Time Of Death

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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

Difficult to see how you can equate the two scenarios? Obviously there was a level of risk with any killing but can you seriously ignore the ludicrousness of two men carrying a corpse? The added and unnecessary risk?

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

They certainly were. Your conspirators wouldn’t have known that though. So, hypothetically, what if they had been lucky and got in through the front door and they carried the body along the passage only to have found the backdoor locked? Would they have turned around and carried the body back to the carriage or do they try next door? Surely you can see the madness of this risk.

.
[B]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

And if you’d read properly I’d suggested that it was ludicrous and that Mitre Street would have been the likely suggestion. Firstly, I’d ask how you know how many carriages drove up and down Mitre Street between 1 and 2 am?

Secondly, yes 12 metres. Are we seriously expected to believe that two men carried an horrifically mutilated corpse 22 metres into Mitre Square? And that not one drip of blood was spilled? These are insane risks and for what? To leave an unnecessary cryptic Freemasonic message that no one would have understood?

Whichever way you look at this you are faced with the glaringly unbelievable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

As you must surely realise Fishy I was referring to the theory that Chapman was killed elsewhere.

[FISHY1118]

Everythings impossible where your concerned, your still doing others peoples thinking i see .

Your conspirators wouldn’t have known that though

But they went locked were they ,so thats irrelevant.

[QUOTE]And if you’d read properly I’d suggested that it was ludicrous and that Mitre Street would have been the likely suggestion. Firstly, I’d ask how you know how many carriages drove up and down Mitre Street between 1 and 2 am?[/QUOTE

Good to see you missed the point again, that nothing new . Not even worth explain the simplicity of such a scenario,

[Herlock Sholmes]

verythings impossible where your concerned, your still doing others peoples thinking i see .

I’m trying to believe that you genuinely misunderstand my posts but, as everyone else appears to understand them, I have to conclude that you do it deliberately Fishy. I’m not saying that things are impossible. I’ve never said that things are impossible. I’m talking about likelihood. As there is much that we cannot know for certain we interpret based on likelihood, logic, reason and available evidence.

Im only thinking for myself. There appears to be no one else on this Forum (a Forum of ripperologists, researchers and writers who have spent years analysing the case in minute detail) that believes the Knight/Sickert theory. I’m not thinking for them I’m simply pointing out that you appear to be alone in supporting the theory.

Its not impossible that you are correct and everyone else is wrong but it’s unlikely in the extreme.

But they went locked were they ,so thats irrelevant.

How can you say that it was irrelevant? Apparently this was a plan. Was it a plan that simply relied on extreme good fortune? Would they seriously have carried a mutilated corpse along the street to a random doorway on the off-chance that it might have been unlocked? How can anyone believe that they’d have risked being left standing on a pavement carrying a corpse? What would have been their plan B? Try the next door and the next until they found one unlocked? Or would they simply have trundled back to the carriage? The idea is preposterous.

[QUOTE]

And if you’d read properly I’d suggested that it was ludicrous and that Mitre Street would have been the likely suggestion. Firstly, I’d ask how you know how many carriages drove up and down Mitre Street between 1 and 2 am?[/QUOTE

Good to see you missed the point again, that nothing new . Not even worth explain the simplicity of such a scenario,

Firstly, you stated that carriages would have been up and down Mitre Street at all times of day and night. This is an unfounded assertion. What evidence do you have for this point?

Secondly, how could this scenario be called simple? Ludicrous....yes. Quite staggeringly risky.....yes. Likely to have left blood evidence en route....yes. Simple....no.

You have two men carrying a mutilated corpse 12 meters, unseen, into Mitre Square managing to drip no blood on the way. This is not believable however you cut it.

[FISHY1118]

I’m trying to believe that you genuinely misunderstand my posts but, as everyone else appears to understand them, I have to conclude that you do it deliberately Fishy. I’m not saying that things are impossible. I’ve never said that things are impossible. I’m talking about likelihood. As there is much that we cannot know for certain we interpret based on likelihood, logic, reason and available evidence.

Firstly i dont give a toss what everyone else thinks , , i understand exactly what your post mean its a pity you dont do the same to mine.

And how logic or likely and reasonable and evident would you say that Codosch, who was just meters away from Chapman and her killer as he ripped into her body in the daylight ,all the while the door being open to the yard where all those people who lived inside could have at anytime caught him in the act?
In truth your scenario is flawed with the same argument you use to flaw mine

Im only thinking for myself. There appears to be no one else on this Forum (a Forum of ripperologists, researchers and writers who have spent years analysing the case in minute detail) that believes the Knight/Sickert theory. I’m not thinking for them I’m simply pointing out that you appear to be alone in supporting the theory.

