Alternative entrences / exits to #29 Hanbury crime scene?

[GUT]

Hi all

So, he cut up some carrots for his rabbit, put the dessert knife in his pocket, then walking to Hanbury street found his boot was hurting and cut off the leather on the steps only to discover the knife wasn't sharp enough to cut off the leather he just said he did so borrowed a knife at the market?
Have I got that right?
So, finding his boot was hurting, he decided to take the dessert knife he usually kept at home with him, and then walked in a painful boot to his mothers house before sitting on the steps?
If he didn't realise his boot was hurting until he set off, by happy chance, he had the dessert knife in his pocket. The one he usually kept at home, but not that day?
And then. sitting on the steps of a packing case manufacturer, which presumably had sharp implements to hand, finding the dessert knife no use,he then walked to the market in his painful boot and borrowed a knife there?

Something not right here.
All the best.

I also don't understand him to be saying he took the knife because his boot was hurting, just that he had slipped the knife in his pocket, maybe after feeding the wabbit, and when he realised there was a problem with his boot realised he had the knife with him.

[martin wilson]

Hi all

Thanks GUT, so his evidence should have been, "After cutting up carrots for my rabbit, I went to 29 Hanbury street to check the cellar, on the way there I found my boot was hurting, I found the dessert knife still in my pocket so sitting on the yard steps tried to cut some leather off it, however it wasn't sharp enough so I went to work at the market and borrowed a sharper one there"

Could be, It's possible he cut SOME leather off his boot while sitting on the steps, but not enough to fix the problem, so borrowed one from the market. perhaps this was confirmed in the police investigation, we may never know that.
All the best.

[GUT]

Hi all

Thanks GUT, so his evidence should have been, "After cutting up carrots for my rabbit, I went to 29 Hanbury street to check the cellar, on the way there I found my boot was hurting, I found the dessert knife still in my pocket so sitting on the yard steps tried to cut some leather off it, however it wasn't sharp enough so I went to work at the market and borrowed a sharper one there"

Could be, It's possible he cut SOME leather off his boot while sitting on the steps, but not enough to fix the problem, so borrowed one from the market. perhaps this was confirmed in the police investigation, we may never know that.
All the best.

That's pretty much my take, or even that he was unable to cut the leather when on the step so tied it up and cut it when he got to the market, unfortunately it is a recurring problem that we do not have all the evidence and the newspapers may have mis reported what was said, as they have so many times, then and since.

[martin wilson]

Hi all

Thanks GUT, my thinking was that the 'some leather' theory might reconcile his apparently contradictory statement at the inquest, where he clearly states he cut the leather off his boot whilst sitting on the steps.
Agreed, too many questions, not enough information.

Why mention the knife at all? he had a reasonable excuse to be there. he could have just said " I checked the cellar and it was locked so I went on to work"

Honesty or some other reason? I suppose an innocent man may not think about being accused, only at the inquest where according to some reports the coroner questioned him 'severely' about the knife does his actions then become suspicious.
All the best.

[martin wilson]

Hi all

Too many questions though, Amelia Richardson 'didn't miss a thing' apart from her own son coming in, sitting on the steps and going out again. John Davies didn't hear him either.
Amelia Richardson was dozing between 3 and whatever time she got up, yet she called Thompson at 3.50 ( 3.30 Davies)
Tyler doesn't exactly seem like a model employee, and should have been there at 6 a.m for what was the start of what seemed like a normal working day, where was Amelia Richardson? wouldn't she have been up before 6?
Off to have a read, and what passes for thinking.
Cheers. HNY btw.

[Rosella]

We don't know whether Amelia was that active in the actual physical labour of her business. She had a male employee, Tyler, who seems to have made a habit of being late for work, and her son John also helped sometimes. However, when business was slack that might have meant only two or three hours of work a day. Hardly worth getting up at before 6am. She may have had other things to do in the house, as well.

People get used to familiar footsteps in a busy household, which would account for the greeting to Thompson. Amelia may then have drifted off into a deeper sleep. Davis had a room right at the top of the house. He wouldn't necessarily have heard anyone in the passage below.

