29 Hanbury Street

[Herlock Sholmes]

On Cadosch, after a few more re-readings and some more thought, I’m now pretty sure that when Cadosch said at the Inquest:

“It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.”

he was talking about which side of number 29. Either the number 27 or the number 31 side. If we read the above statement as written, he’s not saying ‘I’m not sure which side of number 29 it came from.’ It doesn’t read properly. What I’d expect him to have said would be more like ‘I think it came from number 29 but I can’t be certain.’ But he doesn’t and what he does say just doesn’t sound right. If you said to someone ‘I think it came from x but I can’t say where it came from,’ someone would pull you up on it. So why do we make assumptions when it comes to Cadosch.

It sounds completely right though if it’s read as ‘I think it came from number 29 but I can’t be sure what side of that yard it came from.’ Clearly Cadosch’s first impression was that the ‘no’ came from number 29. I think that he just couldn’t be certain that it couldn’t have come from the number 31 side of that yard.

[The Rookie Detective]

Another random query...

There was a press report of a woman who claimed to have been accosted by a man offering coins; and then who accompanied him to an address in Hanbury street on the same night that Chapman was murdered. The man was alleged to have suddenly become violent, and the woman was able to escape the situation.

I know that the whole "coins" thing wasn't true and a fabrication of the truth in that no coins were found with Chapman, but I was wondering if the woman who made the claim of a man who offered her 2 sovereigns was tracked down and whether or not her story was debunked as also false?

The coin thing is of course irrelevant

But the action itself of a woman going to an address in Hanbury Street (possibly 29) with a man who then became aggressive, and then her escaping from him, with all of this occurring around 2.30am, i.e. the same night/early morning that Chapman was attacked and murdered in the garden of 29 Hanbury Street.

Was this other woman ever identified?


Was the story proved to be a fabrication?


RD

[New Waterloo]

There is a strong connection between the address of James Hardiman on the night of the Double Event and a person with blood stained cuffs trying to accost a female.

Let me explain simply. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the evidence PC Spicer should be ignored any more than any other witness. In fact perhaps it is more reliable as hopefully it can be somewhat authenticated. PC Spicer was on duty the night of the double event. Comes across a male person at the rear of James Hardimans address with blood stained cuffs. Unable to answer the officers questions satisfactorily he is arrested. He is found to be a 'respectable' Doctor and is released. Question; what is a respectable Doctor doing at the rear of Hardimans address, blood stained cuffs, just after the murder of Stride and Eddowes attempting to accost a female. Is there anything significant about where he is. Is James Hardiman in the house at the time. Was he in the yard and went back into his house as PC Spicer approached. PC Spicer would not have known anything about the Hardiman address. I have to admit that it is some time since I worked out where exactly this arrest occurred but will try and confirm and post a more detailed location. But if this then surely this is significant. Now as has been suggested it could well be that PC Spicer is being sensationalist and years later looking for some glory through the newspaper but that does not detract from the fact that an arrest was made at the rear of Hardimans address. I dont know how to do all the research but perhaps there is a way of at least confirming the arrest took place. NW

[Abby Normal]

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.

bingo herlock.
another reason to think it was tje killer bolting is that they want to try and be as quiet as possible and leaving the door open is quieter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

bingo herlock.
another reason to think it was tje killer bolting is that they want to try and be as quiet as possible and leaving the door open is quieter.

I have to say though Abby that at the Inquest John Davis said:

“I was not surprised to find the front door open, as it was not unusual.“

I was only reminded of this when I re-read Gavin Bromley’s article. But your point is still valid.

I also suppose that a killer, not wanting to be seen leaving the premises, might have just opened the door and looked out to see if the coast was clear? He might have had to wait a few seconds for someone to pass before stepping out. Even a couple of seconds spent closing the door might have meant the difference between being seen exiting the building or just being seen walking along.

[GBinOz]

I have to say though Abby that at the Inquest John Davis said:

“I was not surprised to find the front door open, as it was not unusual.“

I was only reminded of this when I re-read Gavin Bromley’s article. But your point is still valid.

