Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Herlock,

Does being consistent with your story count for less that changing it as you go along?

Here are press reports from 10 Nov:
Mrs. Caroline Mapwell, of 14 Dorset street, the wife of a night watchman at Commercial Chambers, a common lodging house able to shelter 244 persons, and which is opposite the scene of the murder, said: "I have known the murdered woman well for the past six months. This (Friday) morning, as near as possible about half past eight, I saw Mary Jane (the murdered woman) standing outside the court. I said, "What brings you out so early, Mary Jane," and she answered, "I feel very queer. I cannot sleep. I have the horrors of the drink on me, as I have been drinking this last day or two." I said, "Well, I pity you, " and passed on. I then went to Bishopsgate; and on my return, just after nine o'clock, I saw Mary Jane talking to a man at the end of the street. Who he was I do not know. He was a short, stout man, about fifty years of age. I did not notice what he had on, but I saw that he wore a kind of plaid coat. I then went indoors to go to bed, as I had been on duty all night. Mary Jane (I only know her by that name) was a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather pale. I should say her age was be about 23. I had no idea she was an unfortunate, for I never saw her with any one, nor have I ever seen her drunk. She was a very quiet young woman, and had been in the neighbourhood about two years. She spoke with a kind of impediment. She belonged, I think, to Limerick, and had evidently been well connected.

THE TIME OF THE MURDER

Another important statement was made this morning to a representative of the Central News, by Mrs. Maxwell (or Mapwell) the wife of the deputy of a lodging house in Dorset street, situate just opposite the court in which the crime was committed. From the circumstantial character of Mrs. Maxwell's statement there is little doubt of its accuracy, and the police are now working on it in all directions. As Mrs. Maxwell saw the deceased woman at nine o'clock yesterday morning the crime must have been perpetrated in the broad light of day.

Mrs. Maxwell’s statement (which practically coincides with her previous statement given above) is as follows: "I assist my husband in his duties but we live next door, at No. 26 Dorset street. e stay up all night, and yesterday morning as I was going home, carrying my lantern and other things with me, I saw the woman Kelly standing at the entrance of the court. It was then about half past eight, and as it was unusual for her to be seen at that hour, I said to her, "Hallo, what are you doing up so early?" She said, "Oh, I'm very bad this morning. I have had the horrors. I have been drinking so much lately." I said to her, "Why don't you go and have half a pint of beer, it will put you right." She replied, "I've just had one, but I'm so bad I couldn't keep it down." I didn't know then that she had separated from the man she had been living with, and I thought he had been "paying" her. I then went out in the direction of Bishopsgate to do some errands, and on my return I saw Kelly standing outside the public house, talking to a man. That was the last I saw of her.

Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased. She had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual character.

From the inquest:
Maxwell:
The Coroner: You must be very careful about your evidence, because it is different to other people's. You say you saw her standing at the corner of the entry to the court ? - Yes, on Friday morning, from eight to half-past eight. I fix the time by my husband's finishing work. When I came out of the lodging-house she was opposite.
[Coroner] Did you speak to her ? - Yes; it was an unusual thing to see her up. She was a young woman who never associated with any one. I spoke across the street, "What, Mary, brings you up so early ?" She said, "Oh, Carrie, I do feel so bad."
[Coroner] And yet you say you had only spoken to her twice previously; you knew her name and she knew yours ? - Oh, yes; by being about in the lodging-house.
[Coroner] What did she say ? - She said, "I've had a glass of beer, and I've brought it up again"; and it was in the road. I imagined she had been in the Britannia beer-shop at the corner of the street. I left her, saying that I could pity her feelings. I went to Bishopsgate-street to get my husband's breakfast. Returning I saw her outside the Britannia public-house, talking to a man.
[Coroner] This would be about what time ? - Between eight and nine o'clock. I was absent about half-an-hour. It was about a quarter to nine.

Elizabeth Prater
I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables. I fell asleep directly and slept soundly. A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four. As I was turning round I heard a suppressed cry of "Oh - murder!" in a faint voice. It seemed to proceed from the court.
[Coroner] Do you often hear cries of "Murder?" - It is nothing unusual in the street. I did not take particular notice.

Maxwell's statements are entirely consistent and were steadfastly adhered to in the face of a hostile coroner who finished the hearing with witnesses unheard. They were also supported by Lewis who had known Kelly for five years. Prater changes her story but somehow manages to be relied upon in the determination of a ToD.

When assessing witness credibility I put more stock in the consistent than in those who change their story as they go along. Your proposition seems to be that her consistency was an indication that she was just sticking to a lie, even though it was corroborated. I look at witnesses testimony on the basis of preponderance of evidence.

