For me only 2 suspects stand out...

[Michael W Richards]

The evidence contained in the statement made by Albert Cadosche essentially negates a murder time for Annie earlier than 5:15, because its inconceivable that another couple would be in that yard after the murder victim was already lying there. He heard a voice from the other side of his fence, which was the backyard in question, and he heard it at around 5:15. That evidence also negates Mrs Longs sighting.

Pragmatically if there was someone in that backyard at 5:15 alive and saying "no", it was almost certainly Annie and her killer.

[John G]

If you want me to listen carefully to what you say, John, you may want to avoid trying to impress me with anything signed "Marriott"...

The idea that a contemporary medico had no idea when somebody had died is a bit too rich for my taste. Of course, one must realize that we are dealing with estimations, but overall, the rigor and the coldness of Chapmans body, is in line with somebody who died well before 4.45.
What it is not in line with at all is a death that sits well with the information from Long, Cadosch and Richardson.
As I am sure you noticed, the TOD was only one of the points I made - there is more too, that equally makes Richardson a very improbable bid for the killerīs role.

Hello Fisherman,

This was Dr Biggs' observation: "Being cold to the touch isn't helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn't start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or 'lag' phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could be dead a few hours and still have essentially a 'normal' body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold." (Marriott, 2013)

[Fisherman]

The evidence contained in the statement made by Albert Cadosche essentially negates a murder time for Annie earlier than 5:15, because its inconceivable that another couple would be in that yard after the murder victim was already lying there. He heard a voice from the other side of his fence, which was the backyard in question, and he heard it at around 5:15. That evidence also negates Mrs Longs sighting.

Pragmatically if there was someone in that backyard at 5:15 alive and saying "no", it was almost certainly Annie and her killer.

So you rule out Long, no qualms? And you rule in Cadosh, he must be correct? And it is inconceivable that BOTH of these characters were looking for their respective fifteen minutes of fame? Apparently, Lond seems to have been - she was quite adamant that it was Chapman she had seen, but you are lulling the rug from under her feet anyway.

If Cadosch was right, then Phillips was way, way wrong. And Chapman would have grown cold in less than an hour, whilst Eddowes was quite warm 45 minutes after SHE died. And Chapman had onsetting rigor twice as fast as people normally do...

Said it before, saying it again: Nope.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman,

This was Dr Biggs' observation: "Being cold to the touch isn't helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn't start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or 'lag' phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could be dead a few hours and still have essentially a 'normal' body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold." (Marriott, 2013)

John, ask yourself what kind of body temperature Biggs is talking about - external or internal.

Chapman was another proposal altogether. Phillips was able to feel the inside of her. The only warmth he could discent was under the intestines in the abdominal cavity.
And what did Biggs say? Body temperature does NOT drop immediately - there is a plateau that an last for hours. But that is CORE temperature, not external temperature. Biggs speaks of feeling the skin for temperature, and yes, we may feel cold to the touch there - but that is not because the inside has grown totally cold.

Always keep in mind that what Biggs says is GENERAL. He never once has commented on the specifics of the C5 victims.

[Michael W Richards]

So you rule out Long, no qualms? And you rule in Cadosh, he must be correct? And it is inconceivable that BOTH of these characters were looking for their respective fifteen minutes of fame? Apparently, Lond seems to have been - she was quite adamant that it was Chapman she had seen, but you are lulling the rug from under her feet anyway.

If Cadosch was right, then Phillips was way, way wrong. And Chapman would have grown cold in less than an hour, whilst Eddowes was quite warm 45 minutes after SHE died. And Chapman had onsetting rigor twice as fast as people normally do...

Said it before, saying it again: Nope.

Hey Fisherman,

If you can offer a reasonable explanation why Cadosche would hear a live womans voice coming from a yard that already has a dead woman in it, Im all ears. The evidence Cadosche gives suggests that a live woman was in that yard at 5:15. As for Long, some witnesses claim to have seen the victims before death, but many as we now know did not actually see the murder victim. If Packer wasn't lying, he was simply wrong...if Brown didn't see Liz, he was incorrect....if Sailor Man wasn't talking to Kate, then Lawende was wrong. You get the point, Im sure. If a live woman was in the yard at 5:15, then Mrs Long was wrong.

