|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 198
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 8:07 am: |       |
Hi,
Another uninspired question from Monty that seems irrelevant to thee but important to me.
The yard of 29 Hanbury st....or more specifically the fence.
In Eddlestons book he states as fact that the fence was 5 1/2ft high (Myths & Errors chapter).
Is this correct ?
If so how was this info obtained ? I cannot find it anywhere else.
Any help would be gratefully recieved.
Cheers,
Monty
 |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 106
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 8:31 am: | |
Your questions are never uninspired and always about something sensible, Monty.
I can only say (as you've no doubt observed) it looks right from the photos and illustrations of the yard. Maybe Edleston found it in a contemporary newspaper report and none of the rest of us have either spotted it or kept it in our notes.
All the best,
Martin F |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 200
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 9:08 am: | |
Martin,
See, these things get to me.....but thank you for your response.
The reason I ask is that some witness descriptions (yes, I know exactly how reliable they are...not) state that the killers height was around 5'7 (PC Smith, Mssrs Packer,Brown & Lewande) to 5' 11" (granted, this is Schwartz's Pipeman).
These heights would have exceded the fence height so therefore a tip of head would have been seen by Cadoche.
Other witnesses describe a short (Mary Cox) man around 5'5" (Best & Gardner, Schwartz's 1st man) or 5'6" (Marshall).
Granted, Albert made no attempt to "look over" the the fence but surely he would have glanced that way (also, was Cadoche standing on the steps leading down to the yard? Would that make any difference?).
I know we are talking witness descriptions and minimal differences in height but if Mr Eddleston is exactly correct then would this fact bring certain suspects to the fore and push others (Im talking of Tumblety, Sickert) to the back ?
See, I have my reasons !!
PS, I agree, the fence does look 5.5 feet high but then again, I look 21 !!
Cheers,
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 496
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 10:01 am: | |
Hi Young Monty
Cadosch estimated the height of the fence as being five foot six, at the inquest. I've no idea whether that was the exact height, but Cadosch was a carpenter and presumably used to dealing in lengths of wood, so I suppose it's as good a guess as any.
Also, five foot four and three quarter inches, etc, would be a funny height for anyone to make a fence to, wouldn't it?
Robert |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 11:17 am: | |
Hi All,
Young Mr. Monty asks:
"(also, was Cadoche standing on the steps leading down to the yard? Would that make any difference?)."
According to the Daily Telegraph's coverage of the inquest, Cadoche testified:
"As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door."
I don't know if the back door of #27 Hanbury had steps leading up to it in the same manner as #29, but if it did, he must have been standing on the steps if he was just going through the door.
As far as the height of the fence, Cadoche gave this estimate:
"The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high."
I would also suggest that at the moment the "No" was heard, the Ripper was likely in the process of physically subduing Chapman, and not likely to have been standing fully upright.
So, it could still have been Tumblety :-)
Cheers,
Jim
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 499
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 5:46 pm: | |
Hi all
It's amazing - he's prepared to operate with Cadosch clomping in and out of his yard next door, but he's either so jittery - or so nonchalant - that he doesn't bother to wash his hands in the pan of water.
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 7:28 am: | |
Monty--But what if Albert Cadosch was 5' 3"? His angle of vision over that 5' 6" fence wouldn't allow him to see John Cleese in a top hat, would it? All the best. RP |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 11:21 am: | |
Hi All,
RJ's point is well-taken, we don't really know for certain how tall Cadosche was.
There was, however, this further testimony at the inquest:
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.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
It may be inferred that since Cadosche stated he would have looked over the fence if he thought something was the matter, presumably he was sufficiently tall to do so.
All the best,
Jim
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 501
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 6:39 pm: | |
Hi all
The thing that bothers me about Cadosch is that three or four minutes separated his hearing the "no" from his hearing the fence noise. Could it have taken Jack three or four minutes to subdue Chapman?
If Chapman was indeed the woman that Long saw, and both Long and Cadosch had their times right, then might it not have been Chapman with a previous customer that Cadosch heard? Jack would then have approached Chapman as she left number 29 after she'd serviced this customer.
If Long did see Chapman with Jack, it seems that they did meet outside Number 29, for the words "Will you?" imply that he'd just met her, rather than that they'd done their negotiations elsewhere and that Chapman had then led him to Number 29.
