Richardson's View

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I will explain more after the races, but for now, remember that virtual dial I mentioned, with naiveté on one end (0), and conspiratorial paranoia on the other (10)?
The optimal position is around 2.
Unfortunately, you guys are set on about ˝

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will explain more after the races, but for now, remember that virtual dial I mentioned, with naiveté on one end (0), and conspiratorial paranoia on the other (10)?
The optimal position is around 2.
Unfortunately, you guys are set on about ˝

Called me boring or over cautious but I tend to prefer a smidgeon of evidence for a proposition first. So being set on 1/2 would be about right.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Called me boring or over cautious but I tend to prefer a smidgeon of evidence for a proposition first. So being set on 1/2 would be about right.

You were given photographic evidence that the cellar padlock was not visible from the back door steps, but you chose to dismiss it on the basis that there was no evidence that Chandler could have missed noticing that this was impossible.
Well I have decided to dismiss your point of view, on the basis that there is no evidence that Chandler would not have missed noticing that the padlock was not visible from that location.
Nor is there evidence that Chandler would have remembered noticing that, or that he would have cared enough to mention it if he did remember.
See, I can play these funny little games too.

Perhaps you're not quite the evidence based investigator you think you are. You're choosing which evidence to accept and reject, and apparently based on a desire to protect the reputations of witnesses.
Whereas I don't care what happens to the reputations of any of the witnesses (for better or worse), I just want to find the Ripper.

Now as far as providing evidence goes, I think I'm just about as good as anyone here at copy & pasting relevant bits of press reports to support or contradict a position, as the case may be.
However, I'm also interested in putting ideas out there, just to see what people think, or correct me if I've overlooked something or made a silly mistake.
That doesn't mean I'm going to write the equivalent of a small dissertation for every dumb, half-baked or decent idea I come up with.
Also, I assume that other people here know what is meant by the term 'circumstantial evidence', don't demand hard evidence for absolutely everything, and have their imagination dials set to something higher than ˝

[Herlock Sholmes]

You were given photographic evidence that the cellar padlock was not visible from the back door steps, but you chose to dismiss it on the basis that there was no evidence that Chandler could have missed noticing that this was impossible.
Well I have decided to dismiss your point of view, on the basis that there is no evidence that Chandler would not have missed noticing that the padlock was not visible from that location.
Nor is there evidence that Chandler would have remembered noticing that, or that he would have cared enough to mention it if he did remember.
See, I can play these funny little games too.

Perhaps you're not quite the evidence based investigator you think you are. You're choosing which evidence to accept and reject, and apparently based on a desire to protect the reputations of witnesses.
Whereas I don't care what happens to the reputations of any of the witnesses (for better or worse), I just want to find the Ripper.

Now as far as providing evidence goes, I think I'm just about as good as anyone here at copy & pasting relevant bits of press reports to support or contradict a position, as the case may be.
However, I'm also interested in putting ideas out there, just to see what people think, or correct me if I've overlooked something or made a silly mistake.
That doesn't mean I'm going to write the equivalent of a small dissertation for every dumb, half-baked or decent idea I come up with.
Also, I assume that other people here know what is meant by the term 'circumstantial evidence', don't demand hard evidence for absolutely everything, and have their imagination dials set to something higher than ˝

You have provided zero evidence that the cellar door wasn’t visible unless you are posting this stuff elsewhere.

Im afraid that it’s you that is playing games with selectivity in your attempt to uncover some ‘revelation.’ There was no brothel. Richardson could certainly see the cellar lock from where he was and for Chandler to have missed something as blatant as the lock being out of sight then he wasn’t just incompetent he was an unmitigated cretin who should have been sacked on the spot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. However, I'm also interested in putting ideas out there, just to see what people think, or correct me if I've overlooked something or made a silly mistake.

Theres nothing wrong with putting ideas out there of unless you have an issue with other posters disagreeing with them, which appears to be the case.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You have provided zero evidence that the cellar door wasn’t visible unless you are posting this stuff elsewhere.

It weren't me who posted the best photographs that provide the visual evidence for this.
However, what these photos suggest is not undermined by what they may further suggest about Chandler or anyone else.
The photos are evidence - one cannot say "that photo has to go because it implies person X is an unmitigated cretin".
That's not how it works.

Im afraid that it’s you that is playing games with selectivity in your attempt to uncover some ‘revelation.’ There was no brothel.

No, of course there wasn't. There were just strange men and women in the place, night and day, which Amelia Richardson was loathe to admit to Baxter.
Meanwhile, the basement went unused, to the point that John's leather apron lay in there going moldy.
Now turn that dial to the right a couple of notches … you see, a brothel in the basement!

Richardson could certainly see the cellar lock from where he was and for Chandler to have missed something as blatant as the lock being out of sight then he wasn’t just incompetent he was an unmitigated cretin who should have been sacked on the spot.

With the dial still on 2 or 3 - why would Chandler say anything about the basement, if he were making a few shillings on the side to keep quite about what went on in there?
Did Chandler go inside and have look himself, btw? I mean as a policeman, not a customer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Theres nothing wrong with putting ideas out there of unless you have an issue with other posters disagreeing with them, which appears to be the case.

