29 Hanbury Street

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Yes of course, my apologies... my comment on the commencing of the murder was meant to be in reference to his daughter dying (JUNE 1888) and NOT his wife. I wrote and edited it and forgot to move that line and so it reads incorrectly. Well spotted thank you and apologies for my blatant error there.

*I just EDITED my previous post to read correctly.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

And so... James Hardiman....


What if after his daughter dies in JUNE 1888 from Syphilis contracted from her mother (his wife) he becomes enraged at losing his only child. He blames his wife having caught syphilis and due to his work horse flesh dealer/knacker/cats meats man over the years, he has connections with the local slaughterhouses.

He randomly kills Nichols after a visit from the slaughterhouse yards from the murder site...perhaps he kills her spontaneously after seeing her drunken and slumped on the ground. Perhaps she propositions him and he just snaps, cutting her throat and slashing her but then after he hears footsteps, of Lechmere, he walks off quickly.

Not forgetting that Lechmere and Lechmere's mother were in THE SAME TRADE as James Hardiman and his mother Harriet.

Perhaps Hardiman knew Lechmere.

But i digress...


Hardiman flees the scene and his heart is racing because it's his first kill.


But when he returns to see his mother at 29 Hanbury Street he spends the next few days going over the murder and it unlocks something in him that is new, but it scares him and so he wants to stay much closer to home.

So close in fact that on the night of Chapman's murder, he visits his mother Harriet, for business and/or family time...but he spots Chapman outside and tempts her in...he then kills her in his own backyard, just a few feet away from where his mother and brother are.

He realises that he can't be seen and so leaves and goes around the corner to Heneage street. His wife being very poorly at this time.

But now he wants to stop...

His wife then dies a few days later and rather than stop, it then triggers a further response.


And then he continues his killing spree, angered by his wife in every way imaginable.

But perhaps Nichols and Chapman were meant to be separate from the rest and the trigger for commencing his killings was to do with the loss of his daughter, but the reason for continuing his spree after Chapman, was losing his wife and the object of his anger.


Of course, this is all hypothesis and conjecture, but not so far removed from reality as one might think.


It's rather interesting that Hanbury Street and Buck Rows both have slaughterhouse within very close proximity to the murders and James Hardiman and his mother Harriet were in the same trade as Lechmere's mother.

James Hardiman lived and died in 29 Hanbury Street
Lechmere most likely used Hanbury Street as a route to his work
James Hardiman is likely to have been familiar with the slaughterhouse in Bucks Row
Lechmere was found standing near to the body of Nichols on his way to work

Perhaps they knew each other

And perhaps Lechmere knew more than he let on...not as the murderer, but as a man who felt he had to give his name as Cross, through fear that the man he saw murder Nichol's was none other than his friends and business associate, Mr James Hardiman.


I mean, honestly...that's all just randomness and gobbledygook from my part, but an angle that not even Lechmerians could have concocted ha ha



RD

[Abby Normal]

And so... James Hardiman....


What if after his daughter dies in JUNE 1888 from Syphilis contracted from her mother (his wife) he becomes enraged at losing his only child. He blames his wife having caught syphilis and due to his work horse flesh dealer/knacker/cats meats man over the years, he has connections with the local slaughterhouses.

He randomly kills Nichols after a visit from the slaughterhouse yards from the murder site...perhaps he kills her spontaneously after seeing her drunken and slumped on the ground. Perhaps she propositions him and he just snaps, cutting her throat and slashing her but then after he hears footsteps, of Lechmere, he walks off quickly.

Not forgetting that Lechmere and Lechmere's mother were in THE SAME TRADE as James Hardiman and his mother Harriet.

Perhaps Hardiman knew Lechmere.

But i digress...


Hardiman flees the scene and his heart is racing because it's his first kill.


But when he returns to see his mother at 29 Hanbury Street he spends the next few days going over the murder and it unlocks something in him that is new, but it scares him and so he wants to stay much closer to home.

So close in fact that on the night of Chapman's murder, he visits his mother Harriet, for business and/or family time...but he spots Chapman outside and tempts her in...he then kills her in his own backyard, just a few feet away from where his mother and brother are.

