Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Abby Normal]

But they dont corroborate each other, that is where their testimony is flawed and unsafe to rely on. The police didnt believe them.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

they corroberate each other for a later killing time.

[Abby Normal]

I agree. But don't you suspect Lech - how does the ~5.30 ToD fit in? I find it hugely unlikely he would have stopped off and left his cart of valuable goods parked up whilst he went off looking for a victim

hi wulf
I think lech, with a handful of others, make one of the least weak suspects. as I mentioned before, I dont always agree with the lechmerians and this is case in point. I dont neccesarily agree he killed on his way to work. If he was the ripper I think more than likely chapman was killed when he was off.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

You make a very valid point.

I originally thought that in Cadosch testifying "They are packing-case makers" he was referring to Bayley's at No 23 and wondered how he could be hearing " a great case goes up against the palings" at 5:20 when the workers there, Kent and Green, testified they usually started at 6am and were late that day. In The Times account of the inquest Cadosch clarified that he was referring to No 29, and Mrs Richardson stated that she carried on the business of a packing-case maker in the yard and cellar. She added that her employee, Tyler, was due to start at 6am.

So how can Cadosch claim that he was used to hearing bumps against the fence before he went to work at about 5:30am, when the workman to whom he attributed the source of those noises didn't start until 6:00am? Leaving that conundrum to one side, it is certain that on the morning of the murder there were no packing cases involved in falling against the fence. Short of classifying Cadosch as a totally unreliable witness, it is very difficult to argue any other solution than the one you propose - the bump against the fence was produced by the murder in progress of Chapman.

Hi George,

Jolly nice of you to call it a very valid point, but what does that really mean when you continue to call him unreliable?

P.S. I've just tried some imported Hollandia Premium.....you guys can certainly make great Lager.

I must admit that I've never had the pleasure of trying Hollandia Premium, but when you get the chance to try one or more of the Texels Beers (they have quite a number of different types: blond, white, dark...), I'd take it!

Cheers!
Frank

[Trevor Marriott]

they are not unreliable at all and even if they were, three corroberating unrelated witnesses doth a summer make! (well at least a spring). : )

But they dont corroborate each other, that is where their testimony is flawed and unsafe to rely on. The police didnt believe them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

What if he was on a night shift that week and finished work at 5am? As I keep saying, we can’t assume that we can know his thought processes or the circumstances of his life. At the end of the day someone murdered Annie Chapman in that yard. So someone was prepared for the fact that at any moment someone might have interrupted him. A bit more risky that later in the morning of course but we don’t know the killers thinking or frame of mind at the time.

We’re never going to agree on this one so if you want to accept that at the time of this murder a woman just happens to see someone that looked like Chapman on the pavement talking to a man after she was supposed to have been dead and that someone just happened to hear something brushing against the fence in an otherwise deserted yard and that a man missed seeing the horrifically mutilated corpse of a woman whose body would have been around a foot from his feet, all in favour of little more than a guessed TOD from a Doctor that the Coroner didn’t appear to believe, that’s fine.

And the police didnt believe those witnesses you are seeking to rely om

I do not subscribe to the suggestion that Richardson or Lechmere were the killer of these women, that in my book is a non starter.

The witness testimony to which you refer in the Chapman case is flawed,and riddled with holes and the reasons explained many times,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Three unreliable witnesses doth not a summer make!

they are not unreliable at all and even if they were, three corroberating unrelated witnesses doth a summer make! (well at least a spring). : )

[Herlock Sholmes]

But he wasnt there for 5 mins was he, unless he did not remove the organs then I would be inclined to agree on that time. But if as you suggest he did remove the organs then the least time according to Dr Phillips was 15 mins to remove the organs thats an awful long time to spend with a murder victim at that time of the morning.

But why would the killer take that un-necessary risk. As as I keep having to say there were no other murders as late as 5.30am, If the killer was looking for potential victims throughout the night I am sure there were plenty around to be had.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What if he was on a night shift that week and finished work at 5am? As I keep saying, we can’t assume that we can know his thought processes or the circumstances of his life. At the end of the day someone murdered Annie Chapman in that yard. So someone was prepared for the fact that at any moment someone might have interrupted him. A bit more risky that later in the morning of course but we don’t know the killers thinking or frame of mind at the time.

We’re never going to agree on this one so if you want to accept that at the time of this murder a woman just happens to see someone that looked like Chapman on the pavement talking to a man after she was supposed to have been dead and that someone just happened to hear something brushing against the fence in an otherwise deserted yard and that a man missed seeing the horrifically mutilated corpse of a woman whose body would have been around a foot from his feet, all in favour of little more than a guessed TOD from a Doctor that the Coroner didn’t appear to believe, that’s fine.

[Trevor Marriott]

You say that it’s problematic Trevor but the killer might not have seen it in the same way. He might have thought - well there’s always a risk but at least I’ll be off the street and I’ll only be in there for 5 minutes. And if I am interrupted then I have my knife to hand.

But he wasnt there for 5 mins was he, unless he did not remove the organs then I would be inclined to agree on that time. But if as you suggest he did remove the organs then the least time according to Dr Phillips was 15 mins to remove the organs thats an awful long time to spend with a murder victim at that time of the morning.

But why would the killer take that un-necessary risk. As as I keep having to say there were no other murders as late as 5.30am, If the killer was looking for potential victims throughout the night I am sure there were plenty around to be had.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Three unreliable witnesses doth not a summer make!

I’ll take them over a doctor making little more than a guess though George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the later time of death is more problematic because of the time the killer would have needed to carry out the murder and the mutilations and giveb the people moving about and the likelihood of being discovered even greater !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You say that it’s problematic Trevor but the killer might not have seen it in the same way. He might have thought - well there’s always a risk but at least I’ll be off the street and I’ll only be in there for 5 minutes. And if I am interrupted then I have my knife to hand.

[Trevor Marriott]

Only in your mind..... , the accepted theory is just that, "ACCEPTED"

There are none so blind as they that will not see

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body.

When the post mortems were conducted and the organs found to be missing of course the doctors belived that the killer had taken them. because they would have had no idea what went on at the morturaries within that 12 hour window.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

hi Herlock
totally agree. If we only had say one witness then IMHO it would be more questionable-but three? Nah-chapman was more than likely killed around the 5:30 time frame.

I agree. But don't you suspect Lech - how does the ~5.30 ToD fit in? I find it hugely unlikely he would have stopped off and left his cart of valuable goods parked up whilst he went off looking for a victim

[GBinOz]

hi Herlock
totally agree. If we only had say one witness then IMHO it would be more questionable-but three? Nah-chapman was more than likely killed around the 5:30 time frame.

Three unreliable witnesses doth not a summer make!

[GBinOz]

In Dr Browns report to Anderson he states

“In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific or anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

So that being said do you still believe the killer removed the organs at the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body.