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 9:48 am: | |
Jim--I don't know if this is anything worth considering --it might be an anachronism-- but in Donald McCormick's book there is an excellent photograph of the backyard of No. 29 Hanbury, showing an overgrown tree in No.27, along the fence line, in a position that would have obscured the view of the spot where the murder was committed. (I have no idea when the photograph was taken--1950s ?) The same tree can be seen in Farson's book, though it has been pruned back considerably. Cheers. |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 10:53 am: | |
Hi All,
Robert, I doubt it took the Ripper 3-4 minutes to subdue Chapman, given her weakened condition. An alternate explanation for the 3-4 minute gap is that the "sort of fall against the fence" that Cadosch heard was made by the Ripper himself, accidentally brushing or bumping against the fence as he moved about the body performing the various mutilations. The space between the steps and the fence where Chapman's body was found was quite small, and no doubt Jack would have tried to work quickly.
RJ - interesting about that tree. Is this the photo to which you are referring?
Compare this to the photo that's on the victims page on the Casebook proper:
I'm not sure when either photo was taken, but there is a tree visible in the upper right corner of the second, presumably older photo. If that tree were there at the time of the murder, it may well have obscured the murder site.
Cheers
Jim |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
Jim--No. I don't believe I've seen the top photograph before; it's similar to McCormick's, but the tree is even more overgrown in your shot. In McCormick's book, it is obvious that the tree is actually situated in the back of No. 27, but has become so unruly as to spill over the top of the fence. The 2nd photo showing the tree pruned back is the one in Farson's book (1972). As he doesn't give an acknowledgement, I'm assuming that he might have taken it himself. Somewhere there's a photo of Colin Wilson standing in the backyard, which would make for another interesting comparison. (If anyone could date these photographs, it would be much appreciated.) Thanks, RJP |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 503
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 1:29 pm: | |
Hi all
When I place my arrow on the top picture, "hanbury 29 1930" comes up, and for the bottom one "hanbury 29 1888". If this was from 1888, they must have hooked the door in place for the photo - I think it was supposed to be self-closing. It's also remarkable that they seem to have had the same back door after more than 40 years!
I think there's a photo of Colin Wilson in the backyard somewhere on Casebook, but I can't remember where.
Robert |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 104
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 6:18 pm: | |
Hi All
The first photograph in Jim's post was published in the book 'The East End Then and Now' and was credited to Trumans, which I presume has a connection to the brewery. There are other photographs of the demolition of that part of Hanbury Street with the same credit so my guess would be it was taken just prior to demolition in 1970.
There second picture was also published in Donald Rumbelows book and I believe it was taken in the mid sixties. It looks similar to when James Mason visited the site in 'The London Nobody Knows' which was made in 1967. It is hard to judge his height with the camera angle used but it looks like the fence comes up to about his chin.
The Colin Wilson picture I had seen in Ripperologist No 44. The picture is undated but looks as if it accompanied the 'My search for Jack the Ripper' articles from The Evening Standard August 1960. As there is copy of the original article with a photo of Colin Wilson wearing the same clothing.
Its a shame the plan used at the inquest doesn't seem to have survived as it may have given a clue to the fences height.
All the best
Rob |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 506
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 4:22 am: | |
Hi Rob
I read somewhere that the original back doorstep is incorporated in the new building. Have you heard of that?
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 10:03 am: | |
An interesting newspaper sketch of the backyard of No. 29 Hanbury can be found in Dave Yost's dissertation "Long -vs- Cadoche", which shows a rather pell-mell fence and no tree in the adjoining yard. I'm always somewhat skeptical of sketches, but, nonetheless, this one appears to be accurate in its details when compared to the existing photographs. At Chapman's inquest it was remarked that the palings were temporarily erected, and, evidently, were soon to be damaged in the days after the murder; in the photographs above we might well be seeing a different fence than the one of 1888. Both Davis (ELO) and Cadoche (Times) estimate the fence to be 5' 6", (the Daily Telegraph quotes Cadoche as saying 'between 5' 6" and 6') whereas Swanson (working from what? the plan requested by the Coroner ?) states it was 5'.
Contradictions, fog, uncertainty--but 5' 6" seems good enough for me.
|
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 105
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 2:46 pm: | |
Hi Robert
No, I haven't heard about that. I have seen a picture of the demolition in progress and it looks as if one of those big wrecking balls were used. Unless it was removed before hand.
The only thing similar I know is the metal gate entrance to George Yard buildings was removed prior to demolition in 1972 and erected in someones garden.
As for the fence, 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. And I found out that James Mason was 5ft 11 inches and he was definately taller than the fence, assuming as R.J. suggests that it is the same fence from 1888.
Rob |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 202
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 10:03 am: | |
Folks,
You go away for a while and....
Thanks for your responses. I didnt expect so many.
Mr DiPalma & Robert...Young ?? Do you want to borrow some money ??
I take in RJs point about Alberts height.
So, this statement by Eddleston that the fence was 5'6" is taken from Cadoches estimation ? Yet he said the fence was between 5'6" & 6" ! Not fact at all then.
