Time Of Death

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then the spray evidence on the fence, indicating an arterial breach, is what...she was cut there and gutted there. Why re-invent a perfectly reasonable wheel. And if odds are an issue, what are the odds that on both sides of Cadosches yard and fences that activity was happening around 5am.

Exactly Michael. The idea that she was killed elsewhere should be firmly put to bed once and for all.

[APerno]

Since Fishy often has to stand alone, I'll try to take a his back.*

For those who challenge Fishy I ask, how do you reconcile Elizabeth Long's and Albert Cadosch's time inconsistency?

Cadosh: "It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. 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. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly. "

Long: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.

If we believe Elizabeth Long (who has no apparent reason to lie) then Annie is alive at 5:30 AM and for at least a few minutes thereafter. But Albert Cadosh (who also has no reason to lie) on the other hand, tells us he hears the "No" just around or just before 5:20 AM, and then a knock against the fence just a few minutes later. He then leaves for work and passes the Spitalfields Church at 5:32 AM.

Their timings do not work. To claim the "No" and then a few minutes later the knock on the fence, to be Annie's demise, necessitates that Elizabeth Long, be (1) wrong about the woman she saw, (2) wrong about the time, (3) a liar.

Whereas for Elizabeth Long to be correct, then Albert Cadosh (1) must be wrong about the time, (2) heard an innocent, unrelated event, (3) is a liar.

Not really a big deal, I see that, but here lies the rub, to dismiss Fishy's 'body dumping claim' by using Albert Cadosh's testimony, one must then put aside Elizabeth Long's statements. To do this is to venture into that same distorted arena of 'cherry picking evidence' as the conspiracy nut.

One, in trying to debunk a conspiracy theory, has to be careful not to fall into this same historical methodology trap; one has to watch they don't become a cherry picking anti-conspiracy nut.

To dismiss Fishy's claim by using Albert's Cadosh's testimony against him, and not rectifying the timing problem with Elizabeth Long (or at least mentioning the Elizabeth Long discrepancy), is to walk down the path of becoming an anti-conspiracy nut.

The same rules (historical methodology) should apply to everyone.



* Truth is Fishy, in regards to your 'dumping theory,' I think we are surrounded by Indians and the wagons are on fire. All I can see you have is blood in the hallway, and that is in a neighborhood filled with horse slaughterers and hog butchers; with a populace that brings home fresh meat wrapped in paper on a daily bases; with a police force that can't distinguish animal from human blood. Too many Indians!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since Fishy often has to stand alone, I'll try to take a his back.*

For those who challenge Fishy I ask, how do you reconcile Elizabeth Long's and Albert Cadosch's time inconsistency?

Cadosh: "It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. 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. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly. "

Long: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.

If we believe Elizabeth Long (who has no apparent reason to lie) then Annie is alive at 5:30 AM and for at least a few minutes thereafter. But Albert Cadosh (who also has no reason to lie) on the other hand, tells us he hears the "No" just around or just before 5:20 AM, and then a knock against the fence just a few minutes later. He then leaves for work and passes the Spitalfields Church at 5:32 AM.

Their timings do not work. To claim the "No" and then a few minutes later the knock on the fence, to be Annie's demise, necessitates that Elizabeth Long, be (1) wrong about the woman she saw, (2) wrong about the time, (3) a liar.

Whereas for Elizabeth Long to be correct, then Albert Cadosh (1) must be wrong about the time, (2) heard an innocent, unrelated event, (3) is a liar.

Not really a big deal, I see that, but here lies the rub, to dismiss Fishy's 'body dumping claim' by using Albert Cadosh's testimony, one must then put aside Elizabeth Long's statements. To do this is to venture into that same distorted arena of 'cherry picking evidence' as the conspiracy nut.

One, in trying to debunk a conspiracy theory, has to be careful not to fall into this same historical methodology trap; one has to watch they don't become a cherry picking anti-conspiracy nut.

To dismiss Fishy's claim by using Albert's Cadosh's testimony against him, and not rectifying the timing problem with Elizabeth Long (or at least mentioning the Elizabeth Long discrepancy), is to walk down the path of becoming an anti-conspiracy nut.

The same rules (historical methodology) should apply to everyone.



* Truth is Fishy, in regards to your 'dumping theory,' I think we are surrounded by Indians and the wagons are on fire. All I can see you have is blood in the hallway, and that is in a neighborhood filled with horse slaughterers and hog butchers; with a populace that brings home fresh meat wrapped in paper on a daily bases; with a police force that can't distinguish animal from human blood. Too many Indians!

