|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:10 pm: | 
|
Cas,
The reason I mentioned Sickert was that I started the Chapman portion of the book at the same time Cornwell released her book. She threw down the gauntlet, I merely picked it up. In short, Sickert was the flavor of the day and still is. Two years ago it would have been Maybrick. Fact is, if the height of the fence is accurate, it could prove a lot people innocent.
John,
Therein is the rub. The height of the fence is not accurate. One of the main reasons I never followed through with the article.
Try as I, and several other people, might, we were not able to find a record of the fence in tax records, property records or anywhere else. The best available information is 5 feet six inches to six feet (no sh*t, I know). As a whole, students and experts of the crime can not agree on a lot of things let alone the height of the fence to the nearest inch.
Jon,
The handedness of the killer is based on the position of Polly Nichols' bonnet. This will cause a lot of controversy as we are talking about Annie Chapman. However, linkage analysis shows that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes (and I'll stop there for right now) all died by the same hand.
The bulk of the killers favorite hand evidence is found in the Nichols killing. There are shards in the others but the bulk is found in Nichols. Therefore, based on that scene, the evidence is consistent with the killer using his left hand to slice the throats of the victims. This is not to imply that the killer was left handed.
Monty,
There might be a lecture on The Efficiency of Movement in the near future. That section of the book is about finished, so, keep checking your e-mail. That has been rather difficult as it has a lot of numbers and experiment findings to record.
Peace,
Scott |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 213
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Scott,
Controversy ??..
....no sh....!!!
Monty
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 568
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Hi Scott
The trouble is, Chandler said the palings were only temporarily erected, so doesn't this mean that it's likely they were bought second hand as a stop-gap measure, and could have come from anywhere?
Do we know which side the fence belonged to - 29 or 27?
Robert |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 9:06 pm: |
|
Who's theory of "The efficiency of movement?"
Who's speculation on "linkage analysis?"
Any references available?
Thanks, Jon
|
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Scott,
"The handedness of the killer is based on the position of Polly Nichols' bonnet".
I don't know where you are going with the "position of the bonnet". Charles Cross or Robert Paul (in the dark, 3:30-3:50 AM) may have stepped on, sat on, kneeled on, moved or kicked the bonnet.
From Casebook, victims...
Come and look over here, there's a woman." Cross calls to Paul. Cross believes she is dead. Her hands and face are cold but the arms above the elbow and legs are still warm. Paul believes he feels a faint heartbeat. "I think she's breathing," he says "but it is little if she is."
Take care,
Kevin
|
Jack Traisson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 12:42 am: |
|
Scott,
What if Long is wrong about the height of the man she saw? Then finding an accurate fence height loses some relevance. The testimony of other witnesses does not support Long's, calling into question her reliability.
If Chapman's murderer was left-handed I would be very surprised. I am left-handed, and once tried to re-create all the injuries of the victims with the help of my girlfriend, who is 5'2". Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes, you single out above as being murdered by the same hand. All the injuries can easily, and naturally, be inflicted on these victims by a left-handed person in the proper postion, with the exception of Annie Chapman. The two cuts to her throat are very awkward to make with the left hand in several different postions, but are comfortably accomplished with the right hand.
I know you don't want to get into a discussion right now about handedness, and this is probably the wrong thread anyway. So, I can wait until you publish. You will have a difficult task, though, convincing me that Chapman was murdered by a left-handed assailant.
Cheers,
|
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 7:56 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I'm quite new to the boards and even brand new to this thread, so maybe I'm suggesting a possibility to determine the height of the fence which already has been studied and discarded long ago. Hopefully not, but if so, I'm sure you'll let me know.
Robert Clack suggested that if someone knew the size of a standard door frame in the 1880's it might give an idea to the size of the fence, but maybe it's easier with the size of a brick, which also then must have been about 8 inches wide (the ones in my house are 8,15 inches or 20,7 cm). Perhaps there's someone out there that knows the actual width of bricks used in those days.
You can see that the entrance to the cellar is one brick away from the steps. With the brick as your basis you could calculate the height of the fence. I did it in a 'slapdash' manner and I came to approximately 4'10" or 146 cm. But I can imagine that if you're more of a mathematician/expert than I am that you could get a more accurate calculation.
Of course, it all depends on whether the fence in the photo was the actual fence.
Good luck,
Frank |
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 6:59 am: |
|
I don't think the fence shown in the photographs, will be the same fence that was in position in 1888. There is a reference that the 1888 fence was a temporary one , and was knocked down shortly after the murder. |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 10:24 am: |
|
Hi Jack,
I hope your girlfriend still lives?! 
Take care,
Frank |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 3:51 am: |
|
Hi everyone.
