Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Knew About 29 Hanbury Street?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post



    The Echo, Sep 11:

    [Illegible] WHO SLEPT IN THE BACK ROOM.

    [Illegible] Hardeman and Charles Cooksley, aged respectively [illegible] and 14 years, were the [illegible] to sleep, as was their custom, in the back room, on the ground floor, at No. 29 Hanbury-street, on Friday night. The distance from the head of the bedstead to the spot where the deceased was murdered was only twelve feet. Almost at the last moment Cooksley declined to sleep there, and went to bed upstairs. Had he slept in his accustomed place, he must, he said this morning, have heard the slightest unusual sound. The boy stated that his cloth apron and a box of nails, which lay in the yard a short distance from the body, were seized by the police and are still retained by them. The lad Hardeman slept in a room adjoining the cat's-meat shop. This sleeping-place is only separated by a wainscot partition from the passage through which the murderer and his victim must have passed into the yard. Yet the boy heard no sound during the night.


    At the inquest, granny said; At six a.m. my grandson, Thomas Richardson, aged fourteen, who lives with me, got up. I sent him down to see what was the matter, as there was so much noise in the passage. He came back and said, "Oh, grandmother, there is a woman murdered." I went down immediately, and saw the body of the deceased lying in the yard. There was no one there at the time, but there were people in the passage.

    So two lads did not sleep in their usual room that night, and in the morning John turned up, unusually, with a knife. More from The Echo:

    PERPLEXING FEATURE OF THE CASE

    One of the most perplexing features in the case, from a police point of view, is the conflicting statement as to the time "Dark Annie" met her death. Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, who arrived a few minutes after six o'clock, gave it as his opinion that death had taken place some hours before-at about three o'clock. But John Richardson, a married man, whose house is but a few paces from 29, Hanbury-street (where his mother lives) assured the police that at five o'clock on the morning of the murder he went to the yard there, sat down on the stone steps, and cut a small piece of leather from his boot. "There was no dead woman there then, that I can swear," said Richardson.


    Instead of DIY, John should have taken his boot to a professional...

    ESCAPING THE CROWD.

    In expectation that Piser would return to Mulberry-street a mob not altogether friendly gathered to give him a reception last night, but they waited for his appearance in vain, for Piser remained at Leman-street Police-station at the hour when it was published abroad that he had been discharged. Upon searching his effects five knives were found, and of these the police took possession, but they were of the pattern used by boot finishers, and are without handles, consisting of curved blades of steel, eight inches long, sharpened on one end, but not to a keen edge. A man of Piser's class usually owns five or six of these tools. A "clicker" is also furnished with a much more formidable instrument, having a hafted blade about five inches long and half an inch broad, curved like a foreign dagger, with a sharp saw-like edge, but apparently not much stronger than an ordinary pocket-knife. Piser would not have possessed one of these weapons.





    I'm not entirely convinced the two entered together, or even that Jack used the front door.
    Many thanks for posting shall ponder on this definitely!!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Christian View Post

      Many thanks for posting shall ponder on this definitely!!
      Thanks. That edition has an interesting section on Piser/Leather Apron. The last paragraph:

      Piser himself opened the door when Detective Thicke knocked, and it is said that he turned very pale when he recognized the officer, who he had encountered on a previous occasion and that he exclaimed, "Mother, he has got me," or used words to that effect. The detective told him for what purpose he came, but put no questions, and Piser offered no explanation, and made no resistance. He was led to Lemon-street Police-station unperceived until close to the door of the station, when the cry was raised, "Leather Apron!" and, as usual, there was a hostile demonstration. When interrogated the police admitted they had arrested him, but the day passed without the prisoner having been charged. It was reported on some show of authority that the man had been confronted with witnesses who failed to recognize him as the character they had known, and it was rumoured that he had been released, much to the satisfaction of his co-religionists, who refuse to believe that a man of Piser's intelligence could be guilt of such ferocity.

      Mother, he has got me? Wow, I wonder what he'd done?

      Does 'the man had been confronted with witnesses who failed to recognize him', sound like fairly informal ID parades had occurred?