I also suppose that a killer, not wanting to be seen leaving the premises, might have just opened the door and looked out to see if the coast was clear? He might have had to wait a few seconds for someone to pass before stepping out. Even a couple of seconds spent closing the door might have meant the difference between being seen exiting the building or just being seen walking along.

Hi Herlock,

Suppose Hardiman was spotted there that morning leaving the premises. The line of questioning?
Q. What were you doing there at that time? A. I am a cat's meat street vendor. I was picking up my stock of meat from my mother's shop for today's market.

If Richardson wondered if he had been spotted, he may have anticipated a similar line of questioning.
Q. What were you doing there at that time? A. I have a business in the rear of the premises and on market days I check the lock on the cellar door.

It should be remembered that the only way Richardson could be completely exonerated from suspicious was if it could be proved, conclusively, that Annie wasn't lying dead in the backyard when he left the premises. Checking a lock wasn't conclusive, but if he said he was sitting with his foot only a foot from where the body was found.....far more convincing.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Suppose Hardiman was spotted there that morning leaving the premises. The line of questioning?
Q. What were you doing there at that time? A. I am a cat's meat street vendor. I was picking up my stock of meat from my mother's shop for today's market.

If Richardson wondered if he had been spotted, he may have anticipated a similar line of questioning.
Q. What were you doing there at that time? A. I have a business in the rear of the premises and on market days I check the lock on the cellar door.

It should be remembered that the only way Richardson could be completely exonerated from suspicious was if it could be proved, conclusively, that Annie wasn't lying dead in the backyard when he left the premises. Checking a lock wasn't conclusive, but if he said he was sitting with his foot only a foot from where the body was found.....far more convincing.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

But Richardson would only have been telling the truth by giving his reason for being there. And if he wanted a conclusive way of showing that he couldn’t have missed a corpse leaving the question about the door wouldn’t have helped because the police could have suggested, as some do today, that the door had obscured his view. He had some very obvious ways that he could have removed all doubt though.

1. He could have said that as he descended the steps he pushed the door all the way back to the fence.
2. He could have said that he’d stepped into the yard to check the cellar door and the door had swung shut.
3. He could have said that he’d stood in the yard having a smoke.
4. He could have said that he’d used the outside loo.
5. He could have said that he’d gone to check his mothers shed.

None of the above are exactly fiendishly clever are they? They are all extremely obvious and would have removed the slightest doubt that he could have missed a body.

We might even suggest that he might have claimed to have slipped into his mothers to pick something up that he’d previously left there; being careful not to wake her up so early. So he was never in the yard.

He didn’t even need to put a knife in his own hands on that step. He could have just said that he checked the cellar and smoked his pipe for 5 minutes.

So if he told a lie it was an unnecessary one. An ineffective one. And he would have had to have ignored a handful of glaringly obvious and far more effective ones.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

But Richardson would only have been telling the truth by giving his reason for being there. And if he wanted a conclusive way of showing that he couldn’t have missed a corpse leaving the question about the door wouldn’t have helped because the police could have suggested, as some do today, that the door had obscured his view. He had some very obvious ways that he could have removed all doubt though.

1. He could have said that as he descended the steps he pushed the door all the way back to the fence.
2. He could have said that he’d stepped into the yard to check the cellar door and the door had swung shut.
3. He could have said that he’d stood in the yard having a smoke.
4. He could have said that he’d used the outside loo.
5. He could have said that he’d gone to check his mothers shed.

None of the above are exactly fiendishly clever are they? They are all extremely obvious and would have removed the slightest doubt that he could have missed a body.

We might even suggest that he might have claimed to have slipped into his mothers to pick something up that he’d previously left there; being careful not to wake her up so early. So he was never in the yard.

He didn’t even need to put a knife in his own hands on that step. He could have just said that he checked the cellar and smoked his pipe for 5 minutes.

So if he told a lie it was an unnecessary one. An ineffective one. And he would have had to have ignored a handful of glaringly obvious and far more effective ones.