I believe we can assume that the fence at the time was under 5 ft in height, therefore how come Cadoche, did not see any figures on the other side of the fence,if his report is true, the the only answer is both victim and attacker, were lower then the fences height at the time.
explanation.
Mrs Long, said she saw a man of shabby gential appearence talking with Chapman, they entered the backyard for a quickie.The man then left Chapman in the backyard proberly at ground level , while she recovered her composure, then the killer who had observed the couple enter the yard, and the man leave , entered the passage and approached the yard entrance and sat on the top step, and then suddenly sprang on the unsuspecting woman, who just had a chance to mutter NO. No, and that was what Cadoche heard and both figures would have been beneath fence height.
A possible occurence, infact I believe that the Ripper observed his victims soliciting themselves, or appearing to solicit , before he moved in.
Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 85
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 10:14 am: |
|
Interesting thought, Richard. But why do you propose a different killer than the man seen talking with Chapman earlier? No one saw this man leave and another man enter. Furthermore, the "quickie" would have been performed leaning up againt the fence, as was the custom of the day among streetwalkers, and not at ground level.
Andy
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 5:33 am: |
|
Hi Andy,
I was just trying to make sense of Cadouches statement, if he was in his side of the garden , and the fence was under five feet high, and he heard a thud against the fence and a woman say NO, but did not see any movement from the yard, he either had his back to number29, and missed seeing anyone, before they went below fence level. or he was in eyeshot of number 29, .
I believe he stated that he was on his way back into the house, therefore he would surely have noticed figures if they were in a upright position.
So my point was chapman and her killer must have been in the yard , as Cadouche made his way back inside, as you rightly stated a quickie would proberly occured against the fence, but he saw no one, therefore Chapman must have been below fence level when the attack took place, therfore to suggest she may have sat down to rest after her ordeal, lets not forget she had been out all night, was not a well woman, and would have been exhausted.
Of course her killer could have the man Mrs Long saw and he could have been sitting on the step, but that would imply that he had sex with his victim first[ not proven in these murders]
So I Came to the conclusion, that her killer attacked her whilst she was on the floor of the yard, and as the thud against the fence occured whilst Cadouce was walking parrallel with the fence the killer must have pounced on Chapman from beneath fence level. so unless both victim and killer entered the yard in a hunched condition, and assuming the Ripper never was intimate with his victims, the attack proberly occured from another person, who moved in on her from a lower position , thus the step,
I hope you can make sence of my ramblings.
Regards Richard. |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 45
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 9:08 pm: |
|
Regards the fence, if it was a temporary (Not doubting you Tommy) the height may well have been under five feet but the height depends on the use, how insecure the owner was and if there were standardized lumber sizes in 1888. Frank, I would think that the door size would give a better indication of the height of the fence as they would be pretty much a standard size. The window size would also give a good indication. However, if Tommy is right, it is a moot point. (I would like to see the reference Tom, if you can remember it.) Maybe Cadoche just wasn't paying a lot of attention.
Jack: as a fellow southpaw I question your reasoning for one reason only. I am not well versed in using a knife other than for very utilitarian purposes. I suspect JtR would have been far more adept. While the wounds might have been difficult they would not have been impossible but I do commend you for your experiment. A lot would depend on the weapon and the person wielding it. Kindst regards, Neil |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 155
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 11:11 am: |
|
Hi Neil,
Good point, using the door size as an indication of the height of the fence. In the picture above the door is about 5.3 cm (2.12 inches), whereas the fence is about 4.6 cm (1.84 inches). Now the only thing we need is a standard size for a door.
Take care,
Frank |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 119
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 12:03 pm: |
|
At the inquest, Albert Cadosch said "The palings were about 5 ft. 6 in. in height." However, John Davis told the inquest the fence was "about 5 ft. high" and on October 19 Swanson sent a report to the Home Office in which he wrote "... a wooden fence about 5 feet high." So, you can figure on the height as between 5-0 and 5-6."
Don. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 650
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 11:06 am: |
|
......Tumblety was how tall ?
Monty
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 4:00 am: |
|
Monty,
I have been unreliably informed that if Tumblety removed his drop dead hat and 5 inch high-heeled sling-backs, took a pumice-stone to the hard skin on his feet, flattened down his hair and slouched a bit, he only measured 5 feet 5 and three-quarter inches.
Bingo.
Love,
Caz
2 Tall Storeys
Tumbledown Yard
Hadham-By-The-Crutch
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 660
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 11:17 am: |
|
Caz,
I commend your unreliable informant.
Not named Hutchinson or Packer by any chance ??
....or Ed Izzard ?