I think that the body dumping theory can be dismissed on the grounds of it being genuinely laughable. Can anyone seriously suggest that two men would carry a badly mutilated corpse whatever distance you choose from a coach and horses into an unknown building, through a passage and into a backyard and hope to leave no blood traces and remain unseen by anyone? It is so far-fetched, so illogical and unlikely as to be a no-brainer. Even if Phillips was correct and Richardson, Cadosch And Long were all wrong the evidence is still stacked like Mount Everest against it.

True we cannot know for certain which of the four were correct and they certainly can’t all have been but for me the likeliest two are Richardson and Cadosch with Phillips and Long being mistaken.

I think that being an anti-conspiracist should be the de facto position to take until extraordinary evidence is presented (which it almost never is). Most of Knight’s evidence has been dismissed by facts and yet desperate attempts continue to be made to keep the sideshow open.

[APerno]

I think that the body dumping theory can be dismissed on the grounds of it being genuinely laughable. Can anyone seriously suggest that two men would carry a badly mutilated corpse whatever distance you choose from a coach and horses into an unknown building, through a passage and into a backyard and hope to leave no blood traces and remain unseen by anyone? It is so far-fetched, so illogical and unlikely as to be a no-brainer. Even if Phillips was correct and Richardson, Cadosch And Long were all wrong the evidence is still stacked like Mount Everest against it.

True we cannot know for certain which of the four were correct and they certainly can’t all have been but for me the likeliest two are Richardson and Cadosch with Phillips and Long being mistaken.

I think that being an anti-conspiracist should be the de facto position to take until extraordinary evidence is presented (which it almost never is). Most of Knight’s evidence has been dismissed by facts and yet desperate attempts continue to be made to keep the sideshow open.

Yes - it has to be the conspiracy theory that provides the proof, not wait around to be disproved. -- Almost all conspiracy theories try to use the argument from ignorance ploy and switch the burden of proof, usually because there is no real proof available.

Archaeologists can't explain how the Easter Island heads were craved/moved, so therefore it must be aliens, now disprove me! -- You get a lot of that kind of argument with the Ripper. When confronting a conspiracy nut you become caught between a rock and a hard place. Allow them to go unchecked, they will repeat themselves ad nauseam; challenge them and all you accomplish is to make their theory the topic of conversation, which is enough to keep them going. It is a classic damn if you do . . .!

With no big picture in mind, because I have none, I am more prone to think Cadosch wrong about the 5:20 AM time, only because Long was citing a clock, but how that fits into the big picture I have not pieced together as of yet. This is my first look at it. --- Long may not of seen Annie, but someone else . . . and on and on it goes . . .

[DJA]

Then the spray evidence on the fence, indicating an arterial breach, is what...she was cut there and gutted there. Why re-invent a perfectly reasonable wheel. And if odds are an issue, what are the odds that on both sides of Cadosches yard and fences that activity was happening around 5am.

Was there evidence of blood spray on the fence?

[FISHY1118]

from richardsons and cadoshes testimony its obvious she was murdered in the yard around 5:30. and we have another witness that more than likely saw her and the killer around that time in front.

and besides, even if she was killed elsewhere and then her body transported and dumped, the idea that she would be carried through a hallway and dumped in a private backyard is patently ridiculous and anyone who thinks that is either a moron or has alterior motives. probably the former.

Another who is blind to the possibilities and what they mean when it comes to Long and Codosch. Time to take the blinkers off and have a good look around.

Since when is murder in all its forms including motive, mean, and the opportunity patently ridiculous ? , only a moron would think so. I Suggest you look up some of the more bizarre murders in history and see how their motive means and opportunity stacks up to what you think couldn't have happened in at handbury st. How easy does it look now ?

[FISHY1118]

I think that the body dumping theory can be dismissed on the grounds of it being genuinely laughable. Can anyone seriously suggest that two men would carry a badly mutilated corpse whatever distance you choose from a coach and horses into an unknown building, through a passage and into a backyard and hope to leave no blood traces and remain unseen by anyone? It is so far-fetched, so illogical and unlikely as to be a no-brainer. Even if Phillips was correct and Richardson, Cadosch And Long were all wrong the evidence is still stacked like Mount Everest against it.