As far as body temp, Kate was found minutes after her killing, Annie, likely a lot longer interval. The night Annie was killed the temp was low, and Annies body had insulation in the form of stomach flaps removed from her.

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: Hey Fisherman,

If you can offer a reasonable explanation why Cadosche would hear a live womans voice coming from a yard that already has a dead woman in it, Im all ears.

Iīll offer something else: the testimony from a dozen women or so, living in Millers Court who ALL claimed to have heard that yell of "Oh! Murder!", but at varying times.
These witnesses in spe were frowned upon by the police who quckly realized that they were told porkies by people who wanted their fiftenn minutes in the limelight and who laid a claim to fame by presenting themselves as parts of the Ripper riddle.
You predispose that Cadosh DID hear that outcry because he said he did. I am saying that people sometimes say things that are not compatible with the truth, in order to claim a little fame.

The evidence Cadosche gives suggests that a live woman was in that yard at 5:15.

That may well be (though I personally do not think so) - but it was not Chapman at any rate.

As for Long, some witnesses claim to have seen the victims before death, but many as we now know did not actually see the murder victim.

All very true.

If Packer wasn't lying, he was simply wrong...

And if Cadosch wasnīt lying, HE was simply wrong.

if Brown didn't see Liz, he was incorrect....

And if Cadosh didnīt hear a woman crying out, then HE was incorrect.

if Sailor Man wasn't talking to Kate, then Lawende was wrong.

And if Chapman did not cry out at 5.15, it was either another woman or Cadosch was wrong.

You get the point, Im sure. If a live woman was in the yard at 5:15, then Mrs Long was wrong.

Precisely. And if Long DID see Chapman outside 29 Hanbury Street, then Cadosh was wrong.

And - and this is really my point - if Long did NOT see Chapman outside 29 Hanbury Street and if Cadosch did NOT hear any outcry (that no other person heard, in spite of the open windows), then BOTH were wrong. And Millers Court tells us that many people may be willing to offer wrongful information in a high-profile case like the Ripper case.

As far as body temp, Kate was found minutes after her killing, Annie, likely a lot longer interval. The night Annie was killed the temp was low, and Annies body had insulation in the form of stomach flaps removed from her.

The temperature went from 65 to 60 degrees on the Chapman murder night and from 68 to 55 on the Eddowes night. So it became colder on the latter night. Also, Chapman was lying in a recess where the wind could not get at her, but Eddowes lay in an open area, allowing the wind to chill her down further. And both ladies were opened up at the abdomen, having had their intestines ripped out.

[Wickerman]

Did Lawende live a couple of yards away from the scene of the crime? No. Did he claim to have known the victim for three years? No.

Lawende was required to find a constable, or go to the nearest police station. His proximity to the crime scene was irrelevant.

What I actually wrote was this: "my suggestion was that Hutchinson did not come forward until after he learned what was divulged at the inquest, or rather who was intending to divulge it." A mere suggestion can hardly be "cast in stone", although based on the timing of events - with Hutchinson coming forward so soon after the release of Lewis's evidence - I think we can upgrade that "suggestion" to a "strong likelihood".

As you repeat your suggestion at every opportunity, I'd say that qualifies as being "cast in stone" in your view.

... but I'm asking if we have a single recorded instance of the comparison being made in 1888, or at any time prior to the 1990s, for that matter?

And I pointed out to you that the press had not speculated on Hutchinson's involvement on any issue, whether as a time-wasting liar, accomplice, or the actual murderer, never mind him being the "loiterer" in Dorset St.

Now, as much as I'd love another interminable debate with you exclusively on the subject of Hutchinson, here is not the place for it. Persist if you like - you usually do - ......

If you recall, this brief exchange came about because you injected yourself into a debate between myself and Abby, only for you to now complain and call it quits.

So do I take it that this means you are going to refrain from jumping in with both feet on future exchanges not directly involving you?
I don't mind your company, not at all, but don't fain to complain when it was you who invited yourself.

[Ben]

Lawende was required to find a constable, or go to the nearest police station.