      There is also an interesting bit about Mulberry street:

      Early yesterday morning information was received which gave a clue to the supposed offender's whereabouts. Accordingly at a quarter to nine Sergeant Thicke proceeded to Mulberry-street, Commercial-road East, which is a quarter principally occupied of foreign workers in tailoring, bootmaking and slipper making. Large numbers of [illegible] stage shoes worn in Continental as well as London theaters are made here. The two storey houses of brick are let out to many persons, but there is an air of industry about the place, and the residents appear to be earning fairly good wages.

      Can you think of a witness in the case, who might have been a customer of '[illegible] stage shoes worn in Continental … theaters'?
      A clue; when he went to Leman street police station, he 'had the appearance of being in the theatrical line'.
      I can't quite make out what the [illegible] says in the original, but I think it says 'rubber souled'.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Chava View Post

        I agree with this. If Long is correct in her identification it sounds like the Ripper who propositioned Chapman rather than the other way around. And he may well have suggested the backyard at #29.
        If Long was correct then what of Phillips and his TOD estimates? I can see a murder occurring around 5:15 appearing as an older event based on the environmental issues and the state of the deceased. Long was wrong, Cadosche wasnt.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          The Echo, Sep 11:

          [Illegible] WHO SLEPT IN THE BACK ROOM.

          [Illegible] Hardeman and Charles Cooksley, aged respectively [illegible] and 14 years, were the [illegible] to sleep, as was their custom, in the back room, on the ground floor, at No. 29 Hanbury-street, on Friday night. The distance from the head of the bedstead to the spot where the deceased was murdered was only twelve feet. Almost at the last moment Cooksley declined to sleep there, and went to bed upstairs. Had he slept in his accustomed place, he must, he said this morning, have heard the slightest unusual sound. The boy stated that his cloth apron and a box of nails, which lay in the yard a short distance from the body, were seized by the police and are still retained by them. The lad Hardeman slept in a room adjoining the cat's-meat shop. This sleeping-place is only separated by a wainscot partition from the passage through which the murderer and his victim must have passed into the yard. Yet the boy heard no sound during the night.
          It seems the mother of the lad Hardeman, was the recipient of an interesting letter. Echo, Sep 20:

          A DOCUMENT OF SOME IMPORTANCE.

          Inspector Helson, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Chandler are now busy making inquiries regarding a letter received this morning by Mrs. Harderman, proprietor of the cat's-meat business carried on at 29, Hanbury-street. The police themselves naturally decline to give any information whatever respecting this document, which is regarded as of some importance, especially as certain men are alluded to, and the writer, who resides in Mile-end, desires his name to be kept a secret. The letter has more special reference to the crime in Buck's-row, for the writer positively asserts: "The poor woman was made tipsy, then murdered, and carried to the spot where she was found." Our reporter called upon Mrs. Harderman, who assured him that she had received the letter in question. The source from which it came she could not at present state.


          The writer resides in Mile-end
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • #50
            The fence according to inquest testimony...

            John Davies: The yard is separated from the next premises on both sides by close wooden fencing, about 5 ft. 6 in. high.

            The Foreman: What height are the palings?
            Albert Cadosch: About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.

            The fence according to press reports...

            The Star, Sep 8:
            The yard is a small one, square in shape, with a 4ft. fence on either side. The fence is old and rotten.

            The Echo, Sep 10: The yard is of small dimensions, about 15ft. square. It contains a shed, in which packing cases are made, and is separated from the adjoining properties by fences about five feet high.

            Morning Advertiser, Sep 10: At one end of the house there is a passage with a door at either end leading to a small yard some 13ft or 14 ft square, separated from adjoining houses by a slight wooden fence.

            Daily News, Sep 11: On traversing the passage, you reach a backdoor, from which three steps lead downwards - that is, to the level of the ugly, little, stony, slimy backyard. This backyard is separated from the next neighbour's by a paling so low that one may vault over it with the utmost ease.

            I get the impression that Cadosch (a carpenter), and Davies, exaggerated the height, and in Davies' case, the quality of the fence, because Cadosch had seen more than he cared to admit to the coroner.
            This is obviously important in determining the time of the murder, although what John Richardson had previously seen, or would have been able to see, is always going to be debatable...

            Richardson: I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools.
            Coroner: How long were you there?
            Richardson: About two minutes at most.
            Coroner: Was it light?
            Richardson: It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.