True we cannot know for certain which of the four were correct and they certainly can’t all have been but for me the likeliest two are Richardson and Cadosch with Phillips and Long being mistaken.

I think that being an anti-conspiracist should be the de facto position to take until extraordinary evidence is presented (which it almost never is). Most of Knight’s evidence has been dismissed by facts and yet desperate attempts continue to be made to keep the sideshow open.

Well done Herlock , you now can add two more people to the growing list of Herlocks school of thinking when it comes to murder. After all two more wont hurt, you already have princess Alexandra , Mrs Long , Albert Codosch , John Richardson, Dr Phillipps , try to concentrate on the testimony of all the mention people and make you point as to what they said, and not what you think they would or would not do in particular circumstances.

[FISHY1118]

Since Fishy often has to stand alone, I'll try to take a his back.*

For those who challenge Fishy I ask, how do you reconcile Elizabeth Long's and Albert Cadosch's time inconsistency?

Cadosh: "It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. 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. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly. "

Long: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.

If we believe Elizabeth Long (who has no apparent reason to lie) then Annie is alive at 5:30 AM and for at least a few minutes thereafter. But Albert Cadosh (who also has no reason to lie) on the other hand, tells us he hears the "No" just around or just before 5:20 AM, and then a knock against the fence just a few minutes later. He then leaves for work and passes the Spitalfields Church at 5:32 AM.

Their timings do not work. To claim the "No" and then a few minutes later the knock on the fence, to be Annie's demise, necessitates that Elizabeth Long, be (1) wrong about the woman she saw, (2) wrong about the time, (3) a liar.

Whereas for Elizabeth Long to be correct, then Albert Cadosh (1) must be wrong about the time, (2) heard an innocent, unrelated event, (3) is a liar.

Not really a big deal, I see that, but here lies the rub, to dismiss Fishy's 'body dumping claim'by using Albert Cadosh's testimony, one must then put aside Elizabeth Long's statements. To do this is to venture into that same distorted arena of 'cherry picking evidence' as the conspiracy nut.

One, in trying to debunk a conspiracy theory, has to be careful not to fall into this same historical methodology trap; one has to watch they don't become a cherry picking anti-conspiracy nut.

To dismiss Fishy's claim by using Albert's Cadosh's testimony against him, and not rectifying the timing problem with Elizabeth Long (or at least mentioning the Elizabeth Long discrepancy), is to walk down the path of becoming an anti-conspiracy nut.

The same rules (historical methodology) should apply to everyone.



* Truth is Fishy, in regards to your 'dumping theory,' I think we are surrounded by Indians and the wagons are on fire. All I can see you have is blood in the hallway, and that is in a neighborhood filled with horse slaughterers and hog butchers; with a populace that brings home fresh meat wrapped in paper on a daily bases; with a police force that can't distinguish animal from human blood. Too many Indians!

I applaud your post Aperno, my aim along is to simply come up with a different alternative to the murder of Annie Chapman at 5.30 am at Hanbury st. As the testimony of Long and Codosch , Richardson and Dr Phillips is very contradictory i dont think it to much to suggest another plausible possibility in her execution.

Now i guess the Herlocks and others have a problem with the dumping of a corpse through the front door and out the back yard of 29 Hanbury st while no blood was found in the entrance way ? . Hmmm Well let me first say this , im glad i dont have to rely on them to dispose of a corpse in a hurry where they had to think to overcome such a simple problem .



. Since when is murder in all its forms including motive, mean, and the opportunity patently ridiculous ? , only a moron would think so. I Suggest you look up some of the more bizarre murders in history and see how their motive means and opportunity stacks up to what you think couldn't have happened in at handbury st. How easy does it look now ?

many things are possible where murder is concerned .

[FISHY1118]

Exactly Michael. The idea that she was killed elsewhere should be firmly put to bed once and for all.

Oh on the contrary, its far from being put to bed where im concerned.

[FISHY1118]

Im trying to picture the scene of two men carrying a mutilated corpse and getting to the side door of number 29 and finding it locked and having to go back to the carriage like Basil Fawlty and Manuel in Fawlty Towers.
What if they had found someone in the yard or coming down the stairs what would they have said - oops, sorry mate, wrong address? It would have been an insane risk.
Not to mention why did no one see a horse and carriage either in Hanbury Street or anywhere else. And what about the echo chamber of Mitre Square? It’s a bit rich when someone says that the killer wouldn’t have had time to have done what he did but then to suggest the horse and carriage nonsense with 2 men carrying an horrendously mutilated corpse! It beggars belief.

lets see now, is it more ridicules than any one of seventeen people who would be getting ready to start their day at around 5.30 5.45 and enter the yard to go to the privy while jacks ripping apart poor old Annei Chapman in now near broad daylight ?