Hi Herlock,

The most effective story would have been no story at all. He could have chosen not to have told Chandler anything. But...what if someone had spotted, or heard him, entering or leaving (how exactly did he enter and leave without his mother hearing him? Tiptoeing in carpet slippers perhaps?)....better to cover himself by pre-empting that possibility via a statement to Chandler making him look like an innocent bystander, until he realised that he needed a more convincing story as to the certainty that the body wasn't there when he left. Note that most of your alternative explanations involve him being in the yard, and he told Chandler that he never went into the yard. Even his boot repair story border-line infringes on being in the yard. Was admitting to a knife part of his "fiendishly clever" plan. Why would anyone be silly enough to admit to having a knife at a murder scene? Then produce a "Clayton's knife" - the knife you have when you don't have a knife.

We are both indulging in a great deal of conjecture, but at least it is in the spirit of civilised debate, albeit with no conceivable end in sight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The most effective story would have been no story at all. He could have chosen not to have told Chandler anything. But...what if someone had spotted, or heard him, entering or leaving (how exactly did he enter and leave without his mother hearing him? Tiptoeing in carpet slippers perhaps?)....better to cover himself by pre-empting that possibility via a statement to Chandler making him look like an innocent bystander, until he realised that he needed a more convincing story as to the certainty that the body wasn't there when he left. Note that most of your alternative explanations involve him being in the yard, and he told Chandler that he never went into the yard. Even his boot repair story border-line infringes on being in the yard. Was admitting to a knife part of his "fiendishly clever" plan. Why would anyone be silly enough to admit to having a knife at a murder scene? Then produce a "Clayton's knife" - the knife you have when you don't have a knife.

We are both indulging in a great deal of conjecture, but at least it is in the spirit of civilised debate, albeit with no conceivable end in sight.

Hello George,

It’s worth pointing out, in regard to what Richardson did or didn’t tell Chandler:

[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.


So Chandler didn’t say that Richardson hadn’t mentioned sitting on the step as often gets assumed. Only that he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair. What’s ‘suspicious’ about that? Chandler didn’t need to know why he’d sat on the step….only that he had. But it’s certainly possible that Richardson left out the ‘knife’ part initially because it was a murder scene and he didn’t want to be seen as a potential suspect.

Honestly George, I can see absolutely nothing that justifies calling Richardson an unreliable witness.

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

It’s worth pointing out, in regard to what Richardson did or didn’t tell Chandler:

[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.


So Chandler didn’t say that Richardson hadn’t mentioned sitting on the step as often gets assumed. Only that he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair. What’s ‘suspicious’ about that? Chandler didn’t need to know why he’d sat on the step….only that he had. But it’s certainly possible that Richardson left out the ‘knife’ part initially because it was a murder scene and he didn’t want to be seen as a potential suspect.

Honestly George, I can see absolutely nothing that justifies calling Richardson an unreliable witness.

Hi Herlock,

I'll have to call in the stewards on those statements my friend. You're once again speculating on words that you propose may have been left out. There was no mention of sitting on steps to Chandler or in his interviews with The Star on 8 Sep:
"at a quarter to five the body was not in the yard, Mrs. Richardson's son John, a man of 33, having passed through the yard at that time to see if the cellar door was safe."

"This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure."

What is noticeable is that he told the press he was in the yard, but he testified that he wasn't.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No
The boot cutting was not mentioned until several days later. IMO a witnesses' reliability suffers when they vary their story, and IMO the truth was what he actually told Chandler.

I am inclined to agree with Wolf Vanderlinden's assessment:
"He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness".".

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello George,

Can you find a statement from Chandler where he says that Richardson told him that he’d stood on the steps as opposed to sitting on them?

As I posted on the other thread, Richardson told The Telegraph on the 10th that he’d sat on the steps to repair his boot. He had zero reason to lie. He was very clearly telling the truth.

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

Can you find a statement from Chandler where he says that Richardson told him that he’d stood on the steps as opposed to sitting on them?

As I posted on the other thread, Richardson told The Telegraph on the 10th that he’d sat on the steps to repair his boot. He had zero reason to lie. He was very clearly telling the truth.

Hi Herlock,

I think were making things too difficult by running two Richardson threads at the same time, so I'll answer on the other thread.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I think were making things too difficult by running two Richardson threads at the same time, so I'll answer on the other thread.

Cheers, George