Indeed he was, Jon, but we have no idea when he first learned of the murder or realised he may have seen something of significance. In Hutchinson's case, both were likely to have happened before he even had a chance to take a step outside the Victoria Home the next morning.

As you repeat your suggestion at every opportunity, I'd say that qualifies as being "cast in stone" in your view.

No, you'd say that qualifies as being "cast in stone" in your view. I'll stick to the conventionally accepted understanding of what "suggested" means, thanks.

And I pointed out to you that the press had not speculated on Hutchinson's involvement on any issue, whether as a time-wasting liar, accomplice, or the actual murderet

But your point is wrong, because we know the press did speculate along these lines. I suggest you read the Daily Graphic and Washington's Evening Star for starters.

So do I take it that this means you are going to refrain from jumping in with both feet on future exchanges not directly involving you?

That's a bit of an ask, Jon, considering I'm such a Hutchinson zealot, but alright - on this occasion we have a deal!

[SuspectZero]

I think one of the interesting things about Hutchinson is that he gave such a detailed description of the Ripper. Enough to warrant the police to take it seriously. Curiously or by intent, the description of the Ripper's suit matches exactly what George Sims is wearing in this portrait. Right down to the horseshoe pin!

http://www.magnoliabox.com/art/576816/george-robert-sims-british-journalist-poet-dramatist-and

[Bridewell]

Both interacted with the police in very strange ways..........
In Lechmere's case we can be pretty certain that he misled the police on two significant counts as I understand it; 1. by not giving the correct name by which he was known, and 2. by saying that there was a policeman waiting at the scene.

In what way 'strange'?

(1) Cross/Lechmere used both names and had a valid reason for each. He gave his correct forename, correct address and correct employer. It follows that he was not trying to avoid being contactable at a later date. We don't know why he preferred Cross to Lechmere where the inquest was concerned, despite assertions by some to the contrary.

(2) Mizen claimed that the two men had told him another constable needed his assistance on Bucks Row. The men themselves made it clear that there was no such officer. Is it possible that Cross/Lechmere and Paul were dissembling? Yes. Far more likely though is that Mizen, who continued knocking up when clearly he shouldn't have done, was attempting to justify his actions by placing a non-existent colleague at the scene he should have rushed to himself.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

(1) Cross/Lechmere used both names and had a valid reason for each.

Just like we may reason that everybody who has a tie to a name that is not the one he normally uses has a "valid reason" to use it anyway. However, we KNOW for certain that he other wise never used that other name in contacts with the authorities, so it is very, very odd that he should come up with the idea of using it ONLY in combination with a case of murer where he himself was found alone, close to the victim.

He gave his correct forename, correct address and correct employer. It follows that he was not trying to avoid being contactable at a later date.

Yes, that follows. And the explanation that he did NOT want to be exposed as a liar by the police if he was investigated seems to me to be a very plausible explanation. But hey, are we not forgetting that he gave the WRONG surname,and that this will have made him very hard to make out from the press reports?

We don't know why he preferred Cross to Lechmere where the inquest was concerned, despite assertions by some to the contrary.

Oh, I think you will find it very hard to find anybody who claim that it is a proven thing that he lied about his name to hide that he was the killer. But the usual procedure for "some" is to lead on this anyway.
Me, I say that IF he was the killer and I believe he was - then it would make sense to hide his real name. And then I once again press that we know very well that he otherwise chose the name Lechmere when in contact with the authorities. The suggestion that he would have used the name Cross at times is absolutely, utterly and completely baseless, right? The suggestion that he would have done so to honoue his nineteen-year dead stepfather is not a very good one, since he could have done this anyway, without taking the odd step to hide his real name.

(2) Mizen claimed that the two men had told him another constable needed his assistance on Bucks Row. The men themselves made it clear that there was no such officer. Is it possible that Cross/Lechmere and Paul were dissembling? Yes. Far more likely though is that Mizen, who continued knocking up when clearly he shouldn't have done, was attempting to justify his actions by placing a non-existent colleague at the scene he should have rushed to himself.

All you have to do is to look a bit further than your nose stretches, Colin. Look at what happened afterwards.
Did Mizen have a notebook? Was he required to write a report? If you accept that he did and was, then explain to me why the police never realized that two carmen had been involved in the finding of the body!