Monty
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 318
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 6:55 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Does anyone know if all the rooms at 29 Hanbury Street were thoroughly searched and if all of its residents were given a complete "check up"? From a c.5 point of view, I'd regard this murder as the anchor for all the rest. It doesn't seem to generate the interest that most of the other murders do however, I fear, because poor Annie was not as attractive as the other victims.
Goodies,
Stan |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 924
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Good to see this thread kickstarted back into operation...
Good question Stan....
I've heard the fence was only around 5 foot tall...Can we start in on Cadosch and his absurd claim as to hearing anything?
Cadosch wanted a day off from work so he could be important.....for his 15 minutes.....Anyone else feel this way?
Just my gut feeling about this critter.....
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 562
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 8:32 pm: |
|
Hi there Howie dear,
I have very grave suspicions about our Albert. Having spent so long in the back yard of Hanbury Street as it were doing the reconstructions I have to say that fence is way too open to have concealed anything that went on in the back yard of no 29 that morning.
The palings were so far apart and broken that Blind Pugh could have seen what was going on next door.
Not only that but the timing of his statement doesn't work. There was a gap of a few minutes between the word 'No' and the bump against the fence. It just doesn't add up.
Tack Richardsons every changing statement onto that and I think you have enough to cast a least a fair amount of doubt on both of their testimonies.
so your gut feeling is pretty much spot on as far as I am concerned.
Hugs
Jane
xxxxx
 |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 730
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Howard,
The fence is variously described as between 5 and 5 feet 6 inches high. And no, I don't feel the way you do about Albert. If he wanted his 15 minutes and more I would think he would have had a much more elaborate story to tell. He strikes me as a guy whose bowels were bothering him and who had heard far too many trysting (how's that for a polite word?) couples next door to take much interest.
Anyway, I hope your "feeling" in your gut doesn't end up causing the distress Albert may have had that morning.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 319
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Hello How et al.,
I hadn't thought too much about Cadosch (for some reason, I'd always pictured him as an elderly man) but his age of around 33 is a good one for an rookie serial killer. It would have required some gymnastics on his part hopping the fence to get back over to #27.
If they didn't do it, the police should have given every chap from 15-45 who lived in the near proximity a good going over. You wouldn't have to worry about walking through the streets at dawn with blood on your clothing if you didn't have to go onto the street to get home.
Goodies,
Stan |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 714
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
Hi all
Don - I agree with you.
I read the SMITHKEY yesterday and it states categorically (unless his source is wrong) that the fence in use at the time was a closed clinker fence; no gaps between the boards. I have also always read it was 5 feet 5 inches tall.
I have looked at copies of the actual statements in some of the murders and timings are hand-altered all the time.
I say Cadosh heard Annie say "No" and gasp when he went to the toilet, his curiousity was aroused, and he went back a couple of minutes later - the thud he heard was Jack in his frenzy working his was around the body and accidentally hitting the fence.
Cadosh as AC's killer? No way. No way on earth.
I also don't agree AC is largely overlooked as she was less attractive; that seems to be a very vacuous view. I have always seen Annie as being interesting because of her stable background before she tramped to London - she really could have, if she had stayed sober, had a normal life.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 927
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
Thanks Phil...That makes around 4 variations of the fence !! Dammit !
An accurate,bona fide,first hand description of this fence is required,because there are some gaps,maybe not in the fence, but in this story that Cadosch offered....
My dear Jane knows of what I speak.
I don't care who it is...no one reacts to noises two feet away from them when they think they are all alone in the A.M. right after a pit stop in the loo like Cadosch did.
Anyone who has ever walked a dog and heard a noise like a thump or a woman saying "No.." at 4:30 knows what I am driving at.
The people next door to Cadosch had been recently robbed...and this guy isn't the least bit curious to look over a fence that my 10 year old daughter could...and would?
Hugs and kisses Jane ! |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 563
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
Hi gang,
I have to stick to my guns about the fence being about 5ft high and pretty open.
Here are two contemporary sketches of the back yard.....and as they both agree with each other totally and with the witness statements that we do have I feel compelled to go along with them, especially as it was described as a temporary make shift fence that was very rickety.
However I do feel that I want to give Albert the benefit of the doubt here concerning his motives and although I don't think that he did hear the murder of Annie, I do think he believed he heard something suspicious and was telling the truth as he heard it.
The only way I can think that he might have missed actually seeing the murder is if Annie and her killer were already at ground level and he might have conceivably missed them if that was the case.
This would of course mean the word 'No' came whilst Annie was on the ground and then I could accept that the other bump was Jack hitting against the fence as he performed the mutilations. So possibility there in my opinion which I hadn't thought of before.
Interesting thread.
