Richardson's View

[barnflatwyngarde]

"It's also an exercise in reasoning in trying to explain why this killer would at 5am when it was getting light go with a victim into a confined yard which was overlooked, with what it seems was one way in an one way out, with the likelhood of being disturbed at any moment."

I have posted in an earlier thread that there was another way for the killer to escape, namely clamber over the wall next to the outdoor privy, and leave that way.
In Glasgow in the 40's, 50's and 60's, it was common for men (and kids like me) to clamber over the dyke and leave via the "close" in the opposite tenement.

This is clearly the best way to get as far away as possible in the quickest of time.
It also removes the risk of being seen leaving via the "close" of 29 Hanbury Street.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
Even the most demented killer would realise that leaving in a straight line, (by clambering over the dyke in the backyard of no 29) would be the quickest way to put some distance between himself and the scene of his crime.

[Simon Wood]

The back door of 29 Hanbury Street opened outwards, right to left. Two stone steps led down from the passageway into the yard. When open, the bottom of the door—level with the passageway at the top of the steps—sat about two feet above the level of the yard, and could not have obscured the body.

This is evidenced by John Davies, a tenant of 29 Hanbury Street, who discovered the body at 6.00 am. He testified—

“Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the left hand recess, between the stone steps and the fence.”

And he was standing up at the time.

[Fisherman]

The back door of 29 Hanbury Street opened outwards, right to left. Two stone steps led down from the passageway into the yard. When open, the bottom of the door—level with the passageway at the top of the steps—sat about two feet above the level of the yard, and could not have obscured the body.

This is evidenced by John Davies, a tenant of 29 Hanbury Street, who discovered the body at 6.00 am. He testified—

“Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the left hand recess, between the stone steps and the fence.”

And he was standing up at the time.

In daylight. With the door fully opened, presumably. And, of course, looking down to his left.

But what happens, Simon, when we replace that with gloom, with a possibly only partially opened door and Richardson looking to his right?

What is proven by Davis is that he saw the body under the conditions HE used. Nothing else.

I think it may well have been the twentieth time I pointed this out on this thread only...!

[Abby Normal]

It's also an exercise in reasoning in trying to explain why this killer would at 5am when it was getting light go with a victim into a confined yard which was overlooked, with what it seems was one way in an one way out, with the likelhood of being disturbed at any moment.

and the fact that there is no evidence to show that this killer murdered any of the other victims at that time of the morning.

The sad fact about the ripper case is that there are so many conflciting witness statements it is hard to establish the real truth from the made up truth!

My own personal belief is that he did not see the body

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

everybody knows he didnt see the body lol

[etenguy]

Your take on things would predispose that Richardson had a three-foot wide bottom or suchlike, Etenguy. Two people could sit side by side on those stairs, and therefore, somebody sitting on the right hand side, could well have a door leaning against himself at an angle to the wall of perhaps 45-60 degrees.
And it is not only the angle of the door that governs this, it is also the proximity of Richardsons head to the doorblade and how far out on the stairs he was.

Plus, of course, people with three-foot bottoms do not have to sit straight. They can turn, just like you and me.

This is the best post I have ever received - I'm having visions of a fat bottomed witness - I shall bow out of this specific debate on a high with a smile on my face.

[Joshua Rogan]

In daylight. With the door fully opened, presumably. And, of course, looking down to his left.

The lavatory was in the right hand corner of the yard - why on Earth would Davis open the door fully and look down to his left?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's also an exercise in reasoning in trying to explain why this killer would at 5am when it was getting light go with a victim into a confined yard which was overlooked, with what it seems was one way in an one way out, with the likelhood of being disturbed at any moment.

and the fact that there is no evidence to show that this killer murdered any of the other victims at that time of the morning.

The sad fact about the ripper case is that there are so many conflciting witness statements it is hard to establish the real truth from the made up truth!

My own personal belief is that he did not see the body

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why was there a likelihood of being disturbed? The killer would have been led there by the victim so she would in all likelihood have reassured him that this was a safe spot that she’d used before.

[rjpalmer]

Now that you have intrigued everyone......the floor is yours.

Alright, Wick and Michael, but no doubt you'll take this with a dash of salt. And it's not likely to convince Christer.

Here's the set-up for why I say the color of Chapman’s socks will tell me her time-of-death. But be warned, it's rather disgusting.

Years ago, I was persuaded to go elk hunting. I had no desire to kill one of those majestic creatures, but I was dating the guy's daughter, so I reluctantly agreed. I didn't load my rifle, however.

Anyway, long story short, as bad luck would have it, after hiking for a couple of hours we came across a herd climbing the opposing ridge. The ring leader of the hunt lifted his rifle and shot one old cow elk in the neck, who staggered a few paces and fell dead. We hiked over, and he quickly dressed the poor beast. Being quite an expert at dissection, he removed all the entrails in one gigantic sack; it looked just like an enormous gray-and-white beach ball. He gave it a shove and it rolled and twisted down the hill until it hit a boulder, when it suddenly split open, spilling intestines everywhere.

It was a disgusting sight that I can still conjure up. It was a fairly cold autumn morning, and I can still see that ugly sight: the guts 'steamed' for several minutes in the cool air, in small clouds, but eventually dissipated.

End of Part One. I'll tell you the rest in a minute.

[rjpalmer]

Part Two.

Okay. As you no doubt know, back in the 1950s and 1960s, Dan Farson, as well as Tom Cullen, interviewed quite a few old-timers living in the East End.

