29 Hanbury Street

[Losmandris]

Just a quick note to say I am just back from the UK. Stayed in a hotel next to Liverpool street as my wife and I were meeting friends in the city. So of course I had a wander about the area. Nothing really new to report apart from I noticed the street number has been added over 29 Hanbury street (possibly it has now been parcelled off from what used to be a garage, I think covering the one end).

I presume it corresponds to the original building. Despite being completely hectic and super busy, I always give a thought to Annie whenever I pass down there. Bless her.

[Mark J D]

-- Were you as struck as I was by No.29's astounding proximity to Corbet Court...?

People on here will fight Lechmere's candidacy until the end of time -- let them! -- but *everything about him* fits...





(Yeah, yeah, yeah: I know. Lechmere walked with Robert Paul as far as Corbet Court (x). And then, a week later, Kosminski/Druitt/Ostrog/Bury/Sickert/Whoever just *popped up* a block and a half away (y)...)

Bests,

Mark D.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing about him fits. He’s a rubbish suspect with absolutely zero in favour of his candidacy. A delusion.

[John Wheat]

Nothing about him fits. He’s a rubbish suspect with absolutely zero in favour of his candidacy. A delusion.

I agree Herlock. Nothing about Lechmere fits. He is one of the worst suspects. All the suspects listed by Mark JD are much better suspects than Lechmere. Particularly Bury who may well have been the Ripper. Anyone who thinks Lechmere was the Ripper is misguided at best.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree Herlock. Nothing about Lechmere fits. He is one of the worst suspects. All the suspects listed by Mark JD are much better suspects than Lechmere. Particularly Bury who may well have been the Ripper. Anyone who thinks Lechmere was the Ripper is misguided at best.

Yes, it certainly beats me how Cross can be considered a better suspect than Bury. Let’s compare them shall we John?

Bury - A known criminal and a violent drunk who was once found kneeling on his new bride (who had possibly been a prostitute at some point) threatening to kill her with a knife which was just one of a series of violent assaults on her. A man who possibly had an STD. A man who lived locally and left London in January 1889 so just after the Kelly murder. A man who actually committed murder which in some ways resembled a ripper murder in a flat with chalked graffiti messages saying that the ripper lived there. Also man who the police at the time expressed an interest in.

vs

Cross - No history of crime. No history of violence. Long-standing marriage with children. Long employment record. Even started his own business in 1902 and lived until 1920. No evidence of the police expressing the slightest interest in him or of questioning his version of events.

I mean, it’s close John….what do you think?

Joking apart…

Can someone please explain on what planet is Cross a better suspect than Bury? How can he even be mentioned in the same breath? The constant repetition of “well he can be placed at the scene” just sounds hollower and hollower every time it’s used.

[Lewis C]

-- Were you as struck as I was by No.29's astounding proximity to Corbet Court...?

People on here will fight Lechmere's candidacy until the end of time -- let them! -- but *everything about him* fits...





(Yeah, yeah, yeah: I know. Lechmere walked with Robert Paul as far as Corbet Court (x). And then, a week later, Kosminski/Druitt/Ostrog/Bury/Sickert/Whoever just *popped up* a block and a half away (y)...)

Bests,

Mark D.

The murders occurred within a small area, so lots of things are close to lots of other things.

[Lewis C]

Yes, it certainly beats me how Cross can be considered a better suspect than Bury. Let’s compare them shall we John?

Bury - A known criminal and a violent drunk who was once found kneeling on his new bride (who had possibly been a prostitute at some point) threatening to kill her with a knife which was just one of a series of violent assaults on her. A man who possibly had an STD. A man who lived locally and left London in January 1889 so just after the Kelly murder. A man who actually committed murder which in some ways resembled a ripper murder in a flat with chalked graffiti messages saying that the ripper lived there. Also man who the police at the time expressed an interest in.

vs

Cross - No history of crime. No history of violence. Long-standing marriage with children. Long employment record. Even started his own business in 1902 and lived until 1920. No evidence of the police expressing the slightest interest in him or of questioning his version of events.

I mean, it’s close John….what do you think?

Joking apart…

Can someone please explain on what planet is Cross a better suspect than Bury? How can he even be mentioned in the same breath? The constant repetition of “well he can be placed at the scene” just sounds hollower and hollower every time it’s used.

And if “well he can be placed at the scene” is such a strong argument, then what makes Cross a better suspect than Hutchinson?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And if “well he can be placed at the scene” is such a strong argument, then what makes Cross a better suspect than Hutchinson?

It doesn’t Lewis. Or Richardson. And I wouldn’t push either of them as suspects. He’s possibly the least suspicious suspect ever.

[Abby Normal]

And if “well he can be placed at the scene” is such a strong argument, then what makes Cross a better suspect than Hutchinson?

Hi Lewis
imho he isn’t. While I think lech is worthy of consideration, I think hutch, and Bury, make better suspects and i go back and forth between those two as my number 1 and 2. I think hutch is a very similar kind of suspect to lech but with more serious yellow flags. But I do see mark jds point though, on the geographic stuff, lech is the strongest suspect of all in that regard. If one views him as a legit suspect to begin with of course, but I do.