Jane
xxxxxxx
  |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 320
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Hi all,
I didn't say that the murder was overlooked Philip, I said that it generated less interest for some reason. Just look at the posts. Everyone, except Nicholls, is multiples of Chapman. I said her murder was the anchor.
Goodies,
Stan |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 731
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
Jane,
Here is another drawing, from the September 10, 1888, Star that would indicate a more substantial fence.
As for Albert, we of course have the advantage of him in that we know there was dirty work going on in the backyard next door -- he didn't. It seems reliable that the yard, with its open passage from the street, was used by couples and individuals for all sorts of mischief, not to mention the usual traffic by residents using the privvy. It is only in retrospect that the events that morning should have aroused his curiousity.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 715
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Hi Jane.
Your first jpeg from the cover of the PENNY ILLUSTRATED PAPER of 15th September 1888 does not match the fence in the IPN of the same date, which shows said fence as being higher and totally solid. The different illustrations in the IPN of 22nd September and 29th September also show the fence as solid.
I have no doubt whatsoever the second illustration was plagarised from the first without being present on the scene.
Thus we are no closer to an answer!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 564
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
Is this the one you were thinking of Phil?
I personally don't think that the Star version or this one are accurate, simply because the drawing style in them is what I call a 'really lazy and can't be bothered to draw things in properly' style.
The two that I put up are done by extremely skilled artists with a fine eye for detail and you have taken a lot of trouble to draw those palings in individually........the one from the Star and the one below are obviously done quickly because the editor told them to get them done before they went to lunch......so I have to favour the sketches that show artisitic integrity over the 'let me get down the pub' ones.
Just from an artistic point of view I am fairly convinced that the second picture I put up was not a copy of the other one but done from the scene, because it is from a different perspective and no artist copying another drawing would consider doing it from another angle like that unless they were totally deranged as if it extremely hard to change angles successfully.......also there is something draped over the fence in the second drawing which smacks to me of drawing from life. I really don't think that any artist would put that there just for the sake of it.
Looking at the angles of both, I would swear that one was sitting on an artists stool, one standing up and they were drawing from life. Just my opinion.
I would love to see any other shots you have of it though if it is easy to get them on the board. I am sure everyone else would too,
Hugs Jane
xxxx
Oh thanks for the Star one by the way Don, haven't got that one.........xxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on September 07, 2005) |
Gordon Bennett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
The pictures produced by Jane Coram seem to throw doubt on Cadoche's testimony.
If he failed to see something, he must have had very poor eyesight (and it was still twilight or dark), or considered himself to be too busy to get involved or not been at all alarmed by what he heard, only seeing the significance later, or he was threatened into silence but stil wanted to put himself forward as a weak witness, or you could say that one kept one's nose out of whatever was happening around you.
Fearful times for all, and a fearful area. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Guys,
Chapman Inquest testomony. Just some things Monty thought interesting (Bold my emphasis).
John Davis.
Coroner] Will you describe the yard? - It is a large yard. Facing the door, on the opposite side, on my left as I was standing, there is a shed, in which Mrs. Richardson keeps her wood. In the right-hand corner there is a closet. The yard is separated from the next premises on both sides by close wooden fencing, about 5 ft. 6 in. high.
Sidenote...it seems as if a plan was requested by Baxter, see..
The Coroner: I hope the police will supply me with a plan. In the country, in cases of importance, I always have one.Inspector Helson:
[Insp Helson] We shall have one at the adjourned hearing.
The Coroner: Yes; by that time we shall hardly require it.
James Kent.
The feet were lying towards the back of Bayley's premises. (Witness indicated the precise position upon a plan produced by the police-officers).
Seems a plan was produced.
Albert Cadoshe.
As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. 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.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
Montys conclusions? Not that they are important.
The fence constisted of 'close wooden fencing'. To me, the pallings were very close together.
The fence was 5 foot six inches high. This is verified by two seperate witnesses.
Albert Cadoshe is not as hooky as some make out.
Regards,
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 928
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Monty:
Thank you for supplying the two sources.
Check this out,buddy....
"[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
If Cadosche had wanted to peruse the scene, he would have been understandably pressed if the fence was 6 feet tall !!!
Now,I'm not arguing the Inquest material or the testimonies [ Davis, Kent..]...but there's a degree of difference for a man to claim 5 ft. 6 and then say possibly 6 foot.
Then,Montgolfier, take this into consideration...
In a fairly recent Ripper Notes,issue 21, Dan Norder included the Norman Hastings
story ,"When The People Walked In Terror...".
On page 45, there's a picture of the backyard with the caption that claims the fence was 4 feet high.
I'm not sure if this aspect of the Hastings story has been discredited as erroneous. If it has then perhaps there isn't a TWO FOOT discrepancy regarding the fence.