            The Echo, Sep 10:
            On Saturday the sun rose at twenty-three minutes past five; for half an hour previously the light would be such as to render it difficult for anyone to distinguish even near objects.
            Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 01-24-2021, 12:01 AM.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • #51
              Lloyd's Weekly News, Sep 9:

              Mrs. Elizabeth Bell, of 31, Hanbury-street, stated :- "I have been living here some time, and I wish I had never come. Such a terrible sight is enough to shock any woman with the hardest heart. The house is open all night next door, and this poor creature was taken into the yard, and butchered, no doubt, by the same man who committed the others. We were all roused at six o'clock this morning by Adam Osborne calling out, 'For God's sake get up; here's a woman murdered.' We all got up and huddled on our clothes, and on going into the yard saw the poor creature lying by the steps in the next yard, with her clothes torn and her body gashed in a dreadful manner. The people in the house next door were all asleep, I believe, and knew nothing of the matter until the police came and roused them up. I cannot be sure if anybody in the house knew of the murder, or took part in it, but I believe not. The passage is open all night, and anyone can get in, and no doubt that is what happened." All the other tenants of the house gave the same opinion, and those in the house of Mr. Richardson, at 29, where the murder occurred, state that they heard no cries of "Murder" or "Help," nor anything unusual during the night.

              So seeing over the fence either side of 29, seems to have been no problem at all, for men and women.

              So why did Albert Cadosch, a carpenter, estimate the fence to be 5-6 feet tall, at the inquest? In other words, why give the impression that he would not have been able to see any of what was going on?
              Possibly because he had the misfortune of seeing the Ripper in action, fled the scene in shock, and did not want to admit this publicly.
              Possibly because he did not realize the significance of what he was seeing and hearing at the time, and feared that telling the truth of what he'd seen (but did not act on), would have him branded a fool, or as with the prior possibility, a coward.
              Possibly because Cadosch was Jack the Ripper.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #52
                DN, Sep 13:

                Coroner: Have you ever lost anything from the cellar?
                Amelia Richardson: Oh, yes; I have missed a saw and a hammer, but that is a long time ago. They broke the padlock of the cellar door at the time. My son now comes to see whether it is all right almost every morning before he goes to market.

                The Star, Sep 8 & LWN, Sep 9:

                The only unusual thing about the yard except the dead woman was the fact that the rusty padlock on the door of the shed had been broken.

                Only one of the padlocks, at 29, had been broken
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                  Lloyd's Weekly News, Sep 9:

                  Mrs. Elizabeth Bell, of 31, Hanbury-street, stated :- "I have been living here some time, and I wish I had never come. Such a terrible sight is enough to shock any woman with the hardest heart. The house is open all night next door, and this poor creature was taken into the yard, and butchered, no doubt, by the same man who committed the others. We were all roused at six o'clock this morning by Adam Osborne calling out, 'For God's sake get up; here's a woman murdered.' We all got up and huddled on our clothes, and on going into the yard saw the poor creature lying by the steps in the next yard, with her clothes torn and her body gashed in a dreadful manner. The people in the house next door were all asleep, I believe, and knew nothing of the matter until the police came and roused them up. I cannot be sure if anybody in the house knew of the murder, or took part in it, but I believe not. The passage is open all night, and anyone can get in, and no doubt that is what happened." All the other tenants of the house gave the same opinion, and those in the house of Mr. Richardson, at 29, where the murder occurred, state that they heard no cries of "Murder" or "Help," nor anything unusual during the night.

                  So seeing over the fence either side of 29, seems to have been no problem at all, for men and women.

                  So why did Albert Cadosch, a carpenter, estimate the fence to be 5-6 feet tall, at the inquest? In other words, why give the impression that he would not have been able to see any of what was going on?
                  Possibly because he had the misfortune of seeing the Ripper in action, fled the scene in shock, and did not want to admit this publicly.
                  Possibly because he did not realize the significance of what he was seeing and hearing at the time, and feared that telling the truth of what he'd seen (but did not act on), would have him branded a fool, or as with the prior possibility, a coward.
                  Possibly because Cadosch was Jack the Ripper.
                  All very interesting and intriguing indeed thanks for sharing sir!!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Only one of the padlocks, at 29, had been broken
                    This is not clear. Try again...

                    From the time and inclusive of the theft, up until the arrival of police on the morning of the murder, only one padlock had been broken - not two (both cellar and shed), as it might seem.
                    Where do you suppose the stolen saw and hammer, had been kept; in the cellar, or the shed?