[Lewis C]

Hi Abby,

Doesn't the geographic stuff on Lech basically boil down to, he walked past the murder sites at one time or another, his mother lived near one of the murder sites, and of course he discovered Nichols' body? That last point does differentiate him from others, but I'm not sure that the other points do. I would expect that most of the suspects that lived in the immediate area would have walked past the murder sites at one time or another, and that some would also have relatives in the area.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Doesn't the geographic stuff on Lech basically boil down to, he walked past the murder sites at one time or another, his mother lived near one of the murder sites, and of course he discovered Nichols' body? That last point does differentiate him from others, but I'm not sure that the other points do. I would expect that most of the suspects that lived in the immediate area would have walked past the murder sites at one time or another, and that some would also have relatives in the area.

Hi Lewis
yes and that we know for a fact he lived there for a very long time and that all the murders took place within an area of his three most most common places of visiting .. his work, his home and his moms place/previous home. Which means of course that he knew the area and those streets like the back of his hand, which imho the ripper surely did. And while yes many of the other suspects probably walked by murder sites lech is the only suspect that we know for a fact did.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis
yes and that we know for a fact he lived there for a very long time and that all the murders took place within an area of his three most most common places of visiting .. his work, his home and his moms place/previous home. Which means of course that he knew the area and those streets like the back of his hand, which imho the ripper surely did. And while yes many of the other suspects probably walked by murder sites lech is the only suspect that we know for a fact did.

On geographic profiling, a high probability is god enough for me, but I agree that the Ripper probably did know the area very well. BTW, I don't completely dismiss Lech as a suspect. I view him as viable, but a longshot.

[The Rookie Detective]

In terms of Geography...

Just a question regarding the witness and ground floor resident of 29 Hanbury Street; Mrs Harriet Hardiman...

One of her sons James Hardiman was a Purveyor of Horse flesh ...BUT he was previously a "knacker" man and so would have accustomed to using a knife.

(he has been suggested as a suspect before)

He lived at 29 Hanbury Street in 1881, with his wife Sarah...who died on the 15th September 1888

3 months before his wife Sarah died, James had lost his daughter (18th June 1888 - just before the murders commenced) from untreated congenital syphilis that she had contracted from her mother Sarah.

He lost his daughter because of his wife having caught Syphilis.

Motive?

He also lived at 29 Hanbury Street in 1891, with his mother Harriet and younger brother William

It is claimed that at the time of the murders in 1888, he lived around the corner from Hanbury Street, in Heneage Road... but at some point after the murders, he moved BACK into 29 Hanbury Street because he appears at 29 Hanbury Street in both 1881 and 1891 censuses.


So, let's summarize...

James Hardiman...

Was 28 years old when Chapman was murdered
Lived at 29 Hanbury Street as a knackerman in 1881
Lived at 29 Hanbury Street as a purveyor of horse flesh along with his mother in 1891
Lost his daughter and only child due to untreated syphilis that she had caught from her mother
Lost his wife 3 months after his daughter. Sarah possibly succumbed to her syphilis (although I haven't checked her death certificate yet)
He would have used a knife for his profession.
Wasn't mentioned by his mother Harriet at the inquest (to my knowledge)

He also died at 29 Hanbury Street on the 22nd December 1891 of TB aged 32.

He had Means... He knew 29 Hanbury Street
He had Motive... Losing his daughter because of his wife and thus losing his own family
He had Skills.. As a knacker in 1881 he would have needed to have some understanding on the application of using a knife.
He had opportunity.. would have known the house and yard like the back of his hand...and other witnesses wouldn't have suspected a fellow resident.

There was a Slaughter House less than 200 yards from 29 Hanbury Street
There was a Slaughter House just yards from the murder location of Nichols.

There is a high probability that James Hardiman would have been familiar with both slaughterhouses...and it's the slaughterhouses that potentially link the murder sites of Nichols and Chapman.

The question is; where was James Hardiman on the early morning of the murder?

Was there a market later that day?

If there was, it's also reasonable to assume that James would have gone to Hanbury Street at some point that morning, maybe to try and help his mother?

What was the relationship like between him and his mother?



James Hardiman had means, opportunity and motive, and so from a suspect point of view he would appear to warrant closer scrutiny.



Thoughts?



RD

[John Wheat]

In terms of Geography...

Just a question regarding the witness and ground floor resident of 29 Hanbury Street; Mrs Harriet Hardiman...

One of her sons James Hardiman was a Purveyor of Horse flesh ...BUT he was previously a "knacker" man and so would have accustomed to using a knife.

(he has been suggested as a suspect before)

He lived at 29 Hanbury Street in 1881, with his wife Sarah...who died on the 15th September 1888 (just before the murders commenced)

3 months before his wife Sarah died, James had lost his daughter (18th June 1888) from untreated congenital syphilis that she had contracted from her mother Sarah.

He lost his daughter because of his wife having caught Syphilis.

Motive?