He realises that he can't be seen and so leaves and goes around the corner to Heneage street. His wife being very poorly at this time.

But now he wants to stop...

His wife then dies a few days later and rather than stop, it then triggers a further response.


And then he continues his killing spree, angered by his wife in every way imaginable.

But perhaps Nichols and Chapman were meant to be separate from the rest and the trigger for commencing his killings was to do with the loss of his daughter, but the reason for continuing his spree after Chapman, was losing his wife and the object of his anger.


Of course, this is all hypothesis and conjecture, but not so far removed from reality as one might think.


It's rather interesting that Hanbury Street and Buck Rows both have slaughterhouse within very close proximity to the murders and James Hardiman and his mother Harriet were in the same trade as Lechmere's mother.

James Hardiman lived and died in 29 Hanbury Street
Lechmere most likely used Hanbury Street as a route to his work
James Hardiman is likely to have been familiar with the slaughterhouse in Bucks Row
Lechmere was found standing near to the body of Nichols on his way to work

Perhaps they knew each other

And perhaps Lechmere knew more than he let on...not as the murderer, but as a man who felt he had to give his name as Cross, through fear that the man he saw murder Nichol's was none other than his friends and business associate, Mr James Hardiman.


I mean, honestly...that's all just randomness and gobbledygook from my part, but an angle that not even Lechmerians could have concocted ha ha



RD

hi rd
1.There is no traditional motive for serial killers of this type.
2.he has no physical connection to any of the victims, nor to the case at all.
3.killing in his mothers back yard is even crazier idea than lechmere killing on his route to work lol.
4.he wasnt a police suspect or person of interest.
5.he has no known history of violence.

unless you can establish at the least #2 (with some kind of other yellow flags)or #4, a viable suspect you do not have IMHO.
but if you think he is, than by all means i encourage further research!

[GBinOz]

So close in fact that on the night of Chapman's murder, he visits his mother Harriet, for business and/or family time...but he spots Chapman outside and tempts her in...he then kills her in his own backyard, just a few feet away from where his mother and brother are.

He realises that he can't be seen and so leaves and goes around the corner to Heneage street.

Hi RD,

James Hardiman was a cat's meat street vendor, and it was market day, so there is every reason to expect he was on the premises that morning. IMO it was he who left the front door open when he carried out his stock of cats' meat for sale. Even if he had been seen, like Richardson, he could provide a reason for being there, and additionally he could provide a reason for any blood that that might be on his hands.

So why didn't his mother mention his visit. She testified that she slept until she heard people trampling though the corridor after the discovery of the body. Besides, I would not think that she would want to involve her son in a murder investigation. Why didn't Amelia Richardson hear him? Was it a "usual" event that she thought wasn't worth mentioning. She didn't say she heard John Richardson either - did he tiptoe in and out? And she didn't hear Chapman and Jack either, which is strange if they were there at 5:30 when Amelia was awake and only dozing.
[Coroner] On Saturday morning you feel confident no one did go through? - Yes; I should have heard the sound. They must have walked purposely quietly? - Yes; or I should have heard them.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

Not forgetting that Lechmere and Lechmere's mother were in THE SAME TRADE as James Hardiman and his mother Harriet.

Perhaps Hardiman knew Lechmere.

Charles Lechmere was never a cats meat vendor. He worked as a carman, then a railway agent, then a grocer. His mother, Maria Louisa, was a dress maker for most of her life. She appears to have become a cats meat vendor after her third husband died in late 1889, a year after the Ripper murders ended.

So Hardiman and Lechmere would not have known each other from work.

