to be pure chance, is still a result of concious choices.
You don't know who JTR was anymore than I do, and it is foolish to just
sweep aside '29' without considering all the possibilities.

If the question really is why that general end of Hanbury Street then we might be getting somewhere.

Yes, but JTR didn't kill Annie at the "general end of Hanbury Street", he actually killed her at number 29. If you were to research each house in the street, you could probably eliminate most of them as being potential murder sites.

Most of the victims, canonical and non canonical, were found just off main roads

–
But most small roads are probably joined to main roads. Why those particular roads ?

Was Chapman picked up on Commercial Street near where it meets Hanbury Street and they wandered down Hanbury Street until they found a suitable spot

?
I can't see JTR wanting to be seen in Annie's company immediately before he
murdered her for more time than was absolutely necessary -he knew where he was going.

It is I think relevant to ponder why the Ripper struck in that area and at that time.

[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is an interesting question...

[Lechmere]

Signorina Retro
Hmmm
“You don't know who JTR was anymore than I do”...
I’ll let that pass.

“but JTR didn't kill Annie at the "general end of Hanbury Street", he actually killed her at number 29”.
But No 29 is within the general area of the end of Hanbury Street...

“But most small roads are probably joined to main roads.”
Not really – there were small roads upon small roads between the fewer big roads.
All roads obviously ultimately interconnect – the big road’s connected to the small road, the small road’s connected to the middle-sized road, the middle-sized road’s connected to the little road.

“Why those particular roads?”
To work out why the murders took place adjacent to those particular roads you really have to have a suspect that fits the bill I think. It makes sense that a serial killer who wanted to find a potential victim who would be relatively easy to kill in a secluded spot would pick on prostitutes late at night. They would mostly be found plying their trade on the main roads at that time. But why those particular roads? As I say that has to be fitted to the suspect I think.

“I can't see JTR wanting to be seen in Annie's company immediately before he murdered her for more time than was absolutely necessary -he knew where he was going.”
It’s only a couple of minutes walk from Commercial Street to No 29. Less distance than it would have been from Whitechapel Road to Brown’s Stable yard on Bucks Row. It is possible that the Ripper met Polly Nichols on Bucks Row, but I would submit unlikely.
While it’s possible he may have suggested No 29 for some specific reason and Annie Chapman agreed, I fail to see ‘the point’. It was just a back yard.
After picking up his target he would I presume have been focussing on checking that no one was about and that no one had got a clear view of him. Simultaneously trying to steer his victim into a specific corner seems to me to be an unnecessary complication when she would take him to a nice secluded spot anyway.

[K-453]

he would have been in one of his uncontrollable manic phases – talking to himself, marching up and down, fretting, twitching.
Not good for skulking in the shadows nor for being led around to Bucks Row

Not necessarily. He could have behaved like a Peeping Tom - as stealthily as possible.

in my opinion there is a very good chance that the Ripper found out that Paul worked at Corbett’s Yard and so carried out the next murder nearby to implicate him.

Too complicated.
He was rather busy with his own problems than with taking revenge on that one witness.

[Wickerman]

So if a weirdo had the "presence of mind to keep his gob shut" presumably because he realised that he was weird, then could he be classified as a "weirdo" ?

Certainly, to be accused of being "weird" is a condecension.
'A' could act 'weird' according to 'B', whether 'A' knows it or not.


Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lechmere. Are you suggesting that Cross learned where Paul worked (which I would agree with) and that he killed Chapman near him to throw suspicion on him?

Did I see you earlier say you think Isenschmid had something to do with it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

delusional

Hello Lechmere.

"he would have been in one of his uncontrollable manic phases – talking to himself, marching up and down, fretting, twitching."

How do we know this? Why not a delusional phase as in "removing heads and entrails of sheep"?

Cheers.
LC