Denial, Desperation and Dishonesty - Defending Stephen Knight’s Nonsense

[FISHY1118]

You might as well read it aperno . Its clear that herlock did not .

[Camus]

While I don't believe in Knight's theory (it is a great story though) I don't think you can categorically state that Chapman's body was not there when Richardson checked the yard. His whole cut.leather from his boot story is bordering on BS IMO and it is likely I think that he stuck his head round the back door and looked at the cellar door to check it was locked. In this scenario he would never.have seen Chapman's body.

[Cogidubnus]

While I don't believe in Knight's theory (it is a great story though) I don't think you can categorically state that Chapman's body was not there when Richardson checked the yard. His whole cut.leather from his boot story is bordering on BS IMO and it is likely I think that he stuck his head round the back door and looked at the cellar door to check it was locked. In this scenario he would never.have seen Chapman's body.

The body was that close to the step, if he was there with the body present, he'd have smelled it...

Dave

[FISHY1118]

While I don't believe in Knight's theory (it is a great story though) I don't think you can categorically state that Chapman's body was not there when Richardson checked the yard. His whole cut.leather from his boot story is bordering on BS IMO and it is likely I think that he stuck his head round the back door and looked at the cellar door to check it was locked. In this scenario he would never.have seen Chapman's body.

You might also like to read post 233 in this thread Camus, you'll find it very interesting going by your comments .

[Sam Flynn]

His whole cut.leather from his boot story is bordering on BS

Seems an odd thing to have made up, when he'd already justified his presence in the yard by saying he'd gone there to check that the place was secure after a previous break-in.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You might also like to read post 233 in this thread Camus, you'll find it very interesting going by your comments .

After reading Wolf Vanderlindens article twice I’d like to know how this can be used in any way as evidence supporting Stephen Knight’s theory? Wolf himself leaves it open for readers to form their own opinions. There are no cast iron certainties here. There are inconsistencies. But, as Sam has hinted at, why would Richardson put himself at the scene of an horrific knife murder whilst himself using a knife when he had absolutely no need to? Much is made of the fact that initially he didn’t mention attempting to fix his shoe. Maybe he didn’t think it was of importance? Maybe he didn’t want to incriminate himself by admitting that he was there with a knife? Maybe he was only forced to admit it because the police suggested to him that if he’d only opened the door and looked to the right to check the cellar Richardson might have missed the body? So he had to explain that he’d actually sat on the second step to trim his boot and seen all around the yard? The overwhelming likelihood is that Richardson was telling the truth and therefore Annie’s body was not there at 4.45-4.50.

Cadosch also had no reason to lie (although that in itself doesn’t mean that he didn’t of course.) He was a little vague on hearing the word “no” which is a little strange if he was lying. Why didn’t he just say “I definitely heard a “no” from number 29? His uncertainty and hesitance smacks of someone being truthful for me. As I’ve said before about the noise of something falling against the fence, which is the likeliest - the further away number 25 (talking about the fences of course) where nothing of note occurred? Or the yard of number 29 which was closest to the door where he was at the time and where a body was later found?

As Vanderlinden states Mrs Long was hardly paying attention to the two that were alleged to be Annie and her killer and, as we know that eye witness testimonies can be mistaken or even made up, we have no way of evaluating her evidence accurately.

And of course we know about the inaccuracy of TOD estimations. Is it such a slur on Phillips reputation to simply suggest that he was an hour out in his estimation and that instead of 4.20 Annie was killed around an hour later. It’s hardly shock horror is it? We are talking about a shortfall in medical knowledge which would make error understandable. However it’s massively more difficult to justify Richardson missing a mutilated corpse that was three feet from him. He said that he saw the whole yard. He even, later on, saw the body in situ so he knew for certain where she was positioned and how much floor space she would have taken up. Richardson was unshakeable that he could not have missed the body. This is more convincing that Victorian Forensic (almost) guesswork.

The overwhelming, logical, sensible deduction is that Phillips was in error. That Richardson didn’t see Chapman’s body because it wasn’t there. That Cadosch in all likelihood heard the ripper with Annie Chapman and that Elizabeth Long was mistaken. Therefore Annie was probably killed somewhere around 5.25 and absolutely definitely in the backyard of number 29 Hanbury Street.

Can anyone of sense and reason give a minutes consideration to the tragic-comic scene of two men taking a mutilated corpse from a coach then carrying it along or across the pavement and into the backyard of number 29? It’s ok to have walked into a yard with a prostitute to find someone else there but how do you come up with an innocent explanation when your carrying a corpse? “”Oops, story sir, wrong address!”” Isn’t it laughable that posters can debate small timing differences and inconsistencies in statements purely to bolster this childish nonsense. Thankfully most of us have grown out of this drivel and have the integrity to name it when we see it.

[FISHY1118]

If its all the same ill stick with Vanderlinens explanation rather than yours , think about what changes if Phillips is right and the t.od is correct. Theres no Mrs Long in the street , its now very dark, not light like 5.30 am ,nobody else in the back yard of 29, No Codosch to hear anything, front door open 20 feet from the street to the back yard, the rest is pretty easy . Unlikely ?yes perhaps, but impossible? CERTAINLY NOT .

[Herlock Sholmes]

If its all the same ill stick with Vanderlinens explanation rather than yours , think about what changes if Phillips is right and the t.od is correct. Theres no Mrs Long in the street , its now very dark, not light like 5.30 am ,nobody else in the back yard of 29, No Codosch to hear anything, front door open 20 feet from the street to the back yard, the rest is pretty easy . Unlikely ?yes perhaps, but impossible? CERTAINLY NOT .

