Author: graziano
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 03:06 pm |        |
Hello Simon,
1. yes, it s my opinion, it makes sense.
To state then that the people in the yard were two Jacks waiting for the third with the victim it takes in my mind only a little step (as we speak about the 29 Hanbury street maybe three little steps, but no more).
2. That nobody saw her between 1.35 a.m. and 5.30 a.m. it s not so sure. We just do not have any witness that came around for that. But this is not definite evidence of the fact.
3. for the Rigor Mortis and the blood, I must admit that you take me by surprise and I ask you a little time to go through it.
Thank and bye (for the moment).
Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 05:33 pm | |
Thats something I didn't think of Graziano - that the people in the yard were accomplices of the Ripper waiting for Jack to bring Annie to them. Let me congratulate you on such an excellent idea !!!
If only Cadosh had peeked over that fence... |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 07:47 pm | |
In a Pack... four Jacks make a Set!
Any help? Rosey :-) |
Author: Jon
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 08:04 pm | |
Graziano, Simon.
One minor point I once mentioned about this Cadoshe - Long timing issue is this; that the Spitalfields, and possibly Brewers, clock struck the quarter hour.
The Spitalfields clock chimed on the hour, then at :15, then :30, then again :45 mins past the hour. It crossed my mind that possibly Long was mistaken in her insistance that she heard the Brewers clock strike 5:30am, if this clock also struck on the quarter hour and she made a simple error (was it really 5:15am?) this would explain the dilema.
I was also interested in whether the :15, :30, :45 minute chimes were identical, with some clocks the quarter hour chimes are the same. If each 15 min. chime was different then this would argue against a mistake by Long, but if they were identical it may support such a possibility.
An error of 15 minutes by Long (Cadoshe actually passed Spitalfields clock, so he could have looked up at it) would account for the discrepancy in the testimony.
Nothing more than an idea.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 04:10 am | |
Hello Simon, Jon, Rosemary,
of course my conclusion is only a possibility and it is not important for the case if I believe it or if it is the one I prefer.
Of course there are other possibilities such as the one Jon stated above (it would be then nice to check the sounds of the clock struck).
What I meant is that this possibility is the only one sustanaible that do not consider any mistake in the testimonies of Long and Cadoche and that considers them as reliable witness since "a priori" there is no reason that this should not be the case.
What I meant is that we can consider Long and Cadoche both right and then come to a conclusion that I find quite realistic.
Any other interpretation must start with the hypothesis that Long or Cadoche are wrong in some way.
I personally sees a little bias in the literature towards the fact that Jack whoever he is he must be one and there are no other possibilities (Cohen, Kelly, Barnett, Hutchinson or others). This bias being apparently already present in the general official belief (Kosminsky, Ostrog, Druitt, Tumblety....) and in the newspapers (Tumblety, Cutbush...)of the time.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 05:25 am | |
Hello Simon, to your question:" Where has been Annie Chapman between 1.30 a.m. and 5.30 a.m.?
If this could be of any help:
Timothy Donovan said she was eating some potatoes at 1.30/1.45 a.m.. That she had had enough of drinking but she still walked staight.
Mrs Long says that the persons she saw appeared sober or at least that nothing indicated her that they were the worst for drink.
This is corroborated by Doctor Philips who says that "she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death."
He adds: "The stomach contained a little food".
I doubt that this little food at 5.30 a.m. in the stomach could have been the "Donovan potatoes" seen four hours before.
May I suggest so that she has been eating somewhere.
With what money?
May I suggest that that could have been a "present" offered by a well caring companion.
Maybe the same companion to which, having he been so kind to her that night, she replies "Yes" at 5.30 when asked by him : "Will You?".
Of course I could go on suggesting that this "Will you?" referred to a previous invitation sooner in the night in the backyard that we know and that it was only part of a well elaborate plan including also the persons Cadosch hear at 5.20 a.m..