You think those so called ripperologist writers, and researchers [ btw that such a ridiculous title] know more than anyone else, were all so called ripperologist, we have all had access to the same information, the same books, the same evidence, the same inquest testimony It doesn't make one person any smarter just because his a self titled ripperologist ive been interested in jtr for over 35 years ive read the books, trust me there nothing new that hasn't already been told in the 100 books before.

So again spare me the so called expert speech that they know more than most when it come to solving the jtr murders, if they did they would have come up with the murderer a long time ago .

How can you say that it was irrelevant? Apparently this was a plan. Was it a plan that simply relied on extreme good fortune? Would they seriously have carried a mutilated corpse along the street to a random doorway on the off-chance that it might have been unlocked? How can anyone believe that they’d have risked being left standing on a pavement carrying a corpse? What would have been their plan B? Try the next door and the next until they found one unlocked? Or would they simply have trundled back to the carriage? The idea is prepostero

us.

Once again you create your own scenario to fit your narrative in this case , so really not much to say about that until you stop thinking what people might or might not do when it comes to disposing of a corpse .

Firstly, you stated that carriages would have been up and down Mitre Street at all times of day and night. This is an unfounded assertion. What evidence do you have for this point?

Secondly, how could this scenario be called simple? Ludicrous....yes. Quite staggeringly risky.....yes. Likely to have left blood evidence en route....yes. Simple....no.

You have two men carrying a mutilated corpse 12 meters, unseen, into Mitre Square managing to drip no blood on the way. This is not believable however you cut it.

Do i have to spell it out for you ..... would a carriage have gone up or down mitre st during the day that eddoews was killed ?Most probably yes . did a carriage go up or down mitre st during the evening eddowes was killed ? most probably yes did a carriage go up and down mitre st in the early morning the day eddowes was killed ? most probably yes So carriages went up down and mitre st during the day and night.


And yet no one saw or heard the killer enter or leave mitre square either , not to mention the fact that medical experts of today ''yes today'' say its impossible to remove a kidney and uterus and do all the mutilations that were done to eddowes in 5 minutes in the dark

[ohrocky]

Fishy, if I may interject here, I want to assure you that there is no shame at all in believing the conclusions of Knight in JTR: The Final Solution. I recall reading the book as a teenager and was totally taken in and I believed the conclusions that Knight reached. I held that belief for some while. But as I read other books and read the forums and dissertations here and at "the other place", it soon became apparent that the story did not stack up and in large part was contradicted by the available evidence.

Simon Wood published his research and rebutted a number of issues upon which Knight had reached his conclusions. Those "errors of fact", as have already been posted here by I think Herlock, totally undermine the credibility of Knight. If you are coming from the viewpoint that Knight was entirely correct, you really do need to disprove the rebuttal by Mr Wood. Until you can do that, you will struggle to garner support for your proposition.

Unlike you and your "I don't care what anybody else thinks" attitude I enjoy and learn from those researchers and authors who have studied the case for decades and who have a far detailed knowledge than I could ever hope to have. The forums are really designed for debate; to promote a suspect or scenario and then have that point of view challenged so any proposition can be altered or amended accordingly.

There is much to be learnt here if you are flexible in thought and take on board the comments and criticisms of others who share our interest in the WM.

[APerno]

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.

Oh! this will make a wonderful comedy film. (You are making me do it again inside my head; and that girl is going to get angry at me again.)

Netley and Sickert dropping Annie out of the carriage, looking around panicked they drag her through the door banging her head against the jamb, only to find they're caught inside the hallway with a mutilated body and a locked yard door. Sickert's yelling at Netley "push down on the handle, not up" - Netley's getting frustrated and kicking at the door, whining "don't yell at me"; dropping Annie again, they hear footsteps on the stairs (Richards) and have to retreat back into the shadows. Finally they get through the door into the yard and try to wedge Annie in against the fence, standing up; but every time Netley tries to walk away she slips down into the sitting position she will be found in. Sickert keeps yelling "let it go," but stupid Netley is determined to make her stay upright; as if in one great final act defiance against her murderers, Annie's corpse is breaking Netley's balls by refusing to stay wedged into the corner. --- Three scenes later as false dawn comes, the camera returns to the yard and Annie slips down one final time and bangs her head on the fence (Codosch) and the brewery clock chimes.