I agree with Abby that there wasn't enough time for Kelly to return to her room and be murdered after the sightings by Maxwell and Lewis, so if their sighting were genuine, and there is no reason to doubt them (remember your argument about Diemshitz's clock sighting), then there is a strong implication that it was not Kelly in that room.

Cheers, George

I've never understood this fascination with the 'it wasn't Kelly argument' - I suppose it helps support some daft conspiracy theory and people lap such rubbish up.

Either she was killed around 4 am, or after ~8.45. Neither of those times requires some other mystery body. I'm less inclined to believe the Lewis sighting as, unlike Maxwell, it seems he hadn't spoken to her that morning and wouldn't have known what she was wearing and could well have been mistaken. If the ripper did what he did to Eddowes in less than 10 minutes I suspect he could have carried out all those injuries to Kelly in less than half an hour, especially as he was likely concerned about being cornered in the room and 'working' quickly. He could have been out of there before 10 if it was the man Maxwell saw her with at 8.45 and they were back in her room by 9 or even 9.30.

Also depends how you view Farmer - if he was willing to try his luck in the morning in a lodging house I suspect he'd have been willing to try similar in a private room.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No thats not what he meant. he meant that the organs could not have dropped out in transit because he closed the clothes up, and the latter remark was about what he found at the post mortem there is no way he could or have examined the body at the scene to discover the organs missing and no way he could have discovered that anatomical knowledge was used because he did not conduct a throrough exmanination, if he had have done he would have disclosed that in his evidence in chief at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That interpretation doesn’t really add up Trevor, although meaning can be missed or altered in transcripts

When Philips talks about anatomical knowledge then obviously he came to that conclusion at the PM examination but then the Coroner changes the subject slightly and asks if body parts could have been lost in transit. So Phillips is then talking about the crime scene. In effect he appears to be saying - I closed up her clothing and some parts were already missing?

Im no Doctor but is it impossible that he could have looked and seen that there were parts missing? Especially as they knew what happened with Chapman?

Im not going to make a big issue of this one Trevor. It just stood out when I read it.

[Trevor Marriott]

That interpretation doesn’t really add up Trevor, although meaning can be missed or altered in transcripts

When Philips talks about anatomical knowledge then obviously he came to that conclusion at the PM examination but then the Coroner changes the subject slightly and asks if body parts could have been lost in transit. So Phillips is then talking about the crime scene. In effect he appears to be saying - I closed up her clothing and some parts were already missing?

Im no Doctor but is it impossible that he could have looked and seen that there were parts missing? Especially as they knew what happened with Chapman?

Im not going to make a big issue of this one Trevor. It just stood out when I read it.

When Phillips described portions had been excised he is referring to what he saw at the crime scene and he is referring to Chapmans murder and she was the first victim to be found missing organs, so he had no reason to check to see if any organs were not there. This is what he says about the excised organs quote you refer to

"The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

hey folks I just realized wve gotten way off topic with the it wasnt mary kelly and the ripper didnt remove organs stuff. perhaps start another thread on those and lets get back to Lechmere/richardson.

[Abby Normal]

I've never understood this fascination with the 'it wasn't Kelly argument' - I suppose it helps support some daft conspiracy theory and people lap such rubbish up.

Either she was killed around 4 am, or after ~8.45. Neither of those times requires some other mystery body. I'm less inclined to believe the Lewis sighting as, unlike Maxwell, it seems he hadn't spoken to her that morning and wouldn't have known what she was wearing and could well have been mistaken. If the ripper did what he did to Eddowes in less than 10 minutes I suspect he could have carried out all those injuries to Kelly in less than half an hour, especially as he was likely concerned about being cornered in the room and 'working' quickly. He could have been out of there before 10 if it was the man Maxwell saw her with at 8.45 and they were back in her room by 9 or even 9.30.

Also depends how you view Farmer - if he was willing to try his luck in the morning in a lodging house I suspect he'd have been willing to try similar in a private room.

Im starting a new thread on this in victims. just wanted to add a little tid bit. but not here

[Herlock Sholmes]

hey folks I just realized wve gotten way off topic with the it wasnt mary kelly and the ripper didnt remove organs stuff. perhaps start another thread on those and lets get back to Lechmere/richardson.

Good point Abby

[FrankO]

There are a great many valid points of argument that are in conflict with each other.

Hi George,

No argument there from me!