Yeh that's right. For example there was the discussion that involved the meaning of 'bisecting thoroughfare'.
Joshua Rogan put me right on the definition, so I got very angry with him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It weren't me who posted the best photographs that provide the visual evidence for this.
However, what these photos suggest is not undermined by what they may further suggest about Chandler or anyone else.
The photos are evidence - one cannot say "that photo has to go because it implies person X is an unmitigated cretin".
That's not how it works.

I’ve seen all of the photographs. None of them show that Richardson couldn’t have checked the lock from where he said that he was. So the implication that he couldn’t is baseless and can safely be ignored.

No, of course there wasn't. There were just strange men and women in the place, night and day, which Amelia Richardson was loathe to admit to Baxter.
Meanwhile, the basement went unused, to the point that John's leather apron lay in there going moldy.
Now turn that dial to the right a couple of notches … you see, a brothel in the basement!

I don’t understand why you find it strange that an apparently respectable woman like Mrs Richardson might have been reluctant to admit that her yard was used by shady characters?

The apron was under the tap wasn’t it? It beggars belief that you can use it to make an inference about the cellar. No connection whatsoever.

Ill keep the dial as it should be, as low as possible. The higher it’s turned the greater the level of credulity.

With the dial still on 2 or 3 - why would Chandler say anything about the basement, if he were making a few shillings on the side to keep quite about what went on in there?
Did Chandler go inside and have look himself, btw? I mean as a policeman, not a customer.

But again NBFN we have no reason to suspect that there was a brothel or that Chandler was on the take. There aren’t even hints.

Thinking outside of the box is good but we can’t just view every aspect of the case in terms of “well it’s not completely impossible.” It gets us nowhere. We need good reason to lean one way or another.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point is why would any Chapman have taken a client to a yard where a payment would be incurred when there were enough places to go? Also who would have collected this payment? Richardson only went there on market days and Mrs Richardson surely wouldn’t have been available at all hours to provide the key for the cellar.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Another point is why would any Chapman have taken a client to a yard where a payment would be incurred when there were enough places to go? Also who would have collected this payment? Richardson only went there on market days and Mrs Richardson surely wouldn’t have been available at all hours to provide the key for the cellar.

I will get back to this topic in a little while.
For now, perhaps ponder the following...

John Davies:

The house faces Hanbury-street, with one window on the ground floor and a front door at the side leading into a passage which runs through into the yard. There is a back door at the end of this passage opening into the yard. Neither of the doors was able to be locked, and I have never seen them locked. Any one who knows where the latch of the front door is could open it and go along the passage into the back yard.

The front street door was wide open and thrown against the wall. I was not surprised to find the front door open, as it was not unusual. I opened the back door, and stood in the entrance.

So neither the front or back doors can be locked, but the front door can be latched.
However, there is a bit of a trick to unlatching it - one has to know where the latch is.
Who knew the trick - Jack or Annie - or was the door 'wide open and thrown against the wall', when they arrived?

Does this state of affairs with the doors, give the impression that Mrs Richardson was concerned about the appearance of having strangers enter the house for sex?
Why didn't she have a lock put on the front door, as she did with the cellar door?
Was the the security of the cellar of greater concern to her than that of the house?
Besides, the front door is the only practical way to get to the cellar - sorting out the front door would have "killed two birds with one stone".
Or would it have killed the business instead?

[Michael W Richards]

John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: "I assist my mother in her business. 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. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in."

Did Richardson say he actually checked the door while on the steps? No. He said "When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place." He could have leaned out and glanced down and in. Easily.

What step did he sit on while trimming his boot? "Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard."

Could he have missed seeing a body by the fence if he did as he says? No. "You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her."

That seems to address the question of whether a body was there satisfactorily. No Annie at 4:45.

Now look at Cadosches statement, and his proximity to the victims final location. Seems clear someone was in there.

Am I to understand that people cannot follow this? No body at 4:45, human voices at the same location at 5:15ish. There was quite obviously no dead body AND human voices there together. Ergo....?

[DJA]

There is really very little in it time wise,if these two statements are carefully considered.

Look at their respective times at the market and church.



Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased. I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark. He was wearing a brown low-crowned felt hat. I think he had on a dark coat, though I am not certain. By the look of him he seemed to me a man over forty years of age. He appeared to me to be a little taller than the deceased.
[Coroner] Did he look like a working man, or what? - He looked like a foreigner.
[Coroner] Did he look like a dock labourer, or a workman, or what? - I should say he looked like what I should call shabby-genteel.
[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.
[Coroner] Did they appear to be sober? - I saw nothing to indicate that either of them was the worse for drink.
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.
[Coroner] You are certain about the time? - Quite.
[Coroner] What time did you leave home? - I got out about five o'clock, and I reached the Spitalfields Market a few minutes after half-past five.
The Foreman of the jury: What brewer's clock did you hear strike half-past five? - The brewer's in Brick-lane.


Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There is really very little in it time wise,if these two statements are carefully considered.

Look at their respective times at the market and church.

Approx times:

Long at the market: 5:33
Cadosch at the church: 5:32

Cadosch: I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.

Should he have?

[DJA]

Seems to be a rebuttal of Mrs Long's testimony.

Especially given the close proximity to the market.

5'3" man disappears, like his GSG 22 days later.

[DJA]

The Coroner: There are two things missing. Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and have not been found, and the uterus has been removed. The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room.