Alternative entrences / exits to #29 Hanbury crime scene?

[GUT]

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

Which is EXACTLY what people have been trying to tell you for weeks, he couldn't do a proper job, so finished it at the markets.

[RockySullivan]

Which is EXACTLY what people have been trying to tell you for weeks, he couldn't do a proper job, so finished it at the markets.

Naw, he says he DOES cut the piece of leather and ties up his boot. He doesn't change his story to say he cut it at the market until the coroner sees the knife, realizes he's lying and prods him further.

[RockySullivan]

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

Gut, does the rusty, have broken table knife sound like it was sharpened like your grandpa's?

[martin wilson]

Hi all

Without the murder book Richardson remains a paradox, in that the more he becomes a suspect,the more we have to wonder why the police didn't arrest him.
He was not arrested, therefore something must have cleared him, we don't know what.
There was also a very substantial reward on offer, yet no one as far as we know came forward with any information about him.
all the best.

[Rosella]

So much police documentation has been lost, but it may have been that, as a married man with children, Richardson had relatives who vouched for his whereabouts on the nights of the other murders. Plus, he may have borrowed a knife at the market from another porter, who saw him do final repairs on his boot.

[RockySullivan]

So much police documentation has been lost, but it may have been that, as a married man with children, Richardson had relatives who vouched for his whereabouts on the nights of the other murders. Plus, he may have borrowed a knife at the market from another porter, who saw him do final repairs on his boot.

Was richardson's son the teenager who lived with his mother?

[Wickerman]

...
He was not arrested, therefore something must have cleared him, we don't know what.

And that is precisely the case with several modern suspects.

All the suspicions that are raised by us today will have been raised by Scotland Yard at the time, they were not stupid, contrary to what we read by some press reporters.
A fact which applies to all modern suspicions of contemporary suspects is that we must accept the conclusions arrived at by police because we have no idea how they arrived at them.
These people were investigated and cleared, this applies to Richardson, to Barnet, to Kidney, to Hutchinson, to Pizer, and all the witnesses whom the police had cause to suspect from a professional view.

[RockySullivan]

And that is precisely the case with several modern suspects.

All the suspicions that are raised by us today will have been raised by Scotland Yard at the time, they were not stupid, contrary to what we read by some press reporters.
A fact which applies to all modern suspicions of contemporary suspects is that we must accept the conclusions arrived at by police because we have no idea how they arrived at them.
These people were investigated and cleared, this applies to Richardson, to Barnet, to Kidney, to Hutchinson, to Pizer, and all the witnesses whom the police had cause to suspect from a professional view.

At the same time, it's not unheard of for a serial killer to be looked at cleared only to be found to be the killer later. Just because a suspect was looked at the time and not charged is no way definitive proof they are not the ripper.

[Ben]

These people were investigated and cleared, this applies to Richardson, to Barnet, to Kidney, to Hutchinson, to Pizer, and all the witnesses whom the police had cause to suspect from a professional view.

There is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect, let alone cleared as one, so he needs taking off that list. Incidentally, it's not nearly as easy as some people imagine to "clear" a suspect to the extent that they were proven innocent of the murders.

[Ben]

At the same time, it's not unheard of for a serial killer to be looked at cleared only to be found to be the killer later. Just because a suspect was looked at the time and not charged is no way definitive proof they are not the ripper.

Exactly, Rocky.

[Wickerman]

At the same time, it's not unheard of for a serial killer to be looked at cleared only to be found to be the killer later. Just because a suspect was looked at the time and not charged is no way definitive proof they are not the ripper.

If you notice, no author begins his theory by declaring that "although the police investigated him and he was cleared, I think they were wrong" - etc. etc.

Authors tend to ignore the police investigation, they wouldn't want the reader to know. And yes, of course they "could have" missed something, but that is basing their theory on a false premise.

With respect to the Yorkshire Ripper, Sutcliffe was questioned and let go more than once, we all know this, but we have factual evidence to connect Sutcliffe to the crimes.
There is no factual evidence to connect your Richardson, or Kidney, or Hutchinson, or Barnet to these crimes, so what would a theory be based on?
In reality, nothing but questions, and every serious researcher will point out that the police cleared him, so what do you have that the police didn't?

Unsubstantiated speculation and serious research are at opposite ends of the spectrum. No serious researcher is going to touch person who was investigated and cleared. Your credibility is at risk unless you come up with tangible evidence to prove your theory. The obstacles for an author are considerably higher if you pick someone who has already been cleared.

[RockySullivan]

If you notice, no author begins his theory by declaring that "although the police investigated him and he was cleared, I think they were wrong" - etc. etc.

Authors tend to ignore the police investigation, they wouldn't want the reader to know. And yes, of course they "could have" missed something, but that is basing their theory on a false premise.

With respect to the Yorkshire Ripper, Sutcliffe was questioned and let go more than once, we all know this, but we have factual evidence to connect Sutcliffe to the crimes.
There is no factual evidence to connect your Richardson, or Kidney, or Hutchinson, or Barnet to these crimes, so what would a theory be based on?
In reality, nothing but questions, and every serious researcher will point out that the police cleared him, so what do you have that the police didn't?

Unsubstantiated speculation and serious research are at opposite ends of the spectrum. No serious researcher is going to touch person who was investigated and cleared. Your credibility is at risk unless you come up with tangible evidence to prove your theory. The obstacles for an author are considerably higher if you pick someone who has already been cleared.

I'm no author and attempting to prove anyone was the ripper is beyond my realm. However richardson is very suspicious because he's at the murder scene with a knife, inches from the spot chapmans body was found. He changed his story twice so he's certainly hiding something. Rather than taking the Edwardian route & claiming case closed, (as I'm not convinced myself tho i do suspect he's involved) I'm interested in the possible connection between the cellars at whitehall & hanbury and there stolen tools.

[RockySullivan]

Exactly, Rocky.

Hi Ben, what do u hear what do u say! Cheers

[martin wilson]

Hi all

Compare Richardson to John Pizer, the first press reports were on the 4th of September about Leather Apron, he is first mentioned officially on the 7th and on the 10th he was arrested.(casebook timeline) on what appears to be far less circumstantial evidence against him than Richardson.
So, again, it defies credibility.
Rosella makes a good point about his relatives, although I believe such alibi's are considered weak by the police, I don't know what the situation was in 1888 though.
All the best.

[Wickerman]

I'm no author and attempting to prove anyone was the ripper is beyond my realm. However richardson is very suspicious because he's at the murder scene with a knife, inches from the spot chapmans body was found. He changed his story twice so he's certainly hiding something. Rather than taking the Edwardian route & claiming case closed, (as I'm not convinced myself tho i do suspect he's involved) I'm interested in the possible connection between the cellars at whitehall & hanbury and there stolen tools.

Good luck with your theory Rocky.