That’s hardly surprising. But as even you say....unlikely.

Talking of likelihood let’s compare....

Phillips makes a TOD estimate - we know from experts that TOD estimations were very unreliable so we’re not questioning the Doctor’s integrity or even his competence. He was competent within the parameters of forensic medical knowledge at the time.

Richardson says that the yard was empty at 4.45 - we have to ask what reason would Richardson have to have lied and why would he tell such an insane lie that put him alone at the crime scene. And to make matters worse....with a knife! The odds are massively against this. Yes he appears to have altered his story but can we assume something sinister from this? Of course if we use the conspiracy theorist approach we can but let’s avoid that here. We have Richardson, normal working class man, probably with the usual reticence when it comes to getting involved with the police. It’s a reasonable suggestion that he initially didn’t mention that he had sat on the step to mend his shoe because that would have put a knife into his hand at a crime scene. Then when it was established that he could have checked the cellar doors (the reason for his visit in the first place) by simply opening the door and looking to his right (which might have caused him to have missed the body) , he had to tell the police that he’d actually sat on the step and so could have seen all of the yard.

We have Richardson unequivocally stating that he could see the entire yard from the step. He also stated that he later saw the body in situ and so he knew exactly were it was, exactly what position it was in and exactly how much floor space it would have taken up.

Therefore to dismiss Richardson we have to suggest that for some inexplicable reason he intentionally lied, without any need to, about being in a yard with a knife where a mutilated woman was discovered around an hour and a quarter later. Is this likely? I’d suggest that it’s unlikely in the extreme.

Now compare that unlikeliness with the suggestion that Dr Phillip’s made an entirely understandably mistaken TOD estimate. Given the knowledge of the time this is entirely possible and requires no accusation of dishonesty or incompetence on Phillips part.

Richardson is more likely to have been correct than Phillip’s. Or less likely to have been mistaken.

If Phillip’s was correct then Richardson was a liar who, without any reason or compulsion, placed himself alone with a knife in a yard with a mutilated corpse. Can anyone seriously believe that? How many unbelievable things do we have to believe to make that mythical coach and horses appear with the evil Sir William waiting with his big knife.

[FISHY1118]

Ahhhh like a i said ill go with the Vanderlinen version and not yours , he makes more sense. Your speculating to much on what richardson might or might not have said , and did or did not do . Stick to the what Swanson reports where richardsons concerned

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ahhhh like a i said ill go with the Vanderlinen version and not yours , he makes more sense. Your speculating to much on what richardson might or might not have said , and did or did not do . Stick to the what Swanson reports where richardsons concerned

No he doesn’t. It’s simply the fact that you believe that it gives you more wriggle room for the Knight lie.

We know what Richardson said. He said that there was definitely no body in the yard at 4.45. No speculation involved just a simple, but inconvenient for you, statement of fact.

No horse and carriage though. No one carrying mutilated corpses around.

Ill keep my feet firmly on planet earth (like 99.9999% of those interested in the case) whilst you stick to dishonestly defending a proven lie.

[APerno]

Why is Annie's TOD important to Knight's theory?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is Annie's TOD important to Knight's theory?

Because Fishy wants it earlier and dark so that there would be fewer people around to see two men carrying a mutilated corpse from coach and horses into the backyard of Hanbury Street.

[APerno]

Because Fishy wants it earlier and dark so that there would be fewer people around to see two men carrying a mutilated corpse from coach and horses into the backyard of Hanbury Street.

Wait! Two men (Nedley and Sickert I suppose) pull up in front of 29 Hanbury Street and carry a body through the front door, out the back door and then dump her body next to the fence/stairs. Why?

The torso killer shows us how to dump bodies: empty building/The Yard's new HQ; a river/Thames; by the side of the road/Pinchin Street. All safe ways to dump a corpse and still have it likely to be found quickly. (I believe the Thames body was NOT weighed down, purposely.)

We assume they are dumping the body because: (1) they want to hide the murder site, (2) but want the body found to send a message. OK, I can buy that, but to enter the 29 Hanbury Street apartment building is to take a great risk for no reason; the above to objectives can be reached by dumping the body on Buck's Row or any quiet street for that matter; just push the poor lady out of the carriage and drive off. Now that's 'dumping.'

This scenario seems very unreasonable; quite an unnecessary action/risk.

Besides most everything else suggests they were killed were they laid.

Thanks for explaining.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Aperno,

Not everyone agrees.

Evening News, 8th September 1888—

“The supposition finds ready acceptance that the poor woman was murdered outside and taken into this yard, by those who knew the place well. This is upheld by the fact that spots of blood are lying thick in the narrow passage leading from the street into the yard, and the blood marks where the body was found must have been caused by its being deposited there, there being no signs of any struggle having taken place in the vicinity.”

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

The Manchester Guardian, 10th September 1888, offered the most sublime explanation for the presence of blood marks in the passage of 29 Hanbury Street—

“There were some marks of blood observable in the passage, but it is now known that these were caused during the work of removal of some packing cases, the edges of which accidentally came in contact with the blood upon the spot from which the unhappy victim was removed."

And pigs might fly.

Inspector Chandler [Chapman inquest]: "The blood-stains at No. 29 were in the immediate neighbourhood of the body only. There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall, near the head of the deceased, 2ft from the ground. The largest spot was of the size of a sixpence. They were all close together."

Bagster Phillips [Chapman inquest]: "On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted."