How did JtR see in the dark?

[Sam Flynn]

Or if someone covered in blood like the killer or the victim rubbed against the fence.

As when Cadosch thought he heard something fall against the fence a few minutes after hearing a cry of "No!", perhaps.

[packers stem]

Her head was almost hanging off, with the vessels on both sides of the throat deeply severed, so it's a reasonable bit of guesswork, I'd say

Still speculation , not a certainty..... there's a world of difference .

.Her carrying a body with a virtually severed head out to the back yard would leave no traces of blood anywhere else? Not outside, not in the passage, not on the steps?

Wet a dishcloth and it may not drip on it's own before saturation point .
You throw it against a hard surface and splashes will come from it

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was a 'smear' on the fence .
precisely what you would get by throwing an already blood drenched body to the ground

Or if someone covered in blood like the killer or the victim rubbed against the fence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I try to be open to different ideas but I just think it’s several bridges to far too far to believe that carriage pulled up outside of 29 Hanbury Street which no one saw. Then two men carried a mutilated corpse into the backyard escaping unseen! It’s a ludicrous fantasy. Even if Chapman was killed elsewhere why not just dump her body somewhere in seclusion. This is palpable nonsense.

[Sam Flynn]

Therefore to suggest there would 'certainly' be signs of blood elsewhere is guesswork ...

Her head was almost hanging off, with the vessels on both sides of the throat deeply severed, so it's a reasonable bit of guesswork, I'd say.

If someone threw a body to the ground with a virtually severed head i would not find 6 tiny dots of blood out of the ordinary .

Yet carrying a body with a virtually severed head out to the back yard would leave no traces of blood anywhere else? Not outside, not in the passage, not on the steps?

[packers stem]

It is described as a smear, but the blood wasn't confined to the fence: "There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall at the head of the body and some 2ft. or 3ft. from the ground. The largest spot was about the size of a six-penny piece." (The Times and other sources.) Also: "There were no drops of blood in the passage or outside, and the bloodstains were only found in the immediate neighbourhood of the body." (Ibid.) If the body was already drenched and dripping with blood, it would certainly have been found in the passage or even on the pavement/road outside 29 Hanbury Street. Given the extent of the injuries, there'd have been plenty of it, too.

Perfectly aware of the six dots Gareth .
How 'drenched' clothing would be at any possible point of being carried out would be an unknown and and precisely how porous Chapman's clothing may be is also unknown .Therefore to suggest there would 'certainly' be signs of blood elsewhere is guesswork ...
If someone threw a body to the ground with a virtually severed head i would not find 6 tiny dots of blood out of the ordinary .

[Sam Flynn]

It was a 'smear' on the fence

It is described as a smear, but the blood wasn't confined to the fence: "There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall at the head of the body and some 2ft. or 3ft. from the ground. The largest spot was about the size of a six-penny piece." (The Times and other sources.) Also: "There were no drops of blood in the passage or outside, and the bloodstains were only found in the immediate neighbourhood of the body." (Ibid.) If the body was already drenched and dripping with blood, it would certainly have been found in the passage or even on the pavement/road outside 29 Hanbury Street. Given the extent of the injuries, there'd have been plenty of it, too.

[packers stem]

I've not read this whole thread yet but people please , let's get serious regarding ambient lighting .
it's been put to me a couple of times over recent weeks and seems to be the new 'in thing' whilst attempting to convince yourselves of sufficient lighting .
Cities now do have light pollution .... there was absolutely nothing back then to cause the phenomena .
No neon signs , high rise blocks with lights , electric street lights .
it is delusional and ridiculously speculative in the extreme .
We're talking poor gas lamps used as markers and candles ... No light pollution I'm afraid .
Any available light was down to moonlight.
On the night of the double event , we know it was raining on and off all night hence cloud cover and it wasn't near a full moon .
lighting was minimal

[packers stem]

Exactly Michael, unless Sickert cleverly flicked some blood onto the fence to make it look that way.

It was a 'smear' on the fence .
precisely what you would get by throwing an already blood drenched body to the ground

[Ginger]

Any reasonable person would conclude from the records that the thud and soft cry at around 5:20 was almost certainly Annie and her killer, and the blood stains on the fence confirm that it was the spot where her throat was cut. Considering the killer took the extra step of removing flaps from her abdomen, its easy to see why she cooled more rapidly than the contemporary physicians estimates. If her mutilations started shortly after the thud I don't see any obstacles with her discovery time, but obviously with Mrs Longs sighting.

That Annie was murdered where she was found seems an inescapable conclusion to me. I'll certainly agree that it's most plausible that Cadosh overheard the murder. I'm not even a particularly reasonable person, but that still seems likeliest to me. If there's a way to logically prove that she wasn't killed earlier, though, I have yet to hear it.

Mrs. Long was obviously mistaken, either about the time, or about who she saw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, of course you're absolutely right, and films and TV series on the subject are primarily motivated by entertainment. That's why both the Micheal Caine TV series, and Depp film, followed the Masonic theory.

On another point, the unreliability of ToD estimates means that Parry can't be completely ruled out as a suspect in the Wallace case, i.e. on the basis of McFall The Flawed's deeply silly ,ToD conclusions. Sorry...couldn't resist!

[John G]

I think it’s because it’s the most exciting theory. It reads like a horror story. A couple of times over the past few years, if I’ve been waiting for a book to be delivered and I needed a quick read, I’ve re-read Knight. It’s an enjoyable book to read. I wish it was the solution to the case but it’s not of course. Murder By Decree was a great movie too.

Yes, of course you're absolutely right, and films and TV series on the subject are primarily motivated by entertainment. That's why both the Micheal Caine TV series, and Depp film, followed the Masonic theory.

On another point, the unreliability of ToD estimates means that Parry can't be completely ruled out as a suspect in the Wallace case, i.e. on the basis of McFall The Flawed's deeply silly ,ToD conclusions. Sorry...couldn't resist!

[Herlock Sholmes]

No problem, Herlock, many thanks. I personally think the freemason conspiracy theories are ludicrous, and not remotely supported by the available evidence. But that doesn't seem to be a problem for some people...!

I think it’s because it’s the most exciting theory. It reads like a horror story. A couple of times over the past few years, if I’ve been waiting for a book to be delivered and I needed a quick read, I’ve re-read Knight. It’s an enjoyable book to read. I wish it was the solution to the case but it’s not of course. Murder By Decree was a great movie too.

[John G]

Thanks for that John.

I intended to search for a quote from an expert later today. This sums it up well. And you’re not part of a Freemasonic Conspiracy I assume.

No problem, Herlock, many thanks. I personally think the freemason conspiracy theories are ludicrous, and not remotely supported by the available evidence. But that doesn't seem to be a problem for some people...!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Time of death estimates are pretty useless as evidence even today, despite the many modern forensic science advances since 1888.

Here's the guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator:

"When providing a ToD estimate to the investigator the pathologist should take the following steps.

a) The pathologist must make clear the esimate is only an estimate and the accuracy cannot be determined.

b) The pathologist must explain that the death could have occurred outside the estimate period and, perhaps, a significant period outside it.

c) Advise that the estimate should not be uses to:

(i) Define the period in which death occurred.

(ii) Assign probabilities to likely period of death; or

(iii) Include or exclude a suspect from the
investigation."

Source: FSR-G-211, 2014, para 6.3.2.

In other words, even in a modern investigation ToD estimates are virtually worthless!

Thanks for that John.

I intended to search for a quote from an expert later today. This sums it up well. And you’re not part of a Freemasonic Conspiracy I assume.