[New Waterloo]

Hello all, I always hate bringing this up because it just seems to be treated a bit negatively. Please please bear with me. On the subject of Hardiman. Good posts by the way. My understanding is that at the time of the murders Hardiman was living at 13 Heanage Street. Please dont turn off at this point. PC Spicer says in his interview years later by the Daily Express that whilst on patrol on the night of the Double Event he came across a person sitting on some dustbins in a court yard at the the rear of wait for it, Heneage Street! The man had blood on his cuffs and I believe was attempting to accost a young lady. He was arrested and released after proving he was a respectable Doctor. But come on what is a respectable Dr doing sitting on bins in the middle of the night in the East End. There was a court yard off of Heneage Street and in my calculation (its a long while since I looked at this so forgive me if I have got it wrong) is directly behind 13 Heneage Street. There is no way that Spicer years later would have connected Hardiman to his story. Please all just have a look at this. Also I recall something about Mrs Hardiman at Hanbury Street receiving a letter, taken by Insp Reid and saying something important about the murders. I realize the story from PC Spicer is not always taken very seriously but really we cant ignore it any more. Well done all for raising Hardimans name again. NW

[Losmandris]

Hardiman is definitely another one for the mix. Thing is there were literally hundreds of people just like him with subtle links here and there to the murders/murder sites/victims that we will never know or hear about. For me there is no real point in speculating or accusing anyone as I don't believe we will ever know. That's why I leave suspectology well alone.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hello all, I always hate bringing this up because it just seems to be treated a bit negatively. Please please bear with me. On the subject of Hardiman. Good posts by the way. My understanding is that at the time of the murders Hardiman was living at 13 Heanage Street. Please dont turn off at this point. PC Spicer says in his interview years later by the Daily Express that whilst on patrol on the night of the Double Event he came across a person sitting on some dustbins in a court yard at the the rear of wait for it, Heneage Street! The man had blood on his cuffs and I believe was attempting to accost a young lady. He was arrested and released after proving he was a respectable Doctor. But come on what is a respectable Dr doing sitting on bins in the middle of the night in the East End. There was a court yard off of Heneage Street and in my calculation (its a long while since I looked at this so forgive me if I have got it wrong) is directly behind 13 Heneage Street. There is no way that Spicer years later would have connected Hardiman to his story. Please all just have a look at this. Also I recall something about Mrs Hardiman at Hanbury Street receiving a letter, taken by Insp Reid and saying something important about the murders. I realize the story from PC Spicer is not always taken very seriously but really we cant ignore it any more. Well done all for raising Hardimans name again. NW

I believe the respectable doctor in question MAY have been none other than Dr Barnardo

The fake Doctor

I have separate threads on that particular person of interest


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Charles Lechmere was never a cats meat vendor. He worked as a carman, then a railway agent, then a grocer. His mother, Maria Louisa, was a dress maker for most of her life. She appears to have become a cats meat vendor after her third husband died in late 1889, a year after the Ripper murders ended.

So Hardiman and Lechmere would not have known each other from work.

A railway agent?

At least we are on the "right track" ha ha


Interestingly, your data differs from the census data; not entirely, but slightly.


Agreed that Charles Lechmere had no connection with the Cats Meats trade, unlike his mother who most certainly did, and for longer than is realized.

She also used to live just a few yards away from the archway under which the Torso was dumped in Pinchin Street.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

James Hardiman was a cat's meat street vendor, and it was market day, so there is every reason to expect he was on the premises that morning. IMO it was he who left the front door open when he carried out his stock of cats' meat for sale. Even if he had been seen, like Richardson, he could provide a reason for being there, and additionally he could provide a reason for any blood that that might be on his hands.

So why didn't his mother mention his visit. She testified that she slept until she heard people trampling though the corridor after the discovery of the body. Besides, I would not think that she would want to involve her son in a murder investigation. Why didn't Amelia Richardson hear him? Was it a "usual" event that she thought wasn't worth mentioning. She didn't say she heard John Richardson either - did he tiptoe in and out? And she didn't hear Chapman and Jack either, which is strange if they were there at 5:30 when Amelia was awake and only dozing.
[Coroner] On Saturday morning you feel confident no one did go through? - Yes; I should have heard the sound. They must have walked purposely quietly? - Yes; or I should have heard them.

Cheers, George

Brilliant post as always George.


Yes, I find it interesting how Mrs Hardiman never mentions James. if it was market day (I wasn't aware of that, so thank you) he is highly likely to have visited Hanbury Street. The fact that she doesn't mention her son is probably more suspicious than if she had said he was there.