Back to you ,Monty.... |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 777
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:03 pm: |
|
No matter how close or far apart the palings were it is important to find out if the sun was up yet when Cadosch was in the yard. If it was pitch black outside he might have been unaware for that reason alone.
In 1964 in New York City Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death. There were 28 witnesses. Nobody intervened. Cadosch is hardly unique. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 734
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Jane,
Remember, the Star people were working on deadline and whatever drawing they came up with couldn't be quickly turned into a convenient PMT, far less scanned and then electronically dropped on the page. The sketch (and it may have been the crude work of a reporter not an artist) was turned into a woodcut (or possibly engraving by then) and used. Indeed, one major reason for the unflattering depictions of the victims in contemporary newspapers was that the final result lay with the wood-cut craftsmen.
The two drawings you produced are quite nice artistically (though there is a certain sameness to them despite the slight change in perspective) because their publications had the luxury of time. Still, I can't really believe the artist was able to set up in the backyard of 29 Hanbury to draw at leisure. More likely the artists grabbed a few minutes time in an adjacent yard or building (which might account for why your two drawings were at least similar) for some hurried sketches and then completed the job later on a more comfortable schedule.
As for which of the two versions I would accept, I would not be influenced by the apparent crudity of the drawings with close-fitting palings (after all, we accept the accuracy of the in situ drawing of Eddowes and her wounds and yet it is so crude that one of her legs is half again as long as the other), but rather that they do agree with the inquest testimony. But then I may be more inclined to the verbal rather than visual.
Howard,
Once again I think you asking too much of people. Asked something he may never have thought about before, the height of his backyard fence, Cadoche probably thought along the lines of "Hmmm, as tall as I'm, 5-6, no maybe a little taller, maybe 6 feet, somewhere in there." After all, a 6-inch difference between 5-6 and 6-0 is a lot less meaningful than that between 3 inches and 9 inches. Heck, there is a fence and gate where I live and I've used it almost daily now for seven years and I can only guess it is maybe 4-feet high. I'll measure tomorrow to see.
As for Hastings, there are some interesting parts of his articles (not the least being a refutation of the Chapman-is-the-Ripper theory that is as good as you'll get today), but it is also rife with statements we know now are inaccurate and I would certainly think the 4-foot fence is one of them.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 565
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Hi Don.
I take you point.........I think to be honest it was probably a cross between the two extreme versions,that is gapped but not enough to see through that clearly. At the end of it, people are going to make up their own minds, so it is six to one and half a dozen to the other.
There are a couple of points that lead me still to lean towards a fence with gaps of some sort and that is that the term used 'paling' is indicative of a fence of that nature. The dictionary describes a paling as a fence made of stakes or pickets, rather than planking and that is exactly what is shown in those two drawings.....
The other thing I seem to remember and goodness only knows where from is that a couple of days after the murder the police went back and there was something to do with a gap or break in that fence and for the life of me I can't think where I saw it and what the exact details were.
If anyone can throw any light on that I would be grateful, because I did start off with fence closed in and then got told that was wrong so made it more open and now that apparently isn't right either so I am about to head for the razor blades.
I do have to say as a final shot across the bows, that the Star Newspaper bless them were not known for their accuracy........and in fact the good old Illustrated Police News did in fact fall short of perfection on many occasions - so basically I do worry a tad about their renditions of anything.
Reading Monty's post above (a scholar and a gentleman)which uses the term 'a close wooden fencing' I think that they were posts, but quite close together as opposed to solid.
I rest my (de)fence.
Hugs
Janie
xxxx |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
How, Diana,
Diana,
Bingo re Albert.
How,
Firstly, its how high the yard fence was in 1888 that matters.
One person who lives there puts the fence at 5’6”
Another who lives next door but shares the same fence puts it at 5’6” to 6’.
5’6 is a pretty specific number. Not rounded off as 5 to 6 foot. No its 5’6” to 6’. Also to be considered is that this person was a carpenter.
And the difference, as you know, is six inches (cue wisecracks). Up close and peering over, a difference. Just mulling in a yard, negligible.
And why would he want to peruse next door?
Cheers,
Monty
PS Jane.
The other thing I seem to remember and goodness only knows where from is that a couple of days after the murder the police went back and there was something to do with a gap or break in that fence and for the life of me I can't think where I saw it and what the exact details were.
The details are on the JtR Forums site.
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 176
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 5:14 am: |
|
It might be prudent I think,to know whether there was anything on Cadoche's side of the fence,that prevented him from seeing what was going on in the backyard of 29,at that precise spot.