Of course this could be what actually happened, but I doubt it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh! this will make a wonderful comedy film. (You are making me do it again inside my head; and that girl is going to get angry at me again.)

Netley and Sickert dropping Annie out of the carriage, looking around panicked they drag her through the door banging her head against the jamb, only to find they're caught inside the hallway with a mutilated body and a locked yard door. Sickert's yelling at Netley "push down on the handle, not up" - Netley's getting frustrated and kicking at the door, whining "don't yell at me"; dropping Annie again, they hear footsteps on the stairs (Richards) and have to retreat back into the shadows. Finally they get through the door into the yard and try to wedge Annie in against the fence, standing up; but every time Netley tries to walk away she slips down into the sitting position she will be found in. Sickert keeps yelling "let it go," but stupid Netley is determined to make her stay upright; as if in one great final act defiance against her murderers, Annie's corpse is breaking Netley's balls by refusing to stay wedged into the corner. --- Three scenes later as false dawn comes, the camera returns to the yard and Annie slips down one final time and bangs her head on the fence (Codosch) and the brewery clock chimes.

Of course this could be what actually happened, but I doubt it.

I can picture the scene.

Someone might believe it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Firstly i dont give a toss what everyone else thinks , , i understand exactly what your post mean its a pity you dont do the same to mine.

And how logic or likely and reasonable and evident would you say that Codosch, who was just meters away from Chapman and her killer as he ripped into her body in the daylight ,all the while the door being open to the yard where all those people who lived inside could have at anytime caught him in the act?
In truth your scenario is flawed with the same argument you use to flaw mine





You think those so called ripperologist writers, and researchers [ btw that such a ridiculous title] know more than anyone else, were all so called ripperologist, we have all had access to the same information, the same books, the same evidence, the same inquest testimony It doesn't make one person any smarter just because his a self titled ripperologist ive been interested in jtr for over 35 years ive read the books, trust me there nothing new that hasn't already been told in the 100 books before.

So again spare me the so called expert speech that they know more than most when it come to solving the jtr murders, if they did they would have come up with the murderer a long time ago .

us.

Once again you create your own scenario to fit your narrative in this case , so really not much to say about that until you stop thinking what people might or might not do when it comes to disposing of a corpse .




Do i have to spell it out for you ..... would a carriage have gone up or down mitre st during the day that eddoews was killed ?Most probably yes . did a carriage go up or down mitre st during the evening eddowes was killed ? most probably yes did a carriage go up and down mitre st in the early morning the day eddowes was killed ? most probably yes So carriages went up down and mitre st during the day and night.


And yet no one saw or heard the killer enter or leave mitre square either , not to mention the fact that medical experts of today ''yes today'' say its impossible to remove a kidney and uterus and do all the mutilations that were done to eddowes in 5 minutes in the dark

It’s clear that you don’t care what anyone else thinks Fishy or you wouldn’t keep making such embarrassing posts. I’ve tried discussing this case with you but you’re simply not interested in the case as a whole. You are blatantly an obsessive. You just can’t see past Knight and Sickert. You judge everything in terms of not whether it was true or likely but in terms of...does it fit the Knight/Sickert story. If it doesn’t fit then it must be wrong. You read one or two doctors who express doubt as to whether Eddowes mutilations could have been done yet ignore any that say they could have been. They obviously were done in situ because the alternative is laughable. You try and dismiss all of the Chapman witnesses just to accommodate Phillips so that you can have a nice dark night for your phantom coach. Grow up.

Anyone that believes that these women were killed in a coach and mutilated by the Queen’s Physician then carried along a street and dumped without leaving traces is simply a charlatan deserving of no respect. These women were killed where they were found. Time to move on from this embarrassing fairy story.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for the record I’ve never been keen on the title ripperologists either but it’s quicker than typing - anyone interested in the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And how logic or likely and reasonable and evident would you say that Codosch, who was just meters away from Chapman and her killer as he ripped into her body in the daylight ,all the while the door being open to the yard where all those people who lived inside could have at anytime caught him in the act?
In truth your scenario is flawed with the same argument you use to flaw mine

Can you not see the major flaw in this point Fishy?

Your saying that it would have been just as risky for Jack as it would have been for two men dumping a body but it wasn’t really about how risky it was but how risky it was perceived to have been at that time?