People are naturally skeptical about oral history, but we can confirm that some of these people did indeed live in Whitechapel or Spitalfields—Mrs. Boufield’s son, for instance.

Anyway, Farson located one old bloke who claimed to have been in Hanbury Street that morning, evidently chasing Kent and Green and Davis back to the house, or very shortly thereafter.

Here’s what Farson reported:

“I met a charming old man who, as a boy at the time, was driving through Hanbury Street at dawn, perched on the back of a cart. Hearing the cry of ‘Murder!’ his curiosity got the better of him and he jumped off to find out what happened, losing his job in consequences.”

“’There she was,’ he told me in a soft and gentle voice. ‘And her entrails were steamin’ ‘ot. And I’ll never forget it because she had red-and-white stockings on.’” (Farson, 2^nd edition, p. 26)

Now, most people will dismiss this story out of hand, but having seen entrails steaming in ‘real life,’ it has the ring of truth to me.

They DO steam.

The strange detail about Chapman’s red-and-white stocking could be pure horse droppings, of course, but the contemporary sketches, strange to say, show Chapman wearing striped socks—a type that are often red-and-white---and the inquest describes them as striped.

Could this old codger have remembered such a banal detail for seventy years, unless he had been there?

Maybe, I don’t know, but that’s why I say that the color of Chapman’s socks will tell me her time of death. If they were indeed red-and-white, I’ll give the geezer the benefit of the doubt, which means the entrails were steaming, and she couldn’t have been dead for more than five or six minutes when Davis started hollering murder!

Accept it or not!

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

How is this a debate at all? Actually, it's not. It's just an exercise in futility.

Put this in Latin and you have the official motto of Ripperology.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

I'm sorry you've had to make your point twenty times.

Perhaps this is because nobody buys into it.

At 4.50 am Richardson did not see the body. What remains a mystery is whether the body was there or not there at this time.

Stay safe.

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

In daylight. With the door fully opened, presumably. And, of course, looking down to his left.

But what happens, Simon, when we replace that with gloom, with a possibly only partially opened door and Richardson looking to his right?

What is proven by Davis is that he saw the body under the conditions HE used. Nothing else.

I think it may well have been the twentieth time I pointed this out on this thread only...!

Nothing changes the fact that you have Richardson pushing the door open slightly and looking to the right (which is fine) but he then has to walk forward with his body pushing against the door because we can’t have it opened too wide. And he’s looking only to his right as he’s doing it. Then he sits down, again facing right, with the door knocking against his left hand side as he repairs his boot.

Now of course that’s possible but if we only aim to achieve an impossible or a possible in every aspect of the crime then we’re setting the bar as low as it gets. I mean it’s not impossible that the killer pole vaulted into the yard to kill a sleeping Annie whilst wearing a badger costume but we would all consider it unlikely. Surely we have to look at likelihood’s and your explanation requires a very specific set of actions by Richardson to create a situation where he would have missed the corpse.

Then of of course we have Cadosch half an hour later who just happens to hear what he did coming from a yard where there’s supposed to be a dead body.

[rjpalmer]

Put this in Latin and you have the official motto of Ripperology.

Non est contentione actum tam futilis

[The Baron]

Part Two.

Okay. As you no doubt know, back in the 1950s and 1960s, Dan Farson, as well as Tom Cullen, interviewed quite a few old-timers living in the East End.

People are naturally skeptical about oral history, but we can confirm that some of these people did indeed live in Whitechapel or Spitalfields—Mrs. Boufield’s son, for instance.

Anyway, Farson located one old bloke who claimed to have been in Hanbury Street that morning, evidently chasing Kent and Green and Davis back to the house, or very shortly thereafter.

Here’s what Farson reported:

“I met a charming old man who, as a boy at the time, was driving through Hanbury Street at dawn, perched on the back of a cart. Hearing the cry of ‘Murder!’ his curiosity got the better of him and he jumped off to find out what happened, losing his job in consequences.”

“’There she was,’ he told me in a soft and gentle voice. ‘And her entrails were steamin’ ‘ot. And I’ll never forget it because she had red-and-white stockings on.’” (Farson, 2^nd edition, p. 26)

Now, most people will dismiss this story out of hand, but having seen entrails steaming in ‘real life,’ it has the ring of truth to me.

They DO steam.

The strange detail about Chapman’s red-and-white stocking could be pure horse droppings, of course, but the contemporary sketches, strange to say, show Chapman wearing striped socks—a type that are often red-and-white---and the inquest describes them as striped.

Could this old codger have remembered such a banal detail for seventy years, unless he had been there?

Maybe, I don’t know, but that’s why I say that the color of Chapman’s socks will tell me her time of death. If they were indeed red-and-white, I’ll give the geezer the benefit of the doubt, which means the entrails were steaming, and she couldn’t have been dead for more than five or six minutes when Davis started hollering murder!

Accept it or not!

What a great post and a beautiful writing style!

Although I believe Richardson had missed the body completely, actually I cannot even think of better circumstances that make him fail to notice the body than what we have in his case.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

The lavatory was in the right hand corner of the yard - why on Earth would Davis open the door fully and look down to his left?

Who knows, Joshua. All I can say is that people do not always do things the way we expect them to. Neither man may have had any reason to look to his left, but both og them may have done so anyway. My point is obviously that there is room for Richardson to have missed out, not that anybody with no reason to look left could nevertheless do so!