I could but I will not do it because this is pure fantasy and is not acceptable.
Jack was one. He was very lucky. He was brought on the sites by his poor victims that did not care about dying and, of course, he was a sexual maniac, lunatic and socially dangerous. Quite certainly a stranger (well, there.....).
PS: the last paragraph is for fun. Well.....
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 08:02 am | |
Hello Simon I m just checking what I sent this morning and I see that there is one message lacking that was intended responding to you about your points on the blood and rigor mortis about the case of Annie Chapman (in your post of 09.07 last at 2.07 p.m.).
That is succintely what my answer said:
1. There was a lot of blood near the body of the victim (doctor Philips speaking about a large quantity of blood above the left shoulder and then about some less important patches on the fence and near the head). He concludes that this comes from the (quite) severing of the head.
The cut(s) in the neck having been with all probability the first wound it should also explain why the clothes were so relatively little smeared with blood even if the injuries in the abdomen were relatively important.
2. For the lack of blood splitting I can only spouse Ed Carter theory about the use of chloroform or a nearby product, the consequence of which have been confirmed to me by a friend who has a good experience as forensic doctor. He says that this would also explain the swollen face (not so swollen after all) and the laceration of the tongue.
3. For rigor mortis it seems (but it s really not from me I not having knowledge on the matter but from the same friend) that it could be explained by the coldness of the temperature.
Not the one of the temperature outside the body (the coldness of which should delay rigor mortis as it has already been explained also on these boards) but the one inside the body resulting from the body being open and the loss of the blood.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 11:28 am | |
Hello Simon again, concerning your very interesting remark "if only Cadoche had peeked over the fence..." it is very probable ( I am always in the scenario with the two Jacks in the yard and the other with Chapman) that Annie Chapman would not have been killed and another one would have been so some days later.
Seeing, let me call them "the two Jacks", and asking them what they were doing there they just could have answered "We are waiting for the market" and could have gone away. The third Jack, let me call him Jack the Boss would have then let down his victim as probably happened other times.
Let me remember you that Amelia Richardson stated at the inquest that about one month before she found on the stairs of the house or in the passage I do not remember well a man who when asked what he was doing simply answered "I am waiting for the market".
"About one month ago" was at the beginning of august when Martha Tabram was found dead not in Hanbury street but in George Yard.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 01:32 pm | |
Hello Ed,
since you seem to know a lot about everybody in every case may I ask you what do you know about John Richardson (aside that he knew very well the site of 29 Hanbury street and that he was on this site at a very interesting moment for a reason which is not really corroborated by his mother).
Was he Jew? (Chris-Michael seems not to believe it but I am not so sure)
Thank you. Bye. Graziano. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 02:42 pm | |
Grazianno, at the moment, I have been both researching Bucks Row and more recently, began working nights. Therefore this is the first time I have looked at the boards since my last post. However, I have an index book before me with several question marks concerning two names; the 'Greens' of Bucks Row, (does any on know if they had a daughter named Amelia)????
But very oddly, and it's quite amazing that the second names is John Richardson.
Was there anything else that made you so interested in him? ED |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 05:13 am | |
Hello Ed,
I was just wondering if there were in the East End a lot of jews merchants or other jews labourers that did their business from friday at sunset on till the Shabbat ended.
Bye. Graziano |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 04:50 am | |
Hello everybody,
some time ago I read on another board (I think it was one concerning Mary Kelly) that at the time it was possible to buy food at night or in the very early morning in the streets of the East End not only in the fish and chips shop but also in the Pubs.
It seems that at the time the opening hours were not regulated but by habit these Pubs closed about 12.00 p.m./2.00 a.m. and they opened again at 5.00 a.m.
Is it correct ?
The opening hours (5.00 a.m.) could fit with the fact that "a little food" (Doctor Phillips at the inquest) was found in the stomach of Annie Chapman.