Why did the police put Neil on the stand to tell the world that HE had founbd the body - when they had Mizens report stating that the carmen had been the finders?

Why did the police deny that Paul had been correct, if they had Mizens report telling them that it was true?

Why did Mizen not protest when Neil said that he found the body, if he knew that the carmen had been the finders?

Can you see in what perspective these things will work?

If Mizens report only said that he had been summoned to Bucks Row by Neil (a very plausible thing to suggest), then the police would not question Neil being the finder. If the report said that the carmen had found the bodym the police would never allow Neil to say that HE did, without researching it.

If the carmen were not mentioned in the report, since Mizen only wrote that he had been summoned by Neil, then the police could afford to disbelieve Paul. If the report had the carmen as the finders, they could not.

If Mizen genuinely believed that Neil was the fonder of the body, thereafter having the carmen arrive at the spot, sending them on to Mizen, then Mizen would think that Neil was correct in his testimony. If Mizen had been told by the carmen that they were the finders, then he would not let this pass.

Longer than the nose, Colin. Longer than the nose...

Goodnight and sweet dreams!

[Abby Normal]

"Except that an inquest is an official meeting with witnesses and a lot of other people around. Perhaps if hutch was guilty , or at least a liar,he would want to stay away from something like this."

That is a good point. Could one of the other witnesses possibly have identified him as someone they had seen with Mary at other times?

I think unless the police were complete idiots and never considered the idea that someone who claimed to know the victim and was seen with her on the night of her death could be her killer simply because he came forward then the fact that Hutchinson did not appear at the inquest could only add to his being a person of interest.

c.d.

Thanks cd. I do Beleive that is the first time you have agreed with anything I have said.

Go skins!

[Wickerman]

Indeed he was, Jon, but we have no idea when he first learned of the murder or realised he may have seen something of significance.

We have nothing that tells us when Lawende was located, except Insp. Collards testimony that suggests it was as the result of the house-to-house inquiries. Obviously this did not extend as far as Lawende's home address in Dalston, and likely not as far as Harris's address in New Castle Street, Whitechapel either.
However, Levy did reside close by in Hutcheson Street.
So, perhaps it was Levy who they found first, and through him traced Lawende & Harris. Either that or Lawende had gone back to Levy's house for the night and he was found at that address?

A description of the man seen in Duke St. was published in the Times on Oct. 2nd, Tuesday. So must have been obtained sometime late on Monday, too late for the evening papers. Likely from Lawende, or from the City Police who had by now located Lawende.
It's probably true to say that both Aldgate & Whitechapel knew about the Mitre Square murder by the end of the day on Sunday.

In Hutchinson's case, both were likely to have happened before he even had a chance to take a step outside the Victoria Home the next morning.

But he wasn't living at the Victoria Home, not until the 12th.
So that's another false assumption.

[Ben]

I agree that Lawende was probably tracked down via Levy, following house-to-house inquiries. As this would have occurred before Monday evening, it is very unlikely that Lawende had any inkling, at that stage, that the couple he passed might have been of critical importance to a murder inquiry. Henry Smith noted that Lawende "had heard of some murders, he said, but they didn't seem to concern him", indicating that he was not keeping constant track of the latest ripper developments in the papers.

But he wasn't living at the Victoria Home, not until the 12th.

Don't even contemplate repeating that nonsense again. Hutchinson was most certainly resident at the Victoria Home at the time of Kelly's murder, rendering it practically impossible for him to have remained oblivious to news of the murder for more than a few waking hours. Go back to the Victoria Home thread and continue that argument there, if you fancy having it all over again; that way, I'll be spared the bother of cut-and-pasting my previous responses here.

[Wickerman]

Don't even contemplate repeating that nonsense again. Hutchinson was most certainly resident at the Victoria Home at the time of Kelly's murder,

That's only opinion, not fact.
"You" think it is "most certainly", whereas I am talking about what can be established, and that is, that we can only place Hutchinson at the Victoria Home by the 12th.

The Victoria Home WAS open to residents over night, yet Hutchinson said his place of residence was closed.
You cannot place Hutchinson at the Victoria home before the 12th - THAT is the fact.