If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
OK, to back up, there is a school of thought that Anne Chapman had already died and was lying in the back yard when Richardson arrived, but he did not see her as the back door, which opened to the left, obscured his vision? I imagine that might be possible, but only if the small area to the left of the door--the very short arm of the 'L' of the yard--was long enough to contain Annie's body. She was around 5' tall I believe. However the description of the body says she was lying with her legs drawn up and akimbo. I don't think there is enough room between the door and the fence for this and I have always assumed that her lower half would have been visible from the back step or the yard.
(Note to Ripperologists, did anyone look in the back yard for that piece of leather Richardson claims to have cut off? It should have been there. I doubt he would have put it in his pocket...)
OK, to back up, there is a school of thought that Anne Chapman had already died and was lying in the back yard when Richardson arrived, but he did not see her as the back door, which opened to the left, obscured his vision?
I've always believed that. The door not only opened to the left, but was spring-loaded. In order to free his hands up to work on his boot, I think he probably turned his back to the door as he sat down, so that it wouldn't bump against his arm while he worked. If, in getting up, he turned to the right to go back inside, he need never have seen Chapman lying there.
I've always believed that. The door not only opened to the left, but was spring-loaded. In order to free his hands up to work on his boot, I think he probably turned his back to the door as he sat down, so that it wouldn't bump against his arm while he worked. If, in getting up, he turned to the right to go back inside, he need never have seen Chapman lying there.
Coroner: Was it light?
Richardson: It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
I've always believed that. The door not only opened to the left, but was spring-loaded.
I don't know if the door is the original, but in the photograph (1960's?) it seems to have rising butt hinges. For the benefite of anyone not familiar with them, these hinges cause the door to rise an inch or so from the closed to the open position; they also causes the door to close when released. If the hinges were indeed rising butts, the notion that Richardson sat with his back against it makes a great deal of sense.
I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.
I don't know if the door is the original, but in the photograph (1960's?) it seems to have rising butt hinges. For the benefite of anyone not familiar with them, these hinges cause the door to rise an inch or so from the closed to the open position; they also causes the door to close when released. If the hinges were indeed rising butts, the notion that Richardson sat with his back against it makes a great deal of sense.
It does, but did Rising Butt hinges exist in the 19th century?
That aside, I did assume from the testimony that the backyard door closed by itself. That does not mean it was designed that way, it could easily have closed by itself because the hinges were loose, worn, mounted wrong?
John Richardson, "It was not light, but was getting so, and was sufficient for him to see all over the place."
Inspector Joseph Chandler, "Her head was towards the back wall of the house, but was some 2 feet from the wall, and the body was not more than 6 inches or 9 inches from the steps."
There has been discussion on here to the effect that Richardson lied at the inquest. His story changes or evolves and becomes more elaborate.
The assumption was, I think, that he was embarrassed to reveal to his mother that he had not bothered to check the yard that morning. If he did go, and saw the body, but did not report it, he still had to brazen it out.
Richardson is, in my view, not reliable.
If, as I believe, Chapman was killed in the dark much earlier - around the time of Nichols' murder - then there was IMHO no way Richardson could have missed it at the time he says he was there.
There has been discussion on here to the effect that Richardson lied at the inquest. His story changes or evolves and becomes more elaborate.
The assumption was, I think, that he was embarrassed to reveal to his mother that he had not bothered to check the yard that morning. If he did go, and saw the body, but did not report it, he still had to brazen it out.
Richardson is, in my view, not reliable.
If, as I believe, Chapman was killed in the dark much earlier - around the time of Nichols' murder - then there was IMHO no way Richardson could have missed it at the time he says he was there.
Phil
Hi, Phil,
But nor, presumably, could the person (people) whom Cadosch heard in the yard of No.29 between around 5.20am amd 5.25am?
Thanks, Stewart for posting the photograph. Those hinges do look like rising butts to me (assuming that such things did exist at the time!). Their use would ensure that the door was self-closing. I'll shut up now though as it's not an ironmongery thread.
I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.
Bagster Phillips' father had been an ironmonger ( for those of us on the left side of the pond, he ran a hardware store.)
Yes, thanks for the pictures, Stewart. Your valuable input is always appreciated. It looks like the seat to the privy on the ground to the left in the photo. In later years, the yard seemed to be quite a mess.
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________
When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Comment