He also lived at 29 Hanbury Street in 1891, with his mother Harriet and younger brother William

It is claimed that at the time of the murders in 1888, he lived around the corner from Hanbury Street, in Heneage Road... but at some point after the murders, he moved BACK into 29 Hanbury Street because he appears at 29 Hanbury Street in both 1881 and 1891 censuses.


So, let's summarize...

James Hardiman...

Was 28 years old when Chapman was murdered
Lived at 29 Hanbury Street as a knackerman in 1881
Lived at 29 Hanbury Street as a purveyor of horse flesh along with his mother in 1891
Lost his daughter and only child due to untreated syphilis that she had caught from her mother
Lost his wife 3 months after his daughter. Sarah possibly succumbed to her syphilis (although I haven't checked her death certificate yet)
He would have used a knife for his profession.
Wasn't mentioned by his mother Harriet at the inquest (to my knowledge)

He also died at 29 Hanbury Street on the 22nd December 1891 of TB aged 32.

He had Means... He knew 29 Hanbury Street
He had Motive... Losing his daughter because of his wife and thus losing his own family
He had Skills.. As a knacker in 1881 he would have needed to have some understanding on the application of using a knife.
He had opportunity.. would have known the house and yard like the back of his hand...and other witnesses wouldn't have suspected a fellow resident.

There was a Slaughter House less than 200 yards from 29 Hanbury Street
There was a Slaughter House just yards from the murder location of Nichols.

There is a high probability that James Hardiman would have been familiar with both slaughterhouses...and it's the slaughterhouses that potentially link the murder sites of Nichols and Chapman.

The question is; where was James Hardiman on the early morning of the murder?

Was there a market later that day?

If there was, it's also reasonable to assume that James would have gone to Hanbury Street at some point that morning, maybe to try and help his mother?

What was the relationship like between him and his mother?



James Hardiman had means, opportunity and motive, and so from a suspect point of view he would appear to warrant closer scrutiny.



Thoughts?



RD

Hi RD

James Hardiman is a much better suspect than Lechmere. However I don't believe he was the Ripper.

Cheers John

[Lewis C]

In terms of Geography...

Just a question regarding the witness and ground floor resident of 29 Hanbury Street; Mrs Harriet Hardiman...

One of her sons James Hardiman was a Purveyor of Horse flesh ...BUT he was previously a "knacker" man and so would have accustomed to using a knife.

(he has been suggested as a suspect before)

He lived at 29 Hanbury Street in 1881, with his wife Sarah...who died on the 15th September 1888 (just before the murders commenced)

3 months before his wife Sarah died, James had lost his daughter (18th June 1888) from untreated congenital syphilis that she had contracted from her mother Sarah.

He lost his daughter because of his wife having caught Syphilis.

Motive?

He also lived at 29 Hanbury Street in 1891, with his mother Harriet and younger brother William

It is claimed that at the time of the murders in 1888, he lived around the corner from Hanbury Street, in Heneage Road... but at some point after the murders, he moved BACK into 29 Hanbury Street because he appears at 29 Hanbury Street in both 1881 and 1891 censuses.


So, let's summarize...

James Hardiman...

Was 28 years old when Chapman was murdered
Lived at 29 Hanbury Street as a knackerman in 1881
Lived at 29 Hanbury Street as a purveyor of horse flesh along with his mother in 1891
Lost his daughter and only child due to untreated syphilis that she had caught from her mother
Lost his wife 3 months after his daughter. Sarah possibly succumbed to her syphilis (although I haven't checked her death certificate yet)
He would have used a knife for his profession.
Wasn't mentioned by his mother Harriet at the inquest (to my knowledge)

He also died at 29 Hanbury Street on the 22nd December 1891 of TB aged 32.

He had Means... He knew 29 Hanbury Street
He had Motive... Losing his daughter because of his wife and thus losing his own family
He had Skills.. As a knacker in 1881 he would have needed to have some understanding on the application of using a knife.
He had opportunity.. would have known the house and yard like the back of his hand...and other witnesses wouldn't have suspected a fellow resident.

There was a Slaughter House less than 200 yards from 29 Hanbury Street
There was a Slaughter House just yards from the murder location of Nichols.

There is a high probability that James Hardiman would have been familiar with both slaughterhouses...and it's the slaughterhouses that potentially link the murder sites of Nichols and Chapman.

The question is; where was James Hardiman on the early morning of the murder?

Was there a market later that day?

If there was, it's also reasonable to assume that James would have gone to Hanbury Street at some point that morning, maybe to try and help his mother?

What was the relationship like between him and his mother?



James Hardiman had means, opportunity and motive, and so from a suspect point of view he would appear to warrant closer scrutiny.



Thoughts?



RD

Hi RD,

It's funny that you brought up Hardiman here, because in my previous post where I mentioned Lechmere as viable but a longshot, I was thinking "about on the same level as a suspect as Hardiman". He is pretty strong geographically and the right age.

There are two points that I'd make. One is that September 15th isn't just before the murders commenced. It's after the Chapman murder and before the double event. The other is that in this case, I don't look for motive. I think that the likely motive is sexual in nature, so it will almost always be unknown whether a particular suspect had the motive.