Chapman's Death

[Chava]

Sorry about the time of GR's visit. I didn't check that up before posting...

As for 'after sun-up', dawn was at 5.23 am. So, yes, it was lighter. But it wasn't broad daylight either.

We don't have any proof whatsoever that Hutchinson was an attention-seeker. He puts himself forward, certainly, but he might have done that because he was a genuine witness, or because he was after any and all rewards, or because someone asked him to give an 'eye-witness description' of someone looking as different as possible to the someone who put him up to it. Any of those possibilities are as likely as the possibility that he was an attention-seeker. Likewise Packer.

I don't know much about JtR. But I think he had balls. And I also think he was an opportunistic kind of a guy. He might have been heading off to work. Found himself accosted by a woman who was just his type. And accompanied her to the quiet little corner she had in mind. Whereupon he jumped her, killed her, and then carried on to work. He doesn't mind murdering in the open where he can be seen from many vantage points. Anyone glancing out of an upper window in Buck's Row could have seen him kill Nicholls but he did it anyway. There was street-lighting all over the place to shed illumination on what he was doing to the poor woman. So why should he be deterred by the dawn half-light?

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Chava. Did you mean 4:45, the time Richardson was supposed to have visited?

"AC murdered any time that night. [J]R lies about visiting the yard. His ma expects him to, but he doesn't go that night. He sees nothing because he wasn't there. He comes up with the detailed story in order to prevent Ma from giving him an earful."

Not impossible.

"AC was murdered by person or persons unknown prior to [4].45 am. [J]R fetches up to the back yard, glances out to the right at the packing cases, and leaves. In which case why the story about the leather boot? Doesn't make any sense to me."

Notoriety. (See Packer and Hutchinson.)

"AC murdered as above prior to [4].45 am. [J]R fetches up in the yard. He looks to the right as he enters. He looks to his right as he cuts or attempts to cut the leather off his boot. He then keeps looking right as he sets both feet on the ground, and he turns right as he gets up and right again to exit the yard. As he steps from the yard he looks left or straight ahead. Honestly,

I think this is the most unlikely possibility of the lot."

So do I.

But to place TOD AFTER sunup? Well, Jack had a good deal more, um, testosterone that I had imagined. And on a busy market day too.

The best.
LC

[Chava]

Hello Archaic. Some are good at "thinking on their feet." Others not. I don't think Richardson was very good at it.

"Do you suspect Richardson of being the killer?"

Not a bit of it. I just see a good deal of Matthew Packer and George Hutchinson here--testimony wise.

The best.
LC

These are the possibilities:

- Annie Chapman was murdered between 3.50 am and 5.20 am. Richardson went into the yard at 3.45 am and the murder hadn't happened yet. He saw nothing, and there was nothing to see.

- AC was murdered at 3.45 am by GR who brought her into the yard to kill her. He then leaves. His mother has told the police that he was in the habit of visiting the yard to check up on things on the way to work, so he admits to doing that and describes sitting on the back step and using a knife to cut leather off his boot. Not even Mr Dumb of the well-known Dumb Family would have done that.

- AC murdered any time that night. GR lies about visiting the yard. His ma expects him to, but he doesn't go that night. He sees nothing because he wasn't there. He comes up with the detailed story in order to prevent Ma from giving him an earful.

- AC was murdered by person or persons unknown prior to 3.45 am. GR fetches up to the back yard, glances out to the right at the packing cases, and leaves. In which case why the story about the leather boot? Doesn't make any sense to me.

- AC murdered as above prior to 3.45 am. GR fetches up in the yard. He looks to the right as he enters. He looks to his right as he cuts or attempts to cut the leather off his boot. He then keeps looking right as he sets both feet on the ground, and he turns right as he gets up and right again to exit the yard. As he steps from the yard he looks left or straight ahead. Honestly, I think this is the most unlikely possibility of the lot. Put that with Cadosche's ear-witness stuff, and I have her murdered after 5.00 am.

[lynn cates]

think fast

Hello Archaic. Some are good at "thinking on their feet." Others not. I don't think Richardson was very good at it.

"Do you suspect Richardson of being the killer?"

Not a bit of it. I just see a good deal of Matthew Packer and George Hutchinson here--testimony wise.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

explicit/implicit

Hello Chris. I thought I had semi-agreed with you that it was not an explicit statement? If that's what you want, I give it with all my heart. I did point out that he later introduced a story about a sharper knife at the market or at work. Is that incorrect?

Nothing difficult here, merely suspect.

The best.
LC

[Archaic]

Hi, Lynn.

But if the story that Richardson told the police incriminated him, why did he choose it? He could have chosen any story in the whole wide world, so why pick one so blatantly incriminating that it could possibly get him killed?

Richardson could have made himself much more interesting to the newspapers by claiming to have seen or heard something suspicious- a noise, a figure, etc. He could have lied and claimed to recall a strange man he had previously seen lurking in the area, maybe trying to break into his mother's shed.

He'd have to be an utter fool, not even in his right senses to choose the story of "trimming his boot with a knife while sitting on the steps" if it wasn't true. He would have to have realized that he could have gotten himself hung or beaten to death by the crowd.
As it is, I don't recall a single instance of a neighbor or anyone coming forward and impugning his reputation or describing him as a liar desperate for attention.