                    Baxter: Have you said something about a leather apron?
                    Amelia: Yes, my son always wears a leather apron at his work in the cellar.

                    I imagine the cellar would have been a rather dark, and therefore quite dangerous place to work, with hand tools.

                    Amelia: On the Thursday I had washed the apron because it had gone mouldy from lying long in the cellar unused. It had not been used for about a month, the business being so slack.

                    Thursday, or Saturday?

                    Baxter: When you washed the apron where did you put it?
                    Amelia: I washed it under the tap, and left it there.

                    Mould is due to dampness. Was it really because of mould, that the leather apron was 'washed', and left under the tap?

                    Baxter: Where is the tap?
                    Amelia: At the other side of the yard, against the fence.

                    That is, near the shed padlock - which had been replaced with a working one … until Saturday morning.

                    The cellar didn't have a padlock - they found a better use for it - which is why John really visited, when on his way to work.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Christian View Post

                      All very interesting and intriguing indeed thanks for sharing sir!!
                      Thanks.

                      I think the letter sent to Mrs Hardiman (#49) is very interesting.
                      She ran a cat's-meat business from the ground-floor front room, and I believe the meat she sold, was horse meat.
                      Did the letter writer think (or know) the killer was a slaughterman, and someone Mrs Hardiman would probably know?

                      That was a theory examined in The Star, Sep 11:

                      THE SLAUGHTERMAN THEORY.

                      A Correspondent Examines How Far the Facts Support It.

                      While the police are pursuing the empirical method in their investigation into the Whitechapel murders, and apparently looking out for persons who had blood upon them on the days of the crimes (as though at any given time in such a district as Whitechapel there are not any number of people who have just been engaged in personal and pugilistic encounters), it may be well in the columns of a newspaper to follow another method, perhaps more suited to a philosopher's study than a detective's office. To this end let us start with a theory, and then by the light of it look at the facts.

                      The theory. That the four women were killed by someone to whom bloodshed and slaughter is an everyday affair - e.g., a knacker or slaughterman. Such a man would have the skill, acquired by practice, necessary to do the work silently, swiftly, and with the minimum of bloodiness. He would have by him, without fear of thereby attracting suspicion, the kind of weapon exactly suited to the purpose. He would be the only man in all London who could walk along the streets in the early daylight with blood on his hands and clothes without exciting undue notice or remark. He would have the needful anatomical knowledge by which he would be able to find quickly such internal organs as the heart and liver, supposing he desired to add horror to horror by placing them outside the victim's body.

                      He would commit the murders within a reasonable distance of his place of trade, so as to be able to reach it at the usual time for beginning work or not to be absent from it long enough to excite notice if the crime were committed during work hours. On Bank-holidays our hypothetical murderer would not be in workaday clothes or have his tools about him, but he would be armed with a stick, which is part of the holiday paraphernalia, or with a bayonet, supposing he were a Volunteer, and in the early hours of the morning after Bank holidays he would be in the immediate vicinity of his workshop.

                      He would strike with a heavy, swift hand, and not with the light swift stroke of the surgeon or anatomical demonstrator.

                      In mutilating he would strike downwards in the same way as though he were disembowelling a sheep. Now what are the facts?

                      The woman Nicholls was discovered in the immediate vicinity of a slaughter-house - and of her Dr. Ralph Llewellyn said, "She was ripped open just as you see a dead calf in a butcher's shop. The murder was done by someone very handy with the knife." The throat was cut, as a calf's or pig's is cut, with one hard blow from left to right. It was not sawn asunder, and there was very little blood on the clothes or on the ground. She was killed in the early morning.

                      Annie Chapman was found also not far from a slaughter-house. Her throat was cut in precisely the same way, and with the same sort of weapon as Nicholls's. She was ripped up as a calf is ripped up. Some of her internal organs were taken out of her body, and there was very little blood on the spot where she lay. She was found in the rear of premises inhabited by a seller of cat's-meat - a place which would be known by a knacker or slaughterman. She was killed early in the morning.

                      The other and earlier victims were killed on the mornings after Bank holidays. One was wounded with a stick and the other with some weapon like a bayonet.

                      Question for the police and the public - Is there a slaughterman or knacker living in Whitechapel who cannot account for his whereabouts on the mornings of these murders, and is he in the Volunteers, or has he a pal a Volunteer who is given to heavy drinking?
                      Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 01-26-2021, 11:54 AM.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        Thanks.