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Just a quick observation on the fence height at 29 Hanbury Street

I know there has been lots and lots of speculation, argument and counter-argument to try and confirm the height of the fence beside which Chapman was killed.

There's a short video online, which was recorded in 1967 (just 3 years before 29 Hanbury Street was demolished in 1970)

In the video, the famous actor James Mason visits the murder site.

He goes into the back garden of Hanbury Street and we can see on the footage the dimensions of the fence and steps relative to James Mason.

If you stop the video at exactly 0.38 (or 38 seconds in) you can see Mason is standing on the top step. His head is close to the top of the door frame and if you compare the door frame of 27 Hanbury Street (also seen in the footage) you can clearly see his height in relation to the height of the fence.

Mason then steps down onto the 2nd step and again, it's clear to see that he can see over the fence from him standing on the 2nd step.

He then steps onto ground level and walks for a couple of yards along the fence and we can clearly see that the fence is at the same height as Mason's shoulders.

He then walks diagonally away from the fence to stand at the back of the garden, at which point it's difficult to judge. Initially, it looks like the gradient of the garden goes up because the fence looks shorted towards the end of the garden. However, on a 2nd viewing, it's clear to see that Mason walks away from the line of the fence and so once he moves away we can't accurately see the relative height of the fence.

The footage is just over a minute long, but is important in the context of the crime scene, to see the correct height of the fence.

That is of course dependent on it being THE SAME FENCE?

Regardless, the steps are the exact same steps that Richardson sat (and stood) on and so I would imagine that even if the fence had been replaced between 1888 - 1967; the height wouldn't have increased by much, if anything.

Judging by the footage, the entire area looks completely derelict anyway, so it could have been the same fence.

James Mason was 5ft 11" and based on the footage, it seems the fence was at the same height as Mason's shoulders.

That would make the fence approximately 5ft 6"

I would therefore suggest that the killer is unlikely to have been taller than 5ft 7"...unless he crouched down the entire time.

Chapman being only 5ft, she wouldn't have been seen over the fence.

What is apparent is, that at 5ft 11" James Mason had a full view over the fence, standing on EITHER STEP.

I don't believe that the killer would have used the back garden of Hanbuiry Street had he been 5ft 11"... and he would have used the fence as natural cover from being spotted.

How tall were the relevant witnesses?

If the killer was taller than the 5ft 6" fence, the only way to not be spotted is if he either crouched down and moved up against the fence.


Check the video if you can, it's short but brilliant and eerie.


RD

[Abby Normal]

Hi RD,

James Hardiman was a cat's meat street vendor, and it was market day, so there is every reason to expect he was on the premises that morning. IMO it was he who left the front door open when he carried out his stock of cats' meat for sale. Even if he had been seen, like Richardson, he could provide a reason for being there, and additionally he could provide a reason for any blood that that might be on his hands.

So why didn't his mother mention his visit. She testified that she slept until she heard people trampling though the corridor after the discovery of the body. Besides, I would not think that she would want to involve her son in a murder investigation. Why didn't Amelia Richardson hear him? Was it a "usual" event that she thought wasn't worth mentioning. She didn't say she heard John Richardson either - did he tiptoe in and out? And she didn't hear Chapman and Jack either, which is strange if they were there at 5:30 when Amelia was awake and only dozing.
[Coroner] On Saturday morning you feel confident no one did go through? - Yes; I should have heard the sound. They must have walked purposely quietly? - Yes; or I should have heard them.

Cheers, George

Hi George
she probably didn’t mention him because he wasn’t there. And imho the door was left open by the ripper who was beating a hasty retreat after killing Chapman. As far as we know Hardiman was no where near 29 Hanbury but if one can find any evidence he was, he would certainly become more interesting. As it is he’s only a relative of a peripheral witness and has nothing to do with the case whatsoever.

[Fiver]

A railway agent?

At least we are on the "right track" ha ha


Interestingly, your data differs from the census data; not entirely, but slightly.

