Alternative entrences / exits to #29 Hanbury crime scene?

[Vincenzo]

Why is t a relatively good assumption?

There's no evidence Annie had used it before.

She might have said "here I know this lane" and he said "I know a better place the last grl took me, this backyard".

Just as good an assumption in my opinion.

As I said, nothing is certain.

[GUT]

Well, nothing is certain, of course. But I remember reading that prostitutes had used the yard at #29 Hanbury before so I think it is a relatively good assumption to make.

Why is t a relatively good assumption?

There's no evidence Annie had used it before.

She might have said "here I know this lane" and he said "I know a better place the last grl took me, this backyard".

Just as good an assumption in my opinion.

[Vincenzo]

I think that's likely but would hesitate before claiming it as a certainty.

Well, nothing is certain, of course. But I remember reading that prostitutes had used the yard at #29 Hanbury before so I think it is a relatively good assumption to make.

[Bridewell]

Chapman led her murderer to the crime scene not the other way around.

I think that's likely but would hesitate before claiming it as a certainty.

[Rosella]

Exactly! Richardson would have killed Annie anywhere but at the house where his mother lived. And he was there around 4:45am.

[Vincenzo]

Ok but then you have to believe that two different guys were on the steps with a knife out in the backyard within in an hour. The first guys story keeps changing, at first he never said he was there with a knife.

Maybe my version of events is off, but wasn't Richardson in the back yard at around 4:45 and Elizabeth Long sees Chapman with a man outside of #29 Hanbury at 5:30?

What am I missing here?

Obviously there could have been two guys in that yard with a knife that morning, but only one of them had a legitimate reason for being there, Mr. Richardson. The other man was there to commit a murder, that was Saucy Jacky. It is nothing more than a coincidence. Chapman led her murderer to the crime scene not the other way around.

If Richardson were the killer, I would suspect he would have led her away from a residence he is so strongly tied too.

[RockySullivan]

I don't think the body was there when he was there.

Ok but then you have to believe that two different guys were on the steps with a knife out in the backyard within in an hour. The first guys story keeps changing, at first he never said he was there with a knife.

[Vincenzo]

So if he wasn't going thru her pockets than were left with a man sitting next to her body with knife. He was viewed with suspicion by the coroner but as gut loves to say "no suspicion could attach to him". That to me is not definitive proof of innocence. There are a number of suspicious things about Richardson.

I don't think the body was there when he was there.

[RockySullivan]

I understand that. But the police considered him as a suspect at the time and quickly ruled him out, no?

This is not the way you kill someone to take their money or rings. This isn't the way you kill someone when you argue with them over the price of their "services."

The person who killed Ms. Chapman had a very specific motive which they had already seen. It was all about the mutilation. Richardson doesn't fit that motive.

He may very well have seen the body before and stole some stuff from her, but that seems like a stretch considering the state of her corpse. It's not like it's some random dead body. The gore would have been unimaginable, especially for someone in those days who probably had never seen an eviscerated body before.

So if he wasn't going thru her pockets than were left with a man sitting next to her body with knife. He was viewed with suspicion by the coroner but as gut loves to say "no suspicion could attach to him". That to me is not definitive proof of innocence. There are a number of suspicious things about Richardson.

[Vincenzo]

If the body wasn there when richardson sat next to the murder spot, then is longs man the killer? It would appear so. If not then Richardson lied and the body was there. He may have gone through her pockets. But why the knife? Could he have used the knife to pry Annie's rings? I don't for a second believe the shoe story since Richardson couldn't even keep that straight. He might be the killer. There are a lot of holes in his story. Like why was he allowed to leave work to the see the crime scene when he didn't even know it was in his own yard? I tend to think Annie's bodies was there when Richardson was and he admits he had a knife so it's hard not to view him as a suspect.

I understand that. But the police considered him as a suspect at the time and quickly ruled him out, no?

This is not the way you kill someone to take their money or rings. This isn't the way you kill someone when you argue with them over the price of their "services."

The person who killed Ms. Chapman had a very specific motive which they had already seen. It was all about the mutilation. Richardson doesn't fit that motive.

He may very well have seen the body before and stole some stuff from her, but that seems like a stretch considering the state of her corpse. It's not like it's some random dead body. The gore would have been unimaginable, especially for someone in those days who probably had never seen an eviscerated body before.

[RockySullivan]

If the body wasn there when richardson sat next to the murder spot, then is longs man the killer? It would appear so. If not then Richardson lied and the body was there. He may have gone through her pockets. But why the knife? Could he have used the knife to pry Annie's rings? I don't for a second believe the shoe story since Richardson couldn't even keep that straight. He might be the killer. There are a lot of holes in his story. Like why was he allowed to leave work to the see the crime scene when he didn't even know it was in his own yard? I tend to think Annie's bodies was there when Richardson was and he admits he had a knife so it's hard not to view him as a suspect.

[Vincenzo]

He has to be considered only because he was in the yard with a knife closest to the estimated rod & he was next to where the body should've been with a knife. He continually changed his story & gave conflicting reports. Other than that....

Right... I just think that he had nothing to do with it. The murder must have happened after he left the yard. I can't imagine him missing her corpse. Imagine the smell coming from her open bowels...

[Wickerman]

He has to be considered only because he was in the yard with a knife closest to the estimated rod & he was next to where the body should've been with a knife. He continually changed his story & gave conflicting reports. Other than that....

The police are well aware that witnesses don't always tell the whole truth, but they also know that the reasons for this are often unrelated to the crime itself.

[RockySullivan]

But if Richardson killed Chapman then he must have also killed (at least) Eddowes, Kelly & Nicholes, right? (i leave Stride out because she did not have the characteristic mutilations, but i still think she was also a ripper victim)

I've just never heard anyone seriously consider Richardson as a JTR suspect.

He has to be considered only because he was in the yard with a knife closest to the estimated rod & he was next to where the body should've been with a knife. He continually changed his story & gave conflicting reports. Other than that....

[Vincenzo]

Rosella those are good points.

Vincenzo, I imagine it's not unheard for a murderer to commit a murder on there own property. The fact is , again, richardson was the last known person in the yard. He had a knife. He changed his story multiple times.

But if Richardson killed Chapman then he must have also killed (at least) Eddowes, Kelly & Nicholes, right? (i leave Stride out because she did not have the characteristic mutilations, but i still think she was also a ripper victim)

I've just never heard anyone seriously consider Richardson as a JTR suspect.