First we have the suggestion of a single killer (Jack) He enters into an agreement with Annie who takes him to the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. The punter relies on the prostitute to know a place where they won’t be disturbed. She assures him that - we’ll be ok here. She knows that a punter won’t want to be disturbed or caught in the act. The punter has a level of trust because he assumes (probably correctly) that this was a regular spot that she used for business on many occasions. We know from Richardson that he’d moved couples on in the recent past. All of this is sadly why prostitutes are such ideal victims for killers.

So we have a punter/killer that has been given a level of confidence, based on Annie’s regular use of the yard, that he won’t be disturbed. There would always have been risk attached to any murder outdoors of course but as he knew that he only needed 5 minutes or so he’d have felt ok to proceed.

So how much risk would our two men carrying a body have perceived?

Well, Annie’s dead of course so they have no one to reassure them that they wouldn’t have been seen or disturbed. Number 29 is just a random door which may or may not have been locked. So they have to consider what they would have done if they’d found that door locked? Or, even worse, if they’d got in but found the yard door locked. Or they’d met with someone coming down the stairs? These are massive, and very obvious risks. So the question is - why would they have risked it? How long would it have taken them, in a carriage, to have found a safe(r) spot? A deserted railway arch, a deserted alley, somewhere near to the river? Five minutes? I’d say that they’d have had to have worked hard to have found a riskier spot (unless they’d decided to dump her body outside Buckingham Palace of course!)

And so it’s pretty obvious that Jack would have felt it far less of a risky spot than our Freemasonic Chuckle Brothers.

[FISHY1118]

Just for the record my statement about'' not giving a toss what people think'' was in direct relation to the conversations i was / am having with Herlock, and not in any way do i not give a toss about what others may think in relation to the jtr murders .I hope that clears up that part of the post

[FISHY1118]

Can you not see the major flaw in this point Fishy?

Your saying that it would have been just as risky for Jack as it would have been for two men dumping a body but it wasn’t really about how risky it was but how risky it was perceived to have been at that time?

First we have the suggestion of a single killer (Jack) He enters into an agreement with Annie who takes him to the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. The punter relies on the prostitute to know a place where they won’t be disturbed. She assures him that - we’ll be ok here. She knows that a punter won’t want to be disturbed or caught in the act. The punter has a level of trust because he assumes (probably correctly) that this was a regular spot that she used for business on many occasions. We know from Richardson that he’d moved couples on in the recent past. All of this is sadly why prostitutes are such ideal victims for killers.

So we have a punter/killer that has been given a level of confidence, based on Annie’s regular use of the yard, that he won’t be disturbed. There would always have been risk attached to any murder outdoors of course but as he knew that he only needed 5 minutes or so he’d have felt ok to proceed.

So how much risk would our two men carrying a body have perceived?

Well, Annie’s dead of course so they have no one to reassure them that they wouldn’t have been seen or disturbed. Number 29 is just a random door which may or may not have been locked. So they have to consider what they would have done if they’d found that door locked? Or, even worse, if they’d got in but found the yard door locked. Or they’d met with someone coming down the stairs? These are massive, and very obvious risks. So the question is - why would they have risked it? How long would it have taken them, in a carriage, to have found a safe(r) spot? A deserted railway arch, a deserted alley, somewhere near to the river? Five minutes? I’d say that they’d have had to have worked hard to have found a riskier spot (unless they’d decided to dump her body outside Buckingham Palace of course!)

And so it’s pretty obvious that Jack would have felt it far less of a risky spot than our Freemasonic Chuckle Brothers.
Regards

Herlock , ive already explained my thoughts on what happen in regards to the chapman murder. i wont be going around in circles with you debating what you think may or may not have happen , you believe what you like, ill do the same in my future post. cheers .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock , ive already explained my thoughts on what happen in regards to the chapman murder. i wont be going around in circles with you debating what you think may or may not have happen , you believe what you like, ill do the same in my future post. cheers .

No problem. And I’ll continue basing my opinions on facts, reason, logic, evidence and likelihood rather than fixating on a particular theory and selecting what to accept or dismiss on the basis of that theory. And I’ll also try and back up my opinions (whether anyone agrees or not) and I’ll respond to questions honestly rather than resorting to changing the subject or answering a different question to avoid difficulty because that wouldn’t be honest would it Fishy?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for the record my statement about'' not giving a toss what people think'' was in direct relation to the conversations i was / am having with Herlock, and not in any way do i not give a toss about what others may think in relation to the jtr murders .I hope that clears up that part of the post

Ok.......so you don’t mind every other poster on here thinking that the Knight/Sickert theory is nonsense and the idea of two men dumping a mutilated corpse is laughable.

Good.