Everything that has been written is from a view of being in the backyard of 29.I don't suppose anyone at that time went into Albert's backyard to verify if he would have been able to see anything,and it is a bit late now. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 931
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 6:03 am: |
|
Don:
I don't know about "asking too much from people" in regard to this Cadosch question for one simple reason.
Cadosch [ or anyone else here ] is not being asked to give an exact height...Cadosch knew how tall he was in proportion to the fence...It was either taller or shorter than he was.
Therefore based on that, his answer should have been more definitive, not necessarily definite...and probably closer to the 5 ft. 6 in. estimate. Had it been 6 ft tall [ taller than him]...he should have said as much without the uncertainty and discrepancy.
If I am standing next to two different men and one is 5'6" [ shorter ] or 6'3" [taller]...I'd know what to answer if someone queried me in their heights,at least with a better ballpark estimate.
Monty...
Why wouldn't he want to peruse the next yard? Because the shed had been broken into just prior to Sept. 8th and the recent Nichols murder was known to one and all.... Curiosity killed the cat,but doesn't seem to have phased Cadosch. A total indifference to the alleged cry of "No.." from a woman...no interest in a banging noise very early in the morning in the next yard where a theft had occurred....no passing glance from the top of the stairs as he re-entered 27 Hanbury...
Maybe its me,but it doesn't seem too much out of line to wonder why Cadosch seems like an automaton at the worst possible time for Mrs. Chapman.
Oh and by the way...Cadosch was a carpenter. Carpenters are usually pretty good at determining heights...or is that too much to assume from a man who makes his living at measuring things ?
|
Terry Lane
Sergeant
Username: Tel
Post Number: 11
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
That's the rub Harry - there could have been a grand piano up against the fence on the other side for all we know.
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 720
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
I just thought of something else quite prudent arising from Don's observations.
What is to say the illustration(s) is/are of 29 Hanbury Street?
Remember that when Fred West was arrested in 1994 some of the tabloids ran photos of his cellar - which were actually from a house further up Cromwell Street.
If they couldn't get access then I can't see why they wouldn't go to another house of similar proportions in the same street, sketched it and passed it off as bona fide.
I'd like to know what that domed spire is in the distance. On my 1894 map I can't see anything that would account for it from the yard of 29.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1858
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
How,
Why wouldn't he want to peruse the next yard? Because the shed had been broken into just prior to Sept. 8th and the recent Nichols murder was known to one and all.
Nichols was murdered in the open. As was Smith. Tabram was killed in the passage of a communal building, not a private yard. Knowledge of Nichols was known to most true but as of that stage it was felt that these were unconnected prostitute murders. Its with Chapmans demise the public realisation dawns that a killer was on the loose. Also, he admits that he has heard people come and go from the yard. Hell, he may have even known what it was used for and wished to ignore it.
... Curiosity killed the cat,but doesn't seem to have phased Cadosch. A total indifference to the alleged cry of "No.." from a woman...no interest in a banging noise very early in the morning in the next yard where a theft had occurred....no passing glance from the top of the stairs as he re-entered 27 Hanbury...
But is wasn’t a bang nor was it a cry as such, was it? No yell….no yell of murder or a request for help. Just a ‘no’ and a thud. Would you look on that alone?
Maybe its me but it doesn't seem too much out of line to wonder why Cadosch seems like an automaton at the worst possible time for Mrs. Chapman.
Cadosch acted like any other witness. To chastise him for not looking over or through the fence is indeed severe. The simple reason is that he was preoccupied and was paying no real attention to next doors activities. Something most of us have done day in day out.
Oh and by the way...Cadosch was a carpenter. Carpenters are usually pretty good at determining heights...or is that too much to assume from a man who makes his living at measuring things ?
My point exactly. 5’6 seem a certain estimation. I feel he added 6’ to either cover his ass on not looking (realising at the inquest that this issue was what the jurors and coroner were hinting at) or out of professional pride in case he was out on the height.
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
You're forgetting the time of day. Cadosche had just gotten up. If he was like me, he was a zombie, a walking automaton till he got his coffee (or whatever he did to wake up).
We've all experienced waking up with a call of nature, stumbling to the facility, using it, and staggering, half dopey back to bed or if it was morning to our preparations for the day. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 566
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 8:54 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
That is actually a good thought, about it possibly being another yard.......but in fact if you look at the photograph of the yard that we know and love, there are the fixtures still visible of where the canopies were attached over the door and cellar and unless every single yard in the street had the same ones exactly then it has to be the same yard.........
Interesting idea though.
Janie
xxxx
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 737
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Howard,
I'll try one more time. Albert has a job to get to and since he recently had an operation has probably been out of work for a while. We don't know what sort of operation, but since he mentioned it in regard to his two trips the loo it was doubtless still bothering him in some way. He doesn't want to be late because it could cost him job. Indeed, employment in those days was such that unlike your suggestion that Albert made up his story so he get a day off, understand he not only didn't get paid for any time he lost testifying but again it could have cost him his job. This was still the time of "Show up for work on Saturday or don't show up on Monday."
He is bothered by his operation, his bowels and who knows what else is on his mind but it is a fair bet that Jack the Ripper is the very least of his thoughts. He hears noises next door but takes little notice because that sort of thing is common (my urban visitors are always spooked that you'll see and hear deer, foxes, turkeys, coyotes etc. in our backyard -- I long since stopped noticing). He is probably only dimly aware, if at all, of Polly Nichols's murder and quite likely had not even heard of a recent robbery next door.
He has a life to lead as best he can and not having the luxury of looking back 117 years like we can he doesn't know that Annie Chapman is being robbed of her rings and womanhood a few feet away. Nor was there any reason for him to. Nor is there any particular reason for him to take notice of the height of the fence separating the yards or of any other details. For us September 8,1888, is a momentous day, but for Albert Cadoche at that moment it was just another day of work, worrying about his operation and who knows what else -- probably everything but JtR.
Maybe its me,
No offense, but I think it is your great interest in the Ripper murders that colors your opinion about Cadoche's actions that morning. After all my friend, even most of us on the boards aren't apt to hide wallets in the water or "murderously" attack innocent blocks of plastic. You are an enthusiast and that is no mean thing, but it may prevent you from judging Cadoche objectively. Of course, I'm sure most of us wish that Albert Cadoche had bothered to peek over the fence that morning, but that he didn't I, at least, think is perfectly understandable.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 932
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Monty...
Good points. Well taken...
Don:
You're right as rain about my great interest...and likewise I can get carried away at times and be subjective. Jane thinks I'm perfect...but I ain't. I may be judging him unfairly. Points taken.
Being reminded of Albert's problems..and maybe as Diana said about the morning coffee [ she ain't wrong..I walk into walls ]..okay...maybe his story isn't so fishy.
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 738
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Howard,
Jane thinks I'm perfect...
Yeah, but a perfect what? 
Anyway, while not as enthusiastic as you are I did bother to measure that gate today. Having never given it much thought I guessed a 4-foot height sitting at the computer last night. Turns out the gate measures 3-6, but there is gap between the ground and bottom that varies between 4 to 6 inches. I am guessing that the fence boards at 29 didn't rest on the ground (lest rot set in quickly) so maybe that accounted for some of the uncertainty in Albert's answer.
By the way, when you submerge the wallet will there be money in addition to rail tickets? I may want to go fishing in the Schuykill.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 935
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Don:
Yeah,there will be some loot..but only for the fishes what live there... I'm leaving a pair of fins*
*for all you Brits a fin is 5 dollars.
(Message edited by howard on September 08, 2005) |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 757
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
Although I know I’m a little late and you already seem to have given up the idea of rather wide gapes between the palings, I still have some additional comments. Don’t go heading for those razor blades!
“Some portions of the yard were composed of earth and others of stones. It had not been properly paved. Some of the stones were flat while others were round.”
This is what Inspector Chandler said at the inquest when he described the yard. This would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the first sketch you put up. Although in ‘your’ second sketch it’s unclear how the yard was paved (or not), the window above the cellar clearly doesn’t match the window in the famous (1960’s?) photograph, which makes the accuracy of that sketch doubtful too, I think.
Furthermore, Cadosch was in the yard only minutes before the sun rose (if I’m not mistaken, it rose at 5:25 am), so if the gaps between the palings would have been as clear as those two sketches suggest, I think he would have been able to see the couple through the fence, regardless of whether they were at ground level or not. Another pointer for me would be that the Coroner explicitly asked Cadosch if he “had not the curiosity to look {over}” the fence. If he could have seen through it, which must have been easier, why would he have needed look over it?
“The other thing I seem to remember and goodness only knows where from is that a couple of days after the murder the police went back and there was something to do with a gap or break in that fence and for the life of me I can't think where I saw it and what the exact details were.”
Directly after describing the pavement Inspector Chandler continues by saying that the palings were only temporarily erected, although they might support the weight of a man while he was getting over them. There was no evidence of anyone having recently got over them and there was no breakage then, although by the time Chandler testified at the inquest palings had been broken.
By the way, thanks for posting those sketches.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 573
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:47 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Some good points there, thanks........
The windows at the back were actually the original ones and that large window from the 1960's photo was a replacement put in when the shop from was remodelled some little time after the murder. (Not sure of the exact date it was done.)