It is difficult to account for the falling against the fence noise without attributing it to the murderer. Re-creative memory perhaps. To my mind there is another valid point in the unlikelihood of JtR continuing his task in daylight with a potential witness only feet away on two occasions. There is a "disruption" theory for Stride. Why would he not have been disrupted here? In addition I add the risk of dozens of potential witnesses in the building seeing him in daylight. He has had many hours of darkness to select a victim to satisfy his need for a kill, so why wait for daylight? So, since my comment on your post I have re-weighed all these alternatives and chosen the later as the lesser of two evils. In my favour is that the police at the time concurred in doubting the witnesses.

Well, everybody weighs the evidence to his own "system". You put more stock in the idea that he wouldn't have wanted to be seen in daylight (which, obviously, by itself is a valid point) than in Cadosch's testimony, while I let myself be led by the notion that the Ripper's driving force were the mutilations and the possibility that he was less in control of himself striking again only one week after Nichols and, quite possibly, not having been completely satisfied with her or it not having gone as he had imagined it.

It's all relative.

Cheers,
Frank

[Aethelwulf]

On the subject of light levels, I had to get up about twenty minutes before official sunrise this morning (just before half 6 where i live). Even by that time, it was as good as broad daylight and definitely what you what call normal daylight levels by sunrise. My thinking is that it is as good as impossible IMO that Richardson would have missed the body, even in a shaded yard. Combined with Long and Cadosch, I think the 5.30 time is the more likely, even if more risky.

[Doctored Whatsit]

On the subject of light levels, I had to get up about twenty minutes before official sunrise this morning (just before half 6 where i live). Even by that time, it was as good as broad daylight and definitely what you what call normal daylight levels by sunrise. My thinking is that it is as good as impossible IMO that Richardson would have missed the body, even in a shaded yard. Combined with Long and Cadosch, I think the 5.30 time is the more likely, even if more risky.

I don't think that there can be any doubt that if we believe that Richardson could see at a glance that the lock was undamaged and intact, then he must have been able to see the body also.

[FISHY1118]

I don't think that there can be any doubt that if we believe that Richardson could see at a glance that the lock was undamaged and intact, then he must have been able to see the body also.

Could he see the lock if he was standing in the doorway?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Could he see the lock if he was standing in the doorway?

Yes, and if we believe his story, it must therefore have been light enough for him to be able to see the body when he sat on the step. His story may or may not be truthful, but if he could see the lock then he must have had sufficient light to see the body.

[FISHY1118]

Yes, and if we believe his story, it must therefore have been light enough for him to be able to see the body when he sat on the step. His story may or may not be truthful, but if he could see the lock then he must have had sufficient light to see the body.

What if he didnt sit on the step as swanson claimed richardson didnt mention the step at the inquest.? Then he just looked at the lock from the step without looking to his left where chapman was laying?. Is that possible?

[Doctored Whatsit]

What if he didnt sit on the step as swanson claimed richardson didnt mention the step at the inquest.? Then he just looked at the lock from the step without looking to his left where chapman was laying?. Is that possible?

I wrote, "if we believe his story", and that is open to debate. My original note was based entirely on Aethelwulf's comment about light levels. We can debate whether or not we believe him, but that is one issue, the light level is another.

[FISHY1118]

I wrote, "if we believe his story", and that is open to debate. My original note was based entirely on Aethelwulf's comment about light levels. We can debate whether or not we believe him, but that is one issue, the light level is another.

Fair call

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

No argument there from me!


Well, everybody weighs the evidence to his own "system". You put more stock in the idea that he wouldn't have wanted to be seen in daylight (which, obviously, by itself is a valid point) than in Cadosch's testimony, while I let myself be led by the notion that the Ripper's driving force were the mutilations and the possibility that he was less in control of himself striking again only one week after Nichols and, quite possibly, not having been completely satisfied with her or it not having gone as he had imagined it.

It's all relative.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I think that JtR would have made assessments of risk mitigation and in daylight he was more identifiable to the larger audience of potential witnesses who were rising to start their day. His M.O. seemed to be to operate in darkness when most people were asleep.

For me Cadosch lost some credibility when I discovered that his original story contained only one trip to the toilet and only later at the inquest did it bifurcate into two separate events 3 to 4 minutes apart. In his original evidence he also said that he heard a scuffle and something fall heavily against the fence, but this was also absent from his inquest testimony. I tend to place a question mark over witnesses whose evidence evolves over time.

While JtR may have been driven by urges that were left unsatisfied by his efforts with Nichols, there was no shortage of potential victims plying their trade in the streets. Unless he had singled out Chapman as a specific, rather than a random, target I can't see why he would have left it until the onset of unfavourable light and witness conditions rather than picking up a victim earlier in that night, or earlier in the week.

Best regards, George