Specific

[David Orsam]

I MsWeatherwax.

[Pierre]

Its only hotly debated by people who believe Richardson and Cadosche liars. There was someone alive on the spot where Annie dies around 5:15am, Cadosches statement is definitive on this point.

Why does it matter?

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

'We' don't have to remember anything - you may suggest that we consider facts as social constructions if you wish, but I doubt that you're going to gain much traction with that here. This argument is the last bastion of the desperate, Pierre. You might as well say 'whatever is presented to me, I will twist in a manner to suit me because there is a philosophical argument that a fact is not a fact. Therefore, I can make any scenario correct'.

But isn't that what he always does, twist everything to suit.

If you choose to attempt to solve a century old murder on the basis that a fact is a 'social construction', Pierre, be my guest. I have no idea how you think you're going to present your research at this stage, but I hope for your sake that you're not considering any attempt to publish. All you have done thus far is create increasingly esoteric and bizarre threads, made very little sense and (it would appear to me) use some of the very knowledgeable contributors here as a short cut for your own research. To add insult to injury, having asked questions and posed theories, you have gone on to be rude, insulting and patronising to the people who have answered your questions.

Seems to sum it up perfectly.

As an academic, you must surely know that all hypotheses should be tested - you cannot get round someone making a sound, reasoned argument against your statements by saying that they 'have no idea what history is'. I'm sorry if this bursts your bubble Pierre but out of you and David there is only one of you who has a sound grasp of the history and circumstances around The Whitechapel Murders - and it's not you if that's what you're thinking.

You said Academic when talking to Pierre

[MsWeatherwax]

I MsWeatherwax.

[Michael W Richards]

Why does it matter?

Regards, Pierre

There are a number of reasons why that timing is important. Perhaps most importantly, with respect to witness reliability.

[Geddy2112]

Just for the slow ones at the back.... erm how can you know someone can read or write (or anything) if you do know not who the person is you are referring to?

[Bridewell]

Just for the slow ones at the back.... erm how can you know someone can read or write (or anything) if you do know not who the person is you are referring to?

But Pierre thinks that he does - just won't say who or why he thinks that.

[Bridewell]

Its only hotly debated by people who believe Richardson and Cadosche liars. There was someone alive on the spot where Annie dies around 5:15am, Cadosches statement is definitive on this point.

Cadosch is definite as to the time - but is wrong if Elizabeth Long is right. One of them has to be mistaken, in whole or in part (as the coroner said must be the case). I'm just not sure which.

[Abby Normal]

Cadosch is definite as to the time - but is wrong if Elizabeth Long is right. One of them has to be mistaken, in whole or in part (as the coroner said must be the case). I'm just not sure which.

They both could be right-just one of them off on their time. Probably long

[Geddy2112]

But Pierre thinks that he does - just won't say who or why he thinks that.

Ah that's good though... we now know JtR could read and write... that should narrow the suspect list down a fair bit..

[GUT]

Ah that's good though... we now know JtR could read and write... that should narrow the suspect list down a fair bit..

No no no no, Pierre thinks he could read and write, so based on everything else Pierre has stated as unequivocal fact, he must have been a deaf, blind mute

[Geddy2112]

No no no no, Pierre thinks he could read and write, so based on everything else Pierre has stated as unequivocal fact, he must have been a deaf, blind mute

Mmmmm the plot thickens..

[MsWeatherwax]

Just for the slow ones at the back.... erm how can you know someone can read or write (or anything) if you do know not who the person is you are referring to?

By rearranging the letters on the bottom of a cake tin, adding 7, subtracting 5 and dividing the result by your own age. 2653 bonus points if the cake tin was found in a pawn shop and contained a handwritten confession. Whatever the answer is, screw it up and throw it away because facts are a social construction.

::sigh::

In the interests of attempting sensible discourse, I am not aware of any material facts that would indicate that the killer was able to read and write. Equally, I am not aware of any material facts that would indicate that he was illiterate.

Conclusion: Inconclusive.

[Michael W Richards]

Cadosch is definite as to the time - but is wrong if Elizabeth Long is right. One of them has to be mistaken, in whole or in part (as the coroner said must be the case). I'm just not sure which.

That's my point Bridewell, if Cadosche was correct Mrs Long is incorrect. And Cadosche has the distinction of making his audial observance from directly on the other side of the fence that Annie Chapman died beside. There is no reason on paper to dispute that claim other than witness statements that indicated a retroactive belief in the identity of the person they saw based on a subsequent morgue viewing of the person who died.

For me the witnesses speak volumes whether relevant to the immediate question of who killed the victim or not. In this case, Cadosches proximity to the crime scene and his remarks suggest that a man and a woman were alive on the other side of the fence at approx. 5:15am...and since its inconceivable that they stood over a gutted dying woman while they were there, it seems to strongly indicate that the couple heard were likely the killer and his victim. Which places her death near 5:30, which is contrary to the speculation about TOD by the medical examiner in this case.

See...give Cadoshche his due and we have the following results....Mrs Long is irrelevant, Richardson didn't see anything because nothing was there at that time, and Annie died sometime around 5:30am, making the man seen soon thereafter by Mrs Fiddymont possibly the same man. It also means that when a body was desecrated outdoors in cool morning air and opened to such a large degree, it cooled far quicker than contemporary medical experts believed.

[kjab3112]

Hi Michael

To be fair to Dr Phillips, he did state that the coolness of the day and blood loss may hasten cooling and thus exaggerate time since death, but he doesn't seem to have considered starting temperature. If Annie was mildly hypothermic, by just 1C say, that would easily move the estimate to correlate with Cadosche and Long

Paul