So the sketches are accurate in that respect. As to the paving stones....I think I can see what is going on there. If you look at the two other sketches......the one that Don put up and the other one I found below that..... the first sketch I put up does actually agree with those more or less exactly. It seems that the part of the yard by the fence was paved with those slabs and the other half was rough and loose stones as shown in the Star clipping.
So the description was accurate and so are all four pictures.
Not only that but if you look at the 1960's photo the original paving stones by the fence are still there and more or less accord with the drawings, allowing for repairs etc.,
So I am not too worried about the paving slabs or the window.
However the point you made about the light quality and him being able to see through if probably about right, which is why I think that the final conclusion I came to, after all the toing and froing is that the fence was palings made of picket or stakes, but quite close together and that the fence in the first two sketches I put up is accuratish, but the gaps between them is exaggerated and they should be closer together,
This would also exonerate Albert largely as he could hardly be expected to interrupt his journey to the loo to put his eye to the fence gap and squint in the semi darkness to see if Jack the Ripper was next door killing someone!
I think adding together what everyone has put up pro and con that I have reached a happy place now, where I am satisfied that it it a workable solution, fitting all the facts and leaving Albert at least guilty of nothing more than a weak bladder.
Thanks for the info about the broken fence as well, very useful.
Hugs Jane
xxxxx |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Diana: "it is important to find out if the sun was up yet when Cadosch was in the yard".
The sun had only just risen and was extremely low in the sky. The following is a screenprint from an astronomical program I have, showing the sun's position in the London sky at 01:21 on 8th Sept 1888:
So, the sun had already risen. However, including the horizon for London's longitude/latitude (effectively the London "skyline") shows that the sun was only just clipping the land:
Even though Hanbury St runs almost exactly from East to West, with Annie's murder taking place directly *East* of Cadoche's house, the back yard of both 29 and 27 Hanbury Street would only have been murkily lit on the morning in question.
In addition, as you can see from the second image, the sun was rising more in the South East and its feeble early light would have hit Hanbury St at an oblique angle. In all likelihood its early rays would not yet have been able to shine into the back yard of number 29 at all until some time later, when it had cleared the rooftops sufficiently.
Taking these factors into account, any illumination in the back gardens of numbers 29 and 27 is likely to have been quite dim and ambient. Probably not even sufficient to cast a shadow on the fence, or to allow adequate seeing conditions for a bleary-eyed Cadoche to make out any definite shapes through the gaps in the slats.
|
Gordon Bennett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
The IPN sketch - artist low down, fence looming.
The first 'good' sketch - artist high up, fence less impressive.
That's right isn't it, Jane? |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 182
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
Gareth,
Can it also be established,whether the sky was clear or overcast,and if the latter,sufficent to block out light from the sun. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
Harry,
Can it also be established,whether the sky was clear or overcast,and if the latter,sufficent to block out light from the sun.
Not from my astronomy program, but if anyone else can provide that info from contemporary reports it'd be a nice detail to have.
However, Hanbury St runs almost precisely East-West and only the South-facing fronts of the houses would have been facing the dawn in the South-East. Consequently the back yards would have been in shadow until a good time later that morning, even if the sky were crystal clear. The low position of the sun and the oblique angle it cast on Hanbury St strongly suggests that the back yards of numbers 27 and 29 would have been very gloomy at the time in question.
Curiously enough I think we have a very strong indicator available on film. Now I don't know at what time of the day or year James Mason visited the murder scene in his film The London that Nobody Knows, but I'll bet it wasn't at the ungodly hour of 05:20h! Bearing that in mind, it is apparent from that footage just how murky the light was in Hanbury Street, even in the mid-20th Century.
|
maco
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 2:16 am: |
|
I'd like to call into question this concept of the bump on the fence that Cadoche heard (assuming his words accurate) being due to Jack doing his mutilations or whatever.
To me this seems very unlikely and we must have an alternative explanation for the sound. I would think it unusual and unlikely that either
a) Jack was moving around Chapman's body enough to bang the fence
OR
b) his arms/weapon struck the fence upon proceding through the post-mortem mutilations.
From what I've seen there seems to have been enough room for Jack to do what he did without being that cramped (relatively speaking). Are there any dimensions as to how far from the fence Chapman's body was found?
I'm not too sure if it's well-known what position Jack was in while Chapman was on the ground (post-mortem), but that info could give a hint to the noise. Especially if his back was to the fence (was there room?) which would have made it harder for Cadoche to see him and might have made him bump the fence with his feet (were Jack knealing). I believe there was blood on the fence, which might have been due to the primary inflicted wound when the fence was exposed (still keeping with the back-to the-fence theory).
Anyway, doesn't it seem unlikely the sound came after the initial attack?
I'd like to hear what you all have to say about the matter. Cheers! |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page