If Richardson "fibbed" at all in describing his actions to the police I think it might have been regarding the type of knife he used. He may actually have had an ordinary clasp-knife in his pocket, the type typically carried by men at that time, and out of fear of incriminating himself in the retelling changed it to some duller knife, but that is merely a guess. It does take a very sharp knife blade to cut tanned leather.

Do you suspect Richardson of being the killer? That would certainly give him a strong motive to lie, but again I think the last thing he would mention would be a knife.

I really can't see any good reason to not believe him. Personally, I find that virtually all of the witness statements contain some element which is problematic, confusing or contradictory, but I think that's just the nature of the beast.

Best regards, Archaic

[Chris]

Lynn

I really can't understand what you seem to find so difficult about this.

Richardson said in his testimony that he cut a piece of leather off his boot with his knife. He doesn't say anywhere in his testimony that he didn't cut a piece of leather off his boot.

If you think his statement about the knife not being sharp enough implies otherwise, you are free to believe that. I don't agree, and I've suggested - several times now - an alternative explanation that I think is quite natural and consistent with the rest of his evidence.

Anyway, all I'm asking is that you don't keep saying he "declared he did NOT cut off the leather". Because he didn't.

[lynn cates]

incrimination

Hello Archaic. Your suggestion that his story:

"could easily incriminate or even endanger him"

is dead on. In fact, it DID. That's why he was asked to produce the knife. When he did, his story came unraveled and so he introduced the "sharper knife at work" story.

The best.
LC

[Archaic]

Why I Don't Think Richardson Made It All Up

Hi, Lynn. I was mulling over what you just wrote.

It seems to me that if Richardson merely glanced into the yard to visually check on the locked shed, and subsequently invented a longer story because he wished to interject himself into the case, then he must be the world's biggest FOOL to have made up a story involving a both a KNIFE and a claim to have sat USING that knife within a few feet of where the mutilated body was found!

This is primarily why I think he was telling the truth. The things he describes doing are perfectly routine and mundane- nothing exciting or heroic- yet they could easily incriminate or even endanger him.
If he wanted to make up a lie, why not say he went out to check the lock & use the privy or something?

Why risk getting himself jailed or even lynched by mentioning a knife and placing himself beside the crime scene?

Best regards, Archaic

[lynn cates]

have a seat

Hello Archaic. Well, if he really sat down as he said, then of course Annie had not been killed. My point is to impugn his testimony as generally unreliable.

In my puny mind, I think he hurriedly glanced out and saw all was well, never bothering to look left. Afterward, however, I think he embellished his story to become important.

The best.
LC

[Archaic]

I have a minor point to make re: the boot-trimming and the question of how light it was at that time.

Richardson said that it was the toe of the boot that was bothering him, so it was probably something in the nature of a bumpy internal seam where a leather edge hadn't been trimmed properly. He was most likely wearing cheap leather work-boots, the sort that lace up to the ankle. The toe area would have been made of hard tanned leather in order to offer protection from getting one's toe crushed on the job, dampness seeping in, etc.

In this kind of boot it might be difficult to actually see down into the toe in order to visually assess the problem. I expect that he did it by feel, and that he checked his progress -or lack therof- by feel as well.
So I don't know how much light he really required; I think he mostly just needed a place to sit down where he could take it off.

Best regards, Archaic

If only these people had known what a headache their testimony would cause us 120 years later...sigh.

[lynn cates]

waht they say, what they mean

Hello Chris. Then:

"John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market."

merely implies that he hadn't succeeded in cutting off the piece of leather?

Very well. I can live with that. So then his "implication" is not quite harmonious with his statement about cutting off the piece of leather?

Very well. I can live with that too.

The best.
LC

[Chris]

"He didn't say that he hadn't cut off the leather, only that the knife wasn't sharp enough."

Very well. Then the question becomes, "Not sharp enough for what?"

Not sharp enough to do a satisfactory job on the boot, presumably - which was why he had to borrow another later.

Anyway, my point is that whatever he may have meant, he didn't say that he hadn't cut off the leather, and that it's important to make a clear distinction between what was actually said (or was reported to have been said) and our own ideas about what the implications are.

[Chava]

Hello Chava. Whilst perusing Begg's history of Whitechapel and Spitalfields, I noted aaht the general area was supposedly filled with noxious odours.

I wonder if there's anything to that?

The best.
LC

I'm sure the East End stank to high heaven, but its inhabitants would hardly have noticed that. If you're around a smell long enough, you'd lose your ability to sense it. That having been said, the smell of blood--sharp, pungent and coppery--is unmistakeable and would not have formed part of the general dogshit and rotting veg smells around the Spitalfield Market. I would be amazed if that smell would elide with the ambient smells of the area.

[lynn cates]

rabbit food

Hello Chris.

"He didn't say that he hadn't cut off the leather, only that the knife wasn't sharp enough."

Very well. Then the question becomes, "Not sharp enough for what?"

If he cut off the leather with it, then he referred to something else. Perhaps it was not sharp enough for cutting up the rabbit food which was its primary use?

One might also ask why he borrowed another knife at work? Perhaps that, too, involved his rabbit?

The best.
LC