                        I think the letter sent to Mrs Hardiman (#49) is very interesting.
                        She ran a cat's-meat business from the ground-floor front room, and I believe the meat she sold, was horse meat.
                        Did the letter writer think (or know) the killer was a slaughterman, and someone Mrs Hardiman would probably know?

                        That was a theory examined in The Star, Sep 11:

                        THE SLAUGHTERMAN THEORY.

                        A Correspondent Examines How Far the Facts Support It.

                        While the police are pursuing the empirical method in their investigation into the Whitechapel murders, and apparently looking out for persons who had blood upon them on the days of the crimes (as though at any given time in such a district as Whitechapel there are not any number of people who have just been engaged in personal and pugilistic encounters), it may be well in the columns of a newspaper to follow another method, perhaps more suited to a philosopher's study than a detective's office. To this end let us start with a theory, and then by the light of it look at the facts.

                        The theory. That the four women were killed by someone to whom bloodshed and slaughter is an everyday affair - e.g., a knacker or slaughterman. Such a man would have the skill, acquired by practice, necessary to do the work silently, swiftly, and with the minimum of bloodiness. He would have by him, without fear of thereby attracting suspicion, the kind of weapon exactly suited to the purpose. He would be the only man in all London who could walk along the streets in the early daylight with blood on his hands and clothes without exciting undue notice or remark. He would have the needful anatomical knowledge by which he would be able to find quickly such internal organs as the heart and liver, supposing he desired to add horror to horror by placing them outside the victim's body.

                        He would commit the murders within a reasonable distance of his place of trade, so as to be able to reach it at the usual time for beginning work or not to be absent from it long enough to excite notice if the crime were committed during work hours. On Bank-holidays our hypothetical murderer would not be in workaday clothes or have his tools about him, but he would be armed with a stick, which is part of the holiday paraphernalia, or with a bayonet, supposing he were a Volunteer, and in the early hours of the morning after Bank holidays he would be in the immediate vicinity of his workshop.

                        He would strike with a heavy, swift hand, and not with the light swift stroke of the surgeon or anatomical demonstrator.

                        In mutilating he would strike downwards in the same way as though he were disembowelling a sheep. Now what are the facts?

                        The woman Nicholls was discovered in the immediate vicinity of a slaughter-house - and of her Dr. Ralph Llewellyn said, "She was ripped open just as you see a dead calf in a butcher's shop. The murder was done by someone very handy with the knife." The throat was cut, as a calf's or pig's is cut, with one hard blow from left to right. It was not sawn asunder, and there was very little blood on the clothes or on the ground. She was killed in the early morning.

                        Annie Chapman was found also not far from a slaughter-house. Her throat was cut in precisely the same way, and with the same sort of weapon as Nicholls's. She was ripped up as a calf is ripped up. Some of her internal organs were taken out of her body, and there was very little blood on the spot where she lay. She was found in the rear of premises inhabited by a seller of cat's-meat - a place which would be known by a knacker or slaughterman. She was killed early in the morning.

                        The other and earlier victims were killed on the mornings after Bank holidays. One was wounded with a stick and the other with some weapon like a bayonet.

                        Question for the police and the public - Is there a slaughterman or knacker living in Whitechapel who cannot account for his whereabouts on the mornings of these murders, and is he in the Volunteers, or has he a pal a Volunteer who is given to heavy drinking?
                        Very very interesting read some of the points made are very valid regarding a slaughter mans rough method of killing and as importantly the blood and gore no stranger th that on a daily basis!! Always wondered if many or any such slaughter men were ever stopped in the street interviewed? Such individuals as you say would blend in locally and would not cause any suspicion just as today when butcher pops to newspaper shop which I have encountered numerous times!! The old daft toff in collars and cuffs when you think about it is ludicrous!!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          If Long was correct then what of Phillips and his TOD estimates? I can see a murder occurring around 5:15 appearing as an older event based on the environmental issues and the state of the deceased. Long was wrong, Cadosche wasnt.
                          I'm not married to the idea that either of them was correct.
                          But we don't know who was nearer the truth. Let's not make assumptions please.
                          If Anne C was the woman seen by Long, then the man had clearly approached her.
                          If she wasn't then we don't know how they met.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X