How would that go down '' oh sorry jack dont mind me ill just pretend your not there ,please continue'' can i get you anything a coffee perhaps while your ripping out that poor girls uterus''Basil Fawlty and Manuel in Fawlty Towers indeed.

Im pretty sure youll find both front and back doors leading to the yard were unlocked .

What really beggars belief is that someone could be so stupid as think that a horse and carriage was ever in Mitre square . Especially when Mitre st entrance[ you know do Mitre st dont you?, thats where all those horse drawn carriages travel up and down during all hours of the day and night, which was only 12 meters form where Eddowes body was found .

[DJA]

Cadosch was a young husband of 28 with 5 children.

While giving part of his evidence, he might have thought "what am I getting myself into here", hence the 5.15am to 5.32am time frame.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well done Herlock , you now can add two more people to the growing list of Herlocks school of thinking when it comes to murder. After all two more wont hurt, you already have princess Alexandra , Mrs Long , Albert Codosch , John Richardson, Dr Phillipps , try to concentrate on the testimony of all the mention people and make you point as to what they said, and not what you think they would or would not do in particular circumstances.

You seem to be under a misapprehension here Fishy. It’s not two to a growing list it’s everyone. You are the only person still claiming that the theory is true and that Chapman was killed elsewhere. You are alone on this so you might try and consider whether it might be you that is completely wrong as opposed to everyone else. The odds alone say that this is the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I applaud your post Aperno, my aim along is to simply come up with a different alternative to the murder of Annie Chapman at 5.30 am at Hanbury st. As the testimony of Long and Codosch , Richardson and Dr Phillips is very contradictory i dont think it to much to suggest another plausible possibility in her execution.

Now i guess the Herlocks and others have a problem with the dumping of a corpse through the front door and out the back yard of 29 Hanbury st while no blood was found in the entrance way ? . Hmmm Well let me first say this , im glad i dont have to rely on them to dispose of a corpse in a hurry where they had to think to overcome such a simple problem .



. Since when is murder in all its forms including motive, mean, and the opportunity patently ridiculous ? , only a moron would think so. I Suggest you look up some of the more bizarre murders in history and see how their motive means and opportunity stacks up to what you think couldn't have happened in at handbury st. How easy does it look now ?

many things are possible where murder is concerned .

The problem is, and it’s one that everyone but you can see Fishy, is that murder in a carriage and the dumping of bodies is not remotely plausible. The men that you believe were involved were intelligent men. Would they really have undertaken something so insanely risky?

Horses and carts were a regular sight in the area but I’m guessing that posh coaches and horses weren’t. Why did no one report seeing one near to any of the crime scene’s?

Why were there no traces in the streets? Footprints from stepping in the blood in the confined space of a coaches interior or drips from a horribly mutilated corpse?

Its unlikely I suppose that they parked directly in front of the murder sites? Therefore how far do we have these men carrying a mutilated corpse? A few yards? Surely you can see how suicidally risky this would have been? A man going into a yard with a women might not have merited a second glance but two men carrying a corpse would stick in the memory I’d suggest?

How could they have known what was through the side door of 29? What if the door to the garden was locked? What if someone was in the hallway? What if someone was in the yard?

Why would they have taken such massive and unbelievable risks when they had absolutely no need to. Simply employing some anonymous, lower class killer would have done the job risk-free. An alternative theory is one thing Fishy but you are not presenting anything new as you know. This has been looked at and analysed and no one gives it a moments credence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh on the contrary, its far from being put to bed where im concerned.

Only you support it Fishy. No one else.

[FISHY1118]

You seem to be under a misapprehension here Fishy. It’s not two to a growing list it’s everyone. You are the only person still claiming that the theory is true and that Chapman was killed elsewhere. You are alone on this so you might try and consider whether it might be you that is completely wrong as opposed to everyone else. The odds alone say that this is the case.

I doubt that very much Herlock, and my claim has always been that in Chapmans case it was possible she wasn't killed between 5.15 and 5.30 according to the statements of Long and Codosch. It not a theory its a just a fact that it was possible. As im sure many would agree.