Chapman's Death

[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]

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]

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?

[Archaic]

Hi, everyone, and thanks for all the interesting posts.

I just re-checked John Richardson's testimony and apparently he was only in the back yard for about 3 minutes total. It was approximately 4:45 AM, and it does say the morning was just getting light enough to the point that he could see into the yard.

Does anyone think its possible that Annie Chapman knew Richardson's early-morning routine, and that once he was gone the coast was clear to enter the backyard?
The local prostitutes probably made it their business to know convenient locations for business, and therefore the habits of the residents near those locations. Conversely, the killer might have been the one who knew about the backyard at #29 and Richardson's habits.

Either way I feel the murder must have happened very shortly after Richardson left the yard, well before the sun was up.
I agree with Lynn in that I can't see the Ripper committing his crimes in daylight when he relied on the darkness to make a safe getaway.

Nor can I picture the Ripper boxing himself into the back yard of a houseful of working people who must all be waking up with the sun, getting ready to start their day, and at least some off whom could be expected to look out the window or use the backyard privy. Yes, he was a risk-taker, but I still believe he was smarter than that.

So I wonder if it's possible that Annie and her killer watched Richardson leave before they themselves entered the backyard?
This would put them in the yard at some time close to 4:48 AM.

Best regards, Archaic

[lynn cates]

reasons

Hello Chava.

"So why should he be deterred by the dawn half-light?"

Because:

1. It was time for many to go to work.

2. It was a market day.

3. Many people lived at 29 Hanbury.

The best.
LC

[curious]

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

Hi, Archaic,

What if this exact thing did happen -- but on a different morning?

If my memory is right, Richardson waited a couple of days before telling his story.

Memories being what they are (and varying widely along with the intelligence of the person) he got to telling himself that it had happened on the same morning as the murder (I don't know how many days a week were market days).

Then, once he'd told that story, it's "oh XXXXXX what HAVE I done" when asked to produce the knife.

curious

[Archaic]

What if this exact thing did happen -- but on a different morning?

If my memory is right, Richardson waited a couple of days before telling his story.

Hi, Curious. This is off the top of my head, but I believe the police went immediately to speak to Richardson, didn't they? I believe he told them the what had occurred that morning, then he repeated a couple of times at later dates when being questioned about the events of that morning.

However, I do think that with many other witnesses to the Whitechapel murders, it might have been a simple case of good intentions but confused dates and details.

Best regards, Archaic

[curious]

Morning, Archaic,

I agree with you that the police spoke with Richardson immediately his mother told them that he came by on market days.

What I have in my head (and don't have time to research this morning) is that the story "grew" from the time of first inquiry until the inquest.

Now that means we're dealing with my non-existant memory.

curious

[Chava]

Hello Chava.

"So why should he be deterred by the dawn half-light?"

Because:

1. It was time for many to go to work.

2. It was a market day.

3. Many people lived at 29 Hanbury.

The best.
LC

1. Market porters went to work a lot earlier than 5.30 am. Nicholls was found by a couple on their way to the market a couple of hours earlier than that.

2. Every day was a market day. Spitalfields Market was open all the time. We're not talking Petticoat Lane here.

3. Many people lived in Bucks Row as well.

[perrymason]

I think that its important that we remember that Annie Chapman's murder, although its performed later in the day than any other Canonical murder, was almost certainly committed by the killer publicly called Jack the Ripper in early October. Which means, the time of day and the available light may well be something he wanted, not something he was forced to accept.

Polly is killed where some light was available, so was Annie.....and they are to me, the two 99% certain Ripper victims in the "Canon". They were also killed in spots where the murder might easily be seen by witnesses.

Liz was killed in a very dark spot, Kate was killed in a spot at the opposite end of the court from the nearest gas lamp, and all we know about room 13 is that a fire did exist in the fireplace, but we dont know how large it may have been while the killer was there,... and a partial candle is found.

Its quite possible that the killer of Polly and Annie showed us that he required some light by those 2 murders, and the very public nature of the locations suggests that he may have wanted to be "shocking" with these acts. Which suggests to me that the murders may have been born from some socio-political motivations. The killer may have wanted attention....but for what specifically, and from whom...its hard to say.

Best regards all.

[lynn cates]

socio-economic-political theory

Hello Mike. Quite plausible. Almost any time after 4:30 should have allowed a bit of light.

Your socio-economic-political theory is shared by Jonathan H who has some quite interesting theories in that regard. Have you chatted him up yet? It would well repay the effort.

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Hello Mike. Quite plausible. Almost any time after 4:30 should have allowed a bit of light.

Your socio-economic-political theory is shared by Jonathan H who has some quite interesting theories in that regard. Have you chatted him up yet? It would well repay the effort.

The best.
LC

I havent Lynn, but I do follow his posts closely and have seen some of the thinking you described. Im pleased that others have the wherewithall to take a step back before making any suppositions about the killer....because what we have been led to believe happened the Fall of 1888 in London is very likely not what actually occurred.

There were many areas of concern in those specific neighborhoods that had nothing at all to do with the Unfortunates being murdered in them.

Best regards mate.

[lynn cates]

reality

Hello Mike. What many of us believe about Whitechapel in 1888 is what books and the cinema have led us to believe. I'm delighted that you are addicted to reality.

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Mike. What many of us believe about Whitechapel in 1888 is what books and the cinema have led us to believe. I'm delighted that you are addicted to reality.

What some folks around here are addicted to certainly would make good cinema.

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Sam. You get that feeling too?

The best.
LC