Yesterday I did a little experiment, I got an old boot, with a small tear on the sole [where I had probably stood on it] and an old knife, I cut the leather [that was old and stiff and brittle] with the BACK of the knife. It wasn't a very good cut it wasn't a clean cut, but I cut a piece off.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Alternative entrences / exits to #29 Hanbury crime scene?
Collapse
X
-
As for why didn't he say he finished the job at the markets, go and sit in Court for a week or so and see how often witnesses are asked "Why wasn't that in your affidavit/statement" about 90% of the time the answer is "I didn't think that it was relevant" and guess what 99% of the time it's not.
Richardson also didn't tell us if the first case of produce he moved that day at the markets was n a case made by him did he, and guess why, because it was irrelevant.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostGood luck with your theory Rocky.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GUT View PostYesterday I did a little experiment, I got an old boot, with a small tear on the sole [where I had probably stood on it] and an old knife, I cut the leather [that was old and stiff and brittle] with the BACK of the knife. It wasn't a very good cut it wasn't a clean cut, but I cut a piece off.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DVV View PostHi Rocky.
Isn't that worse than the Mizen scam ?
Comment
-
But the leather apron theory never had anything to do with Jack the Ripper, really. Once Pizer was arrested then released the 'leather apron' story died. Therefore whether Richardson had a leather apron, whether he saw 'leather apron' on the street or not, is neither here nor there.
We don't know, because police documentation is gone, but if for instance Richardson and his family were at a family celebration in Bow on Bank Holiday Monday and there were masses of relatives sleeping at the house of Richardson's in laws in every spare corner, that would be a pretty good pointer to his not being Tabram's murderer.
Similarly, if one of Richardson's children was sick on the night Polly Nichols was killed and both husband and wife were sitting up with him/her for a few hours, he could hardly have been in Bucks Row bumping Polly off.
It's no coincidence that Ripper profilers have speculated that the Ripper was unmarried and without ties. It is often much too difficult for married family men to be able to get away. And yes I know in the face of that that some serial killers have been married with children, but it is still a valid point.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rosella View PostBut the leather apron theory never had anything to do with Jack the Ripper, really. Once Pizer was arrested then released the 'leather apron' story died. Therefore whether Richardson had a leather apron, whether he saw 'leather apron' on the street or not, is neither here nor there.
We don't know, because police documentation is gone, but if for instance Richardson and his family were at a family celebration in Bow on Bank Holiday Monday and there were masses of relatives sleeping at the house of Richardson's in laws in every spare corner, that would be a pretty good pointer to his not being Tabram's murderer.
Similarly, if one of Richardson's children was sick on the night Polly Nichols was killed and both husband and wife were sitting up with him/her for a few hours, he could hardly have been in Bucks Row bumping Polly off.
It's no coincidence that Ripper profilers have speculated that the Ripper was unmarried and without ties. It is often much too difficult for married family men to be able to get away. And yes I know in the face of that that some serial killers have been married with children, but it is still a valid point.
Comment
-
Amelia had three sons, I believe, John, Thomas and one other.
In the 1891 Census Amelia, still at 29 Hanbury, still with a packing case business was living with Thomas Richardson, 17 and her grandson, born Spitalfields.
She also in 1891 had a nephew G Gilbody, a widower and a silversmith aged 48 and his son C Gilbody, who was a packing case maker, living with her, (maybe she had got rid of Tyler as an employee.)
In the 1891 Census, at 7 St John's Place Whitechapel (where he lived in 1888) were John Richardson, who had become a bricklayer. His wife Caroline was a shirt maker.
Also present was son John aged 15, a carman, Millicent aged 10, a scholar, Mary aged 6, a scholar, and George aged 4, a scholar. Henry was aged one year. All children of the above.
I dont know whether Thomas Richardson aged 17 and living with his grandmother, was John's or the offspring of her other sons.
Comment
-
The above and this is courtesy of Neal Sheldon over at JTR Forums, by the way. Thank you very much, Neal.
Amelia's third son was Robert.
1881 Census.
At 29 Hanbury St lived Thomas Richardson 57, box maker.
Amelia, aged 58.
Thomas Richardson grandson aged 5, scholar.
At the same time, 1881, at 15 Caroline St Lambeth, lived
John Richardson 28, Militiaman.
Caroline Richardson buttonhole maker.
Thomas Richardson aged 7, scholar.
John Richardson aged 3, born Surrey.
Amelia, baby not yet one. Born Lambeth.
As you can see, Amelia Jnr may well have died. Thomas, Amelia's husband, died before the Ripper murders, and, with two Thomas jnrs, the grandson cannot be John Richardson's son.
In the 1871 Census Thomas Richardson, John Richardson's brother, is noted down as a Lunatic.
Robert Richardson married in 1877. John Richardson married Caroline Chaffey on Christmas Day in 1873 at St Thomas's Lambeth.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RockySullivan View PostThanks wickerman! I certainly take can't credit for it as wolf pointed out the inconsistency in his casebook essay. I'm convinced the torso & ripper murders are connected and I think the stolen tools from the cellar may be a clue. Hopefully some real sleuths may find a connection. I certainly understand what you mean about it being more difficult to take on a theory where the suspect was looked into and "no suspicion could attach". However I do feel there's more chance of someone who was actually questioned could have been the ripper than a random suspect who never was.
While we have been exchanging views here I was looking for something we talked about some time back, that Insp. Chandler had misinterpreted what Richardson said to him on the Inspectors arrival.
I can't recall what was behind this suggestion, but it came to mind as we were talking.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rosella View PostThe above and this is courtesy of Neal Sheldon over at JTR Forums, by the way. Thank you very much, Neal.
Amelia's third son was Robert.
1881 Census.
At 29 Hanbury St lived Thomas Richardson 57, box maker.
Amelia, aged 58.
Thomas Richardson grandson aged 5, scholar.
At the same time, 1881, at 15 Caroline St Lambeth, lived
John Richardson 28, Militiaman.
Caroline Richardson buttonhole maker.
Thomas Richardson aged 7, scholar.
John Richardson aged 3, born Surrey.
Amelia, baby not yet one. Born Lambeth.
As you can see, Amelia Jnr may well have died. Thomas, Amelia's husband, died before the Ripper murders, and, with two Thomas jnrs, the grandson cannot be John Richardson's son.
In the 1871 Census Thomas Richardson, John Richardson's brother, is noted down as a Lunatic.
Robert Richardson married in 1877. John Richardson married Caroline Chaffey on Christmas Day in 1873 at St Thomas's Lambeth.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostWolf was a very knowledgeable member, we don't see him around so much these days.
While we have been exchanging views here I was looking for something we talked about some time back, that Insp. Chandler had misinterpreted what Richardson said to him on the Inspectors arrival.
I can't recall what was behind this suggestion, but it came to mind as we were talking.
Comment
Comment