The 1901 Census lists him as a railway agent as well as a carman. Starting in 1902, city directories list Charles Lechmere as a grocer.

Agreed that Charles Lechmere had no connection with the Cats Meats trade, unlike his mother who most certainly did, and for longer than is realized.

She also used to live just a few yards away from the archway under which the Torso was dumped in Pinchin Street.


RD

His mother, Maria Louisa was listed as a dressmaker for most of her life. She was listed a a horse flesh dealer in the 1891 census. She like became one after her third husband's death in late 1889. By 1901 she became was listed as a corn chandler.

We don't know how long she lived on Pinchin Street, In 1871 she was living on Mary Ann Street. In 1881 she was on Pinchin Street. By 1885, she was back on Mary Ann Street. The maximum would be 12 years, but is probably significantly less. If there are school records for her granddaughter, Mary Jane Lechmere, who lived with her, they might help is fill in things.

[Lewis C]

Just a quick observation on the fence height at 29 Hanbury Street

I know there has been lots and lots of speculation, argument and counter-argument to try and confirm the height of the fence beside which Chapman was killed.

There's a short video online, which was recorded in 1967 (just 3 years before 29 Hanbury Street was demolished in 1970)

In the video, the famous actor James Mason visits the murder site.

He goes into the back garden of Hanbury Street and we can see on the footage the dimensions of the fence and steps relative to James Mason.

If you stop the video at exactly 0.38 (or 38 seconds in) you can see Mason is standing on the top step. His head is close to the top of the door frame and if you compare the door frame of 27 Hanbury Street (also seen in the footage) you can clearly see his height in relation to the height of the fence.

Mason then steps down onto the 2nd step and again, it's clear to see that he can see over the fence from him standing on the 2nd step.

He then steps onto ground level and walks for a couple of yards along the fence and we can clearly see that the fence is at the same height as Mason's shoulders.

He then walks diagonally away from the fence to stand at the back of the garden, at which point it's difficult to judge. Initially, it looks like the gradient of the garden goes up because the fence looks shorted towards the end of the garden. However, on a 2nd viewing, it's clear to see that Mason walks away from the line of the fence and so once he moves away we can't accurately see the relative height of the fence.

The footage is just over a minute long, but is important in the context of the crime scene, to see the correct height of the fence.

That is of course dependent on it being THE SAME FENCE?

Regardless, the steps are the exact same steps that Richardson sat (and stood) on and so I would imagine that even if the fence had been replaced between 1888 - 1967; the height wouldn't have increased by much, if anything.

Judging by the footage, the entire area looks completely derelict anyway, so it could have been the same fence.

James Mason was 5ft 11" and based on the footage, it seems the fence was at the same height as Mason's shoulders.

That would make the fence approximately 5ft 6"

I would therefore suggest that the killer is unlikely to have been taller than 5ft 7"...unless he crouched down the entire time.

Chapman being only 5ft, she wouldn't have been seen over the fence.

What is apparent is, that at 5ft 11" James Mason had a full view over the fence, standing on EITHER STEP.

I don't believe that the killer would have used the back garden of Hanbuiry Street had he been 5ft 11"... and he would have used the fence as natural cover from being spotted.

How tall were the relevant witnesses?

If the killer was taller than the 5ft 6" fence, the only way to not be spotted is if he either crouched down and moved up against the fence.


Check the video if you can, it's short but brilliant and eerie.


RD

I think that the fence that was there in 1967 was a different one from the one that was there in 1888. I do think the killer was probably shorter than 5' 11" anyway, partly because of witness testimony, and partly because 5' 11" would have been taller than most men were at that time.

Cadosch could have seen over the top of the fence before he came down the steps, but apparently wasn't looking in that direction.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What evidence is there that Hardiman was there that day? It can’t be enough to say that he was probably there. If we are using ‘probable’s’ then I’d suggest that it’s probably less likely that someone with a connection to that building would have left the door open. More likely a stranger. Not a certainty of course but I’d say a man leaving his own mother’s place of residence would normally close the door behind him. A stranger might not care less, especially a murderer.