Alternative entrences / exits to #29 Hanbury crime scene?

[RockySullivan]

This "Richardson as suspect" thing is just an extended parody of Lechmere and Fisherman, right?

how is it a parody? Richardson knew the victim, he had a knife out at the murder scene, he lied to chandler, lied at the inquest.....and he wore a leather apron

does that sound anything like lechmere to you?

[RockySullivan]

Lechmere's lies are less sinister than Richardson's. LEchmere couldve told mizen his name was charles cross because his stepfather was a cop, he went by that name at pickfords, he didnt want his name in the papers, there are a variety of reasons. The worse lie, that a policeman was with the body, couldve been mizen covering his ass, or misremembering.

Richardson however first tells the investigating policeman he never went into the yard and only looked at the padlock. When he's testifying at the inquest he makes one statement, then once he produces the knife he gives a completely contradictory account. So you tell me.....whats the difference?

[GUT]

Lechmere's lies are less sinister than Richardson's. LEchmere couldve told mizen his name was charles cross because his stepfather was a cop, he went by that name at pickfords, he didnt want his name in the papers, there are a variety of reasons. The worse lie, that a policeman was with the body, couldve been mizen covering his ass, or misremembering.

Richardson however first tells the investigating policeman he never went into the yard and only looked at the padlock. When he's testifying at the inquest he makes one statement, then once he produces the knife he gives a completely contradictory account. So you tell me.....whats the difference?

Well the big similarity is that the police were too stupid to even look at them, or so we are expected to believe.

The biggest difference is that we have an account by the police that in Richardson's case "No suspicion could attach to him".

[RockySullivan]

Well the big similarity is that the police were too stupid to even look at them, or so we are expected to believe.

The biggest difference is that we have an account by the police that in Richardson's case "No suspicion could attach to him".

Thats a good point gut. Richardson was a person of interest at the time while LEchmere wasnt. What that means in term of suspect validity depends on your point of view.
The way I would interpret the statement "no suspicion could attach to him" would be despite suspicion, they couldn't make anything stick.

[GUT]

Thats a good point gut. Richardson was a person of interest at the time while LEchmere wasnt. What that means in term of suspect validity depends on your point of view.
The way I would interpret the statement "no suspicion could attach to him" would be despite suspicion, they couldn't make anything stick.

Maybe you need then to ask someone trained in LVP English Lit, you may well be suprised if that's what you think it means.

[RockySullivan]

gut, lets look at the one clue we have in the yard of 29 hanbury. The gaiter spring that belonged to richardson. Now I assume Richardson lost his spring on the morning chapman was killed, he hadnt worked in the cellar for sometime according to his mother as his leather apron was mildewed. Now richardson never mentioned to chandler sitting on the steps to cut his boot. I assume he would have come up with this an explanation for why his gaiter spring was next to the body. If richardson had sat down on the steps to cut his boot, would he have attempted to do so with a rusty butter knife? He claimed he put the knife in his pocket by mistake, so at what point did he realize it was in his pocket? IF the butter knife was the one in his pocket, dont you think he would have known it was not nearly sharp enough to cut his boot before sitting down and taking off his boot? Did Richardson have a sharper knife in his pocket, used that to cut his boot, and only claimed to cut his boot later at the market in order to avoid it being known he was in the yard with a SHARP knife? Did the gaiter spring really fall while he was cobbling his boot in the backyard steps? OR did Richardson come up with the cobbling story in attempt to explain both why his gaiter spring was by the body & to explain away any possible witness sighting of him on the stairs, knife in hand, that might be forthcoming? If Richardson was telling the truth about cobbling his boot, why didnt he mention it to chandler? And why did he immediately change his story and contradict himself once he produced the butter knife?

Would Richardson really have attempted to cut his boot with a butter knife and why stop to do so while hes checking his mother's cellar? Does the fact that his gaiter spring was next to the body show he did sit on the stairs that morning?

[Rosella]

The back yards of these slum dwellings were hardly pristine. There was probably all sorts of discarded rubbish in the yards of No 29, 27, 25 and in fact every house in the neighbourhood. Lots of things were found there. That doesn't mean that they were discarded by Annie's killer on that morning.

Richardson and Chandler had a very hurried conversation in the morning of the 8th September. Richardson didn't make a formal statement and Chandler wouldn't have given him a list of questions to answer. He probably committed to memory much of what Richardson told him. It wasn't as if he asked him to come down to the police station. He himself was about to go to the mortuary.

[RockySullivan]

The back yards of these slum dwellings were hardly pristine. There was probably all sorts of discarded rubbish in the yards of No 29, 27, 25 and in fact every house in the neighbourhood. Lots of things were found there. That doesn't mean that they were discarded by Annie's killer on that morning.