[martin wilson]

Hi Rosella

Familiarity with sounds makes sense, it's only in the context of a murder that whatever was heard becomes important, and that's retrospective, so even if she did hear someone going in and out, she probably wouldn't pay any attention to it. People were up and about all the time in the house.
Tyler 'ought' to have been there at 6.am, that could be interpreted as she didn't see him when she was up after 6 and the body was discovered.
All the best.

[Jon Guy]

But then why did richardson say

"[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.

Yes, that`s correct, and he finished the job off at Spitalfields Market ?

[martin wilson]

Hi all

That's how I'm interpreting his evidence John, not a bare faced lie but simply he did both, cut a bit of leather off, didn't fix the problem so tied his boot up and borrowed a knife at the market.
I'm speculating that the police investigation checked his story and found it true. as otherwise, pending a lack of other evidence, he surely must have been a suspect given the knife, leather apron and a dead body in his yard, it simply defies credibility otherwise.
Some reports say the coroner questioned him 'severely' and the knife was retained, yet something cleared him.We don't know what, perhaps the focus on a single killer and having a solid alibi for the other murders led the police to believe he was not the 'ripper', but that's another theory.
All the best.

[Jon Guy]

Hi all

That's how I'm interpreting his evidence John, not a bare faced lie but simply he did both, cut a bit of leather off, didn't fix the problem so tied his boot up and borrowed a knife at the market.
I'm speculating that the police investigation checked his story and found it true. as otherwise, pending a lack of other evidence, he surely must have been a suspect given the knife, leather apron and a dead body in his yard, it simply defies credibility otherwise.
Some reports say the coroner questioned him 'severely' and the knife was retained, yet something cleared him.We don't know what, perhaps the focus on a single killer and having a solid alibi for the other murders led the police to believe he was not the 'ripper', but that's another theory.
All the best.

Hi Martin

I think the witnesses Long and Cadosche may have helped his case.

Yes, I`m sure the police checked his story back at the market. I think it was someone called Pierman (or Pearman ?) who told Richardson at the market that there had been a murder at his mum`s place. (Wonder how Pierman knew so early ?)

[RockySullivan]

Yes, that`s correct, and he finished the job off at Spitalfields Market ?

In the testimony I quoted he's clearly stating he cut it off in the yard. It seems he changed his story to be that he cut it at the market once the coroner and jury were shown the knife and it was obvious it could not cut thru leather.

[GUT]

In the testimony I quoted he's clearly stating he cut it off in the yard. It seems he changed his story to be that he cut it at the market once the coroner and jury were shown the knife and it was obvious it could not cut thru leather.

What part of what's being suggested don't you get.

He cut [or perhaps tried to cut] his boot on the step.

Went to work, realised that the boot still wasn't right so cut it again.

Pretty simple.

Now you might not agree with that interpretation, but it is a viable explanation as to why it was said "No suspicion can attach to him".

[RockySullivan]

What part of what's being suggested don't you get.

He cut [or perhaps tried to cut] his boot on the step.

Went to work, realised that the boot still wasn't right so cut it again.

Pretty simple.

Now you might not agree with that interpretation, but it is a viable explanation as to why it was said "No suspicion can attach to him".

How is he going to cut leather with the butter knife?

You say he cut or he tried to....those are two different things and he states he does cut it in the yard.

[GUT]

How is he going to cut leather with the butter knife?

You say he cut or he tried to....those are two different things and he states he does cut it in the yard.

My Grandfather used to grind butter knfes so sharp you could cut almost anything with them.

How do you know he sad he did cut it in the yard, we don't have the inquest records we have some press reports

[RockySullivan]

The knife he produced was a rusty and blunt little dessert or table knife with half the blade broken off and no handle. The coroner, who examined the blade, wondered how such an implement could be used to cut boot leather and Richardson amazingly stated "as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market" 23 to do the job.

Daily telegraph http://www.casebook.org/dissertation....html#endnotes