I suppose that if this food had also been found in the intestines the Doctor would have told that also.
This could I think corroborate the time of her death at 5.30 and the sighting of Long.
But it poses the problem (seeing the popular "interest" in these crimes at the time) that a Pub tenancier or client should have come to the inquest saying that he served the food to the victim or that he saw her eating.
Added to this the problem:
- that Annie Chapman at 1.30 a.m. didn t have enough money to pay for her bed and she goes back out from the lodging house only with that purpose(even if I agree that does not mean she had not money at all),
-that she had already eaten (Baked potatoes seen by Timothy Donovan at 1.30/1,45 a.m.),
- that she was sick and tired, to sleep was her primarily need, and so that whatever the first money she had earned that night she would have used it to pay for the bed (or if it wasn t yet enough probably for rhum/beer since she had already had a meal),
Is it not difficult to believe that she paid for the little food found in her stomach ?
Little food that she bought in a whatever Pub (I think one was very near the 29 Hanbury street, at 19)?
Is it not more plausible that this little food could have been furnished to her by a well caring man (see in my previous posts what this could suggest) and even bought or offered in a precise Pub or other local ?
All that of course to gain her confidence to bring then her were it had been preestablished?
Of course another interpretation of the "little food" would be that in fact it was the "Donovan potatoes". But this would suggest that Annie Chapman would have been killed between 2.30 a.m. and 3.30 a.m.. This would be another story.
Any thoughts, anyone?
Thank. Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 09:47 am | |
Hi, Graziano:
Annie could have got food at any manner of establishments that sold food in the East End. Today we think of pubs serving food and "pub food" has become an English custom but that was not necessarily so in 1888. Food, hot or cold, would have been available in groceries, coffee shops, or "cook shops" many of them catering to men or women who were going to work in the early morning hours. I cannot prove it, but I personally have a belief that the Ripper bought his victims things and/or gave them gifts or money to win their trust. The possible potatoes eaten by Annie and Mary Jane Kelly, if they both ate potatoes within an hour or two before they were killed, might fall into the category of food bought by the murderer for his victim to lull them into trusting him. I also think that the Ripper not only possibly bought presents for his victims but robbed them afterwards, which explains why the victims had no money on them when they were found. To me, this implies a working class man rather an upper class individual (proponents of the Dr. Gull or Prince Eddy theories take note!).
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 02:15 pm | |
Aha - but how was a poor man going to afford to buy his 'girlfriends' presents , Chris ??? 
I have today got hold of a copy of ' When London walked in Terror ' by Tom Cullen , so I'll have a look through and see if there is anything interesting. I found this about Annie's murder already :
"...the murder must have taken place between 5.30am and 5.55am , a time when Hanbury Street would have been crowded with porters on their way to work at Spitalfields market. Among the unresolved problems The Times poses this one : ' He [ the murderer ] must have left the yard in Hanbury street reeking with blood and yet , if the theory that the murder took place between 5 and 6 be accepted , he must have walked in almost broad daylight along streets comparatively well frequented , even at that early hour , without his startling appearance attracting the slightest attention. ' " ( Cullen , page 82 )
Any ideas on this one ?
Simon |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 03:46 pm | |
Hello everybody,
why would be a leather apron rather "a dangerous thing to wear" as asked by Baxter to Mrs Richardson speaking about the apron of his son?
A leather apron a dangerous thing to wear????
Thank. Graziano. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 04:11 pm | |
Hello, Graziano:
The Coroner: Have you said something about a leather apron?
Mrs. Richardson: Yes, my son always wears a leather apron at his work in the cellar.
The Coroner: It is rather a dangerous thing for anybody to wear a leather apron at present. The Coroner: Have you ever washed your son's apron?
