Richardson's View

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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 ˝

[DJA]

Bob Hudson - The Newcastle Song Extended Mix - YouTube

Might sorta explain Andy's environment.

[Abby Normal]

Where are you getting this stuff from? Is there an alternative history of the case that no one else but you has read?

lol. Not has an active imagination ill give him that

[Herlock Sholmes]

Behind that door lived the leather apron - on which customers would have sex.
Early morning of September 8th, Mrs Richardson had to clean it up the best she could, in a jiffy.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Is there an alternative history of the case that no one else but you has read?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There was a locked door within 7' of a murder victim and no record, that I can recall, of it being opened and searched.

Behind that door lived the leather apron - on which customers would have sex.
Early morning of September 8th, Mrs Richardson had to clean it up the best she could, in a jiffy.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well he may have known the way into the room at Millers Court,if he was an aquaintance of Kelly,and the way into the backyard in Hanbury Street if he was an aquaintance of Richardson.If,If If.......

There was no trick to getting in, in either case.
He simply paid Mrs Richardson for time in the basement of #29, and Mr McCarthy for half the night in Room 13.
As explained in the East London Observer, Nov 10:

According to all accounts, the woman who was murdered was not a regular habitue of the place; on the contrary, she was rather well dressed, apparently about twenty-five years of age, and even good looking. As to what time she came to the house on Friday morning, and as to the description of the man who accompanied her, no definite information has been received at the time of writing, thanks to the extreme reticence of the police. This much, however, has been found, that some payment was made by the man for the use of the room; that that payment was received by someone residing in the house; and that the murderer and his victim entered the place in the small hours of Friday morning - between one and two o'clock as near as can be gathered.

In exchange for the payment, he is given the appropriate key.

[DJA]

There was a locked door within 7' of a murder victim and no record, that I can recall, of it being opened and searched.

[harry]

Well he may have known the way into the room at Millers Court,if he was an aquaintance of Kelly,and the way into the backyard in Hanbury Street if he was an aquaintance of Richardson.If,If If.......

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In regards to the Chapman murder, was Chandler incompetent, or was he bribed?
That brothel would have been worth spending good money on, to protect.

Now presumably Jack, having been a clients client at 29 Hanbury in the past, knew where the spare key was kept.
Did he know the same for Room 13 Millers Court?