Alternative entrences / exits to #29 Hanbury crime scene?

[GUT]

It's not like we are picking a random celebrity from the 19th century and hanging him as the ripper here....we are talking about a man who was at the exact spot where chapmans murder occurred with a knife in his hand. He changed his story enough times to warrant suspicion from the coroner and was allegedly investigated & "no suspicion could attach to him". Can you name any other suspect in the history of this case who had a knife out at the spot where a dead woman was found and then proceeded to change their story over and over?

Make your mind up, was he lying every time he opened his mouth or did he have a knife with him?

We only know he had a knife because he told the police, not much good as a liar if he was the killer.

[Vincenzo]

Hi Vincenzo

I`m sure the people here are just discussing the possibility of Richardson being the killer.

Yea, I understand that. BUt in my opinion, it should be dismissed as quickly as the investigators at the time dismissed it.

After all, his presence there contradicts the Doctor`s TOD.

And so does Elizabeth Long and Albert Cadosch (sp?), right? I think it is safe to say that the doctor had the wrong time of death, which shouldn't be too surprising in that era.

He even admits to having to remove women from the premises on previous occasions.

But how does that lead to eviscerating a woman in his mothers back yard?

In my opinion, it's just ridiculous.

The only evidence I have seen put forward to suspect him is that he admits to being in the yard with a knife. A yard that he had every right to be in. He was not out of place, he was at his mothers residence getting ready to go to work. And, if I remember correctly, he was gone when Elizabeth Long saw Annie Chapman still alive and Albert Cadosch heard what he heard.

And didn't the doctor later admit that he may have miscalculated the time of death?

[Vincenzo]

To go back to the reason I started this thread (not to stop the Richardson convo, by all means let that continue, lol)...

Does anyone know if this photo is accurate? I have never seen it before tonight.

[jason_c]

To go back to the reason I started this thread (not to stop the Richardson convo, by all means let that continue, lol)...

Does anyone know if this photo is accurate? I have never seen it before tonight.

Yes, it has been posted before. I think the consensus was that it is 29 Hanbury Street.

[Jon Guy]

But how does that lead to eviscerating a woman in his mothers back yard?
?

Eh? How would a physical or verbal confrontation with a woman sleeping on the stairs or having a pee in his yard lead to murder?
I`m surprised you ask this.

Anyway, apologies, I can see you did start this thread.

The picture you posted is of 29 Hanbury Street, looking towards the back door, I believe taken from the excellent book by Clack and Hutchinson "The London of Jack The Ripper - Then and Now". There are more similarly rare photos in the book.

[Vincenzo]

Eh? How would a physical or verbal confrontation with a woman sleeping on the stairs or having a pee in his yard lead to murder?
I`m surprised you ask this.

Anyway, apologies, I can see you did start this thread.

No need to apologize, I had lost track of the thread and it evolved on it's own to discussing the possible guilt of Mr. Richardson. I just don't entertain him as a possible suspect at all.

I don't think many people do. There isn't a forum devoted to him in the suspects section of this board.

The picture you posted is of 29 Hanbury Street, looking towards the back door, I believe taken from the excellent book by Clack and Hutchinson "The London of Jack The Ripper - Then and Now". There are more similarly rare photos in the book.

I've seen that book but do not own it and have not read it. I will have to make a note of that. Thanks.

[Jon Guy]

I've seen that book but do not own it and have not read it. I will have to make a note of that. Thanks.

It`s an excellent book, Vincenzo. Can`t recommend it highly enough.
Get the second edition, as this has a photo of inside the gates of Dutfield`s Yard, Berner Street, plus lots of 29 Hanbury Street photos.

[Vincenzo]

It`s an excellent book, Vincenzo. Can`t recommend it highly enough.
Get the second edition, as this has a photo of inside the gates of Dutfield`s Yard, Berner Street, plus lots of 29 Hanbury Street photos.

I've already put it on my amazon wishlist. I'll have to go back and make sure it is the second edition.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Batman]

The best I have seen is from Margaret Whitby-Green found in Philip Hutchinson's book (2009).

[RockySullivan]

So the general consensus is that the ripper used the entrance from the front door through the hallway into the backyard. Risky if he encountered one of the tenants in the hall on the way in or out. The tenants would have been able to hear the ripper walk down the hall and could have gone into the yard and caught him red handed. This is why I think the ripper had a connection to 29 hanbury and a possible reason to for being there.

[Rosella]

The Ripper was not averse to taking risks though when the compulsion to kill was at its height. Look at Dutfield's Yard. At any moment one or two members of the working men's club could have left the club by that side door while at the same time a member could have entered the yard via the street, trapping him, as Louis Diemschutz very nearly did.

What about Mary's room? What if Joe Barnett and a couple of friends had decided to visit Mary in the middle of the night while Jack was busy slicing away, and decided to unlock the door through the window when she didn't answer the door?

There are a dozen scenarios at each murder scene where things could have ended with Jack's capture. He just had a certain cunning, a willingness to take risks and, last of all, the luck of the devil.

[Azarna]

I think there is a very real possibility of over-thinking many of these things.

We are looking back from over a century away, analyzing every thing in great detail.

I am sure that many of the things that JtR (and indeed everyone else) did were spontaneous actions. Things done on the spur of the moment when opportunities arose, not calculated or planned.

It is tempting to look for deeper meanings, patterns or complex motives when I believe often they just were never there. Jack had desires, saw opportunities and took them when he could.

And sometimes he took risks and trusted to chance.

[Bridewell]

So the general consensus is that the ripper used the entrance from the front door through the hallway into the backyard. Risky if he encountered one of the tenants in the hall on the way in or out.

Risky if he was local and recognised. Not all that risky otherwise; he was, after all, armed with a sharp knife and more than willing to use it in case of need.

[Bridewell]

Albert Cadosch (sp?)

Thanks, Vincenzo, yes. This is the correct spelling. All variants (Cadoch, Cadoche, Cadosche, Cadosck etc) are contemporary or later errors, oft-repeated.

[Vincenzo]

Thanks, Vincenzo, yes. This is the correct spelling. All variants (Cadoch, Cadoche, Cadosche, Cadosck etc) are contemporary or later errors, oft-repeated.

Thanks, I appreciate the confirmation.