Mrs. Richardson: Yes, sir; I washed it last Thursday, because I found it in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. We are so slack. I put it under the tap in the yard and left it there till Saturday morning, when the police took it away. There was a pan of beautiful clean water under the tap on Saturday morning about half-past 7, after the body was moved. It could not have been disturbed. It was in the same position as on Friday night. [Transcribed from the inquest testimony in The Eastern Post & City Chronicle, 15 September 1888.]
Graziano, the police at the time were looking for a suspect of the name of "Leather Apron" who was allegedly threatening women with a knife and could possibly have been the murderer. The alleged suspect supposedly wore a leather apron. Baxter is not implying that it was dangerous to wear a leather apron at any other time, just that men who wore such aprons might be under suspcion of being the man the police sought, i.e., wearing a leather apron could be dangerous for them. I hope this explanation helps!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: graziano
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 04:23 am | |
Hello Chris George, thank, really a silly question but I just read the Daily Telegraph (awful transcription of the inquest) and the Times.
I realize now how important is to read all.
But you now how they say: "You ask once you are stupid only once, you never ask you are stupid all your life".
Thank again and bye.
Graziano.
PS: Have you seen the drawing in Paley s book ? |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 06:00 am | |
Simon,
What would have been startling about his condition?.I would expect there to have been blood on the hands,after all the intestines had been thrown over one shoulder,but hands in pockets could have concealed this,or he could have anticipated blood and taken cloth to clean himself.
As to his manner,he may not have shown signs that stood out from passing persons.Just onother fellow on his way to work.
Hanbury street may have had its share of porters
on the way to the markets,but a crowded street,I hardly think so.It was not the only access road that would need to be used.
Pass unnoticed if not unseen,was something he accomplished.A person of startlig appearance could hardly have done that.
Regards,
h.mann. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 07:36 am | |
Harry,
I'd go along with your view on Annie's killer. Though some of us may not like it, especially when reading of, and seeing photographs of the victims and their injuries, and you get that,"I wish I could have been a fly on the wall feeling", personally, I don't think he inflicted any of the injuries on the victims in anything other than a quick efficient way,- I don't believe he did it in a crazed berserk way,- even Mary Kelly's killing showed some order. I shall always think of Jack the Ripper as a man who was unbalanced in mind, and normal values held no value in his mind, but he wasn't a raving slobbering lunatic, nor did he suffer from attacks of that nature. Just remember, someone of that time, very likely more than one, looked Jack the Ripper in the eye either before or after one of these murders,-- and never suspected a thing!!
Regards Rick |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 05:28 am | |
Rick,
You are quite correct.Mad the killer may have been ,but quick and efficient nonetheless,and obviously one who would be quite unmoved at the carnage he created.
Yourself may remember the miners to and from their way to work.For about fifteen minutes either side of beginning or ending of shift,the approaches to mines,would be well patronised.outside of those times,especially the early morning start,hardly a movement.Hanbury street would have been no different in regard to the market porters.
Its been asked what the killer might have done if disturbed during a crime.The odds of there being more than one person to disturb him,appears small.A single policeman,a lone inhabitant at Hanbury street or millars court,a casual passerby.
What real danger did they present to him.Killing once more to protect himself should cause no remorse,and I think that the element of surprise would be on his side.Who would expect to stumble on to such a situation,and what would the reaction be.Surprise and uncertainty obviously,while he would be expected to be on guard against such an eventuallity.Remember too that he was the one that would be armed.
These of course are just my opinions.
H.Mann. |
Author: Ivy J
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 12:19 pm | |
| HI...I'm new to this site and I'm looking to find out if anyone has any information regarding the DAY of Annie Chapman's birth. I know she was born in September, but if anyone has the exact day, I'd like to know. Thanks!! |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 07:43 pm | |
| Tully says September but gives no evidence for this statement , Pamela Ball says March 2nd 1841. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 08:20 pm | |
With certainty , we can say that George Smith married Ruth Chapman on 22nd February 1842 at the new church of St James , Paddington , in London.
After that , things become a bit hazy.
The only record of a marriage between Eliza Smith and John Chapman that I can find is on 7th December 1862 , at St Andrews Church , Enfield , London. This is contrary to the information given in the A-Z which states Annie married at All Saints Church , Knightsbridge in 1869.
Can anybody clarify this data ? |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 03:42 pm | |
Annie Eliza Smith married John Chapman at All Saints Church, Ennismore Gardens, Knightsbridge on Saturday 1 May, 1869.
Wolf. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 06:34 pm | |
Simon,
Pamela Ball probably found out Annie Chapman's date of birth by gazing into her crystal ball.
It's a scrying shame!
Mick |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 03:22 am | |
Mick -
Why would she do that when she could just ask Annie herself? |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 01:36 pm | |
What documentary evidence do we have for the 1869 date , if any Wolf ? What source does it come from ?
Interestingly , this means Annie is marrying late - at the age of 28.
Simon |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 11:48 am | |
Simon -
Based on the phrasing Wolf used, I should say that his source is p. 12 of Neal Shelden's "Jack the Ripper and His Victims," (ISBN 0-9537691-0-0, 1999). Shelden is an excellent, thorough researcher, and I would take this source as trustworthy.
CMD |
Author: chris scott
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 05:56 pm | |
Ive found the 1881 census entry for Annie Chapman at her mother's address in Montpelier. The details are below:
ANNIE CHAPMAN:
Address:
29 Montpelier Place
London
RUTH SMITH (Head)
Born 1819 in Herstmonceux, Susses
Aged 62
Laundress
Widowed
FONTIN SMITH (Son)
Born 1861 in Knightsbridge, London
Aged 20
Stationer's assistant
Unmarried
GEORGEINA SMITH (Daughter)
Born Windsor, Berks
Aged 25
Laundress
Unmarried
ANNIE CHAPMAN (Daughter)
Born 1841 in Knightsbridge, London
Aged 40
Stud groom's Wife
JOHN CHAPMAN (Grandson/Visitor)
Born 1880 in Windsor, Berks
Aged 4 months
ANNIE CHAPMAN (Granddaughter/Visitor)
Born 1874 in St Georges, London
Aged 7
Scholar
EMILY CHAPMAN (Granddaughter)
Born 1871 in Knightsbridge, London
Aged 10
Scholar |
Author: Spryder
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 12:26 pm | |
The film footage of Hanbury Street found in James Mason's The London Nobody Knows is now available on the Casebook at:
http://www.casebook.org/images/hanbury.rm
(Requires RealPlayer - available for free at http://www.real.com. The download is about 2.5 Megs so it will take a bit of time for those with slower modems.)
Its barely a minute's worth of footage, but still a treasure for those of us who never had a chance to see 29 Hanbury in full color. It was destroyed soon after this film was made.
Thanks to David Schwenk, Tom Olsen and Judy Stock for this! |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 12:54 pm | |
Stephen, David, Tom, and Judy:
Thanks very, very much for this! I've always wanted to see this piece of footage. I didn't expect it to be in color to boot.
Best,
Dave |
Author: Tony Rutherford
Monday, 02 December 2002 - 07:24 pm | |
Just a quick word of thanks for this footage.
I've been trying in vain ( e mails and letters to the British Film Institute, Sussex Film Archive etc etc.) to get it for years. Absolutely fantastic.
Thanks again,
Tony |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 03:57 am | |
Spry et al -
Brilliant! Thanks to you all.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Lisa Jane Turner
Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 04:09 pm | |
| I have in my possession the Summer 1970 edition of 'Trumans Quarterly Journal'. It was some 3 years after the 1967 Mason documentary before the Hanbury site demolition. The actual time of demolition was April 1970. Inside it documents the site before demolition, during demolition, site clearance and the building of the brewery. There are some views of the original street taken from high up on the Bottling stores roof, and a rather sad vision of the wreckers ball amidst heaps of rubble. |