Richardson and Chandler had a very hurried conversation in the morning of the 8th September. Richardson didn't make a formal statement and Chandler wouldn't have given him a list of questions to answer. He probably committed to memory much of what Richardson told him. It wasn't as if he asked him to come down to the police station. He himself was about to go to the mortuary.

Was anything other than the gaiter spring noted being near the body?

[Rosella]

Yes, a torn envelope with a seal and Sussex Regiment embossed on it. It was found near Chapman's head and it was speculated that Annie had picked it up in the doss house kitchen to hold her pills. It had been posted at a post Office near Farnborough. Richardson was not a soldier nor did he come from Farnborough.

There were no doubt buttons and boot heels and old laces, bits of cardboard, tins and other rubbish lying about all over the place.

[GUT]

gut, lets look at the one clue we have in the yard of 29 hanbury. The gaiter spring that belonged to richardson. Now I assume Richardson lost his spring on the morning chapman was killed, he hadnt worked in the cellar for sometime according to his mother as his leather apron was mildewed. Now richardson never mentioned to chandler sitting on the steps to cut his boot. I assume he would have come up with this an explanation for why his gaiter spring was next to the body. If richardson had sat down on the steps to cut his boot, would he have attempted to do so with a rusty butter knife? He claimed he put the knife in his pocket by mistake, so at what point did he realize it was in his pocket? IF the butter knife was the one in his pocket, dont you think he would have known it was not nearly sharp enough to cut his boot before sitting down and taking off his boot? Did Richardson have a sharper knife in his pocket, used that to cut his boot, and only claimed to cut his boot later at the market in order to avoid it being known he was in the yard with a SHARP knife? Did the gaiter spring really fall while he was cobbling his boot in the backyard steps? OR did Richardson come up with the cobbling story in attempt to explain both why his gaiter spring was by the body & to explain away any possible witness sighting of him on the stairs, knife in hand, that might be forthcoming? If Richardson was telling the truth about cobbling his boot, why didnt he mention it to chandler? And why did he immediately change his story and contradict himself once he produced the butter knife?

Would Richardson really have attempted to cut his boot with a butter knife and why stop to do so while hes checking his mother's cellar? Does the fact that his gaiter spring was next to the body show he did sit on the stairs that morning?

Now let's assume he lost his gaiter spring [not boot spring] three days earlier where does that leave it.

Why try and cut his boot then, well maybe t was giving him the S4!ts.

[martin wilson]

Hi all

I don't think the police were too stupid too investigate Richardson. I do think it's fair to speculate what form that investigation would take in that era, other than searching the houses for bloodstained clothing perhaps and trying to ascertain his movements on the dates of the other murders.
The honesty of Richardson in placing himself at the scene when he didn't have to is a problem, unless he was seen by someone, and needed to come up with an explanation as to why he was there.
I think the knife story may simply be him trying to cover up the fact that he carried a knife plenty sharp enough to cut leather, and to kill with, perhaps he carried it for self protection, for market work, who knows?
Definitely worth looking at though imho.
All the best.

[Rosella]

There is no evidence whatever that Richardson was seen at the back steps by anyone. If he was on his way to work when he checked the doors to the cellar at 4:45 am and the markets where he worked opened at 5am, who was knocking Annie against the fence (heard by Cadosch) at 5:25am or thereabouts?

[Jon Guy]

There is no evidence whatever that Richardson was seen at the back steps by anyone.

Would Richardson have know this ?

[martin wilson]

Hi Rosella

Fair point, although there is no evidence that it was Anne who fell against the fence, although it is a reasonable assumption given the location of the body.
I do have a slight problem with Cadoche's evidence in that I would have expected to be more noise from a woman fighting for her life (assuming she was alive at that point,which is certainly arguable)
I think John makes a good point, caught in a lie might have hung him, so it's fair to speculate he came out with a 'just in case' explanation.
All the best.

[RockySullivan]

Hi Rosella

Fair point, although there is no evidence that it was Anne who fell against the fence, although it is a reasonable assumption given the location of the body.
I do have a slight problem with Cadoche's evidence in that I would have expected to be more noise from a woman fighting for her life (assuming she was alive at that point,which is certainly arguable)
I think John makes a good point, caught in a lie might have hung him, so it's fair to speculate he came out with a 'just in case' explanation.
All the best.

Didn't it also take cadosch days to come forward? Richardson could have heard rumors. It's also not beyond possibility that someone did see him in the yard that morning but chose to keep quiet. Richardson clearly stated he cut the piece of leather and tied his boot up, only to totally contradict himself and say he Did NOT cut his boot until the market. Why is he completely changing his story? He can't keep his lies straight?