So Tumbelty cannot be ruled out of Chapmans murder.
Thank you all for your input.
Happy Monty...of sorts !
|
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 9:54 am: | |
Your'e all assuming that what Cadoche testified to was the truth.
If at that time of the morning you had heard a woman say no, and then heard something fall against a fence you were standing on the other side of, what would you do? Remember also that Cadoche knew there was a "madman", on the loose, surely he would have looked over that fence.
Murder cases are littered with people giving false testimony, to get themselves into the limelight.
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2818
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 11:37 am: | |
An illustration of the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street from Thompson's Weekly News, published in September 1929.
Notice that this article, by Norman Hastings, indicates that the fence was 4 foot tall, and that the Ripper could easily have leapt over it.
Image courtesy of Ripperologist No. 33.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 10:58 pm: | |
I hesitate to write this as I started to pen an article for Ripperologist or Ripper Notes with my findings. However, since I have become bogged down with other matters the articlw has been moved to a back burner and the findings will be published in the book.
Like Monty and with Monty's help and the help of several people in London, I have been searching for anything that would give the actual height of the fence. One item of importance concerning the fence is that when it is taken in conjuntion with Long's testimony, it shoots Patricia Cornwell's theory of Walter Sickert being Jack the Ripper out of the water as the man Long saw speaking with Annie was only slightly taller than Annie.
Chapman was listed as 5 feet even. This would make the killer approximately 5'2" to approximately 5'3" tall (5'4" would be the extreme limit). Even in shoes and with a hat this would not put him over the top of the fence. Walter Sickert was 5'9" to 5'10" tall. In experiments conducted, a man of Sickert's height would have, even without shoes and a hat would have easily topped the fence and be seen by Cadoche. To better put this in perspective, I am 5'6" tall. in shoes and a hat I could easily be seen over the top of the fence. Even if I were bending over to assault someone, I could easily be seen.
Because of the blood spatter evidence we have documented, Chapman's throat was cut while on the ground where she was found. According the theory, TheEfficiency of Movement, Chapman's assailant would have been fully erect while initiating the assault. The assailant is left handed and therefore the victim would have been thrown to the left (which is where she was found) and the attack pressed with the assailant straddling her body and weilding the knife in his left hand.
When other factors are taken into consideration, notably the statement analysis of Cadoche and Long, the likelyhood of Walter Sickert being the killer in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street is an even bigger stretch (pun intended).
Armed with this information, it is impossible for Walter Sickert to be the killer of Annie Chapman. by ousting Sickert from 29 Hanbury Street, we effectively prove that he was not the killer of the other four canonical victims as Cornwell insists that the Sickert killed the five canonical plus a slew of others. So, Patricia Cornwell is now presented with the evidence that she dared any of us to find. The evidence that proves that Walter Sickert is innocent of the charges levied against him by her witch hunt.
Peace,
Scott |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 11:26 pm: | |
Scott, you said....
"...The assailant is left handed and therefore the victim would have been thrown to the left (which is where she was found) and the attack pressed with the assailant straddling her body and weilding the knife in his left hand."
Would you mind ellaborating on that reference to a left-hander. And, the tone of the sentence appears 'matter-of-fact' and yet I have trouble recalling any reliable evidence to that effect.
Can you help me out?
Thanks, regards, Jon
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 3:46 am: | |
Hi Scott,
Why stop at Sickert? Surely you could name one or two more lofty suspects you have been able to eliminate as a result of your findings? 
Love,
Caz |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:16 am: | |
Scott,
That's an interesting line of thought you've proposed. But I see some problems with it.
We simply don't have enough data to make a determination there. I think the fence height is still in question. But even if we KNEW the fence height, the fence height and the standing height of the killer doesn't give us enough to go on. We don't know what position the killer was in at the time Cadoche looked. Standing, kneeling, squatting, or sitting. Unless he's standing we can't really know how tall he would be. For example, I'm about 2 1/2 feet taller than my son while standing, but kneeling I'm maybe a foot taller than he is. The total height of the killer while standing isn't really going to give us any idea of how tall he would be sitting, squatting, or kneeling. There are simply too many variables.
Even if we had that data however, we'd need to know what height Cadoche's eyes were at, the distance between him and the killer, and at which point between them the fence is positioned. Basically we'd need to determine what the actual line of sight would be based on Cadoche's eye level, to the top of the killer, taking into account the distance between them, and then determine whether a fence of height <x> positioned at the proper point between them would suffice to obstruct that view. In my opinion, there are simply too many questions to make a serious determination based simply on fence height and the proposed height of the killer.
Regards,
John
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 210
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:01 pm: | |
Scott,
I see an 'efficiency of movement' lecture coming up.
Monty
PS Did ya get my mail ??
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
