AC and TOD

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Well, let's hypothetically say that none of the witnesses existed, going by what very little evidence there is, would Annie's death make an iota of sense to still have taken place at dawn? Is there a shred of proof or a clue to indicate that that was the case? Because the only reason to believe that she was murdered during daylight is on the grounds of three pretty shaky witness testimonies.

So AC dies sometime between the time she is last seen and first discovered.

Really? Said in good nature!

[Mitch Rowe]

As far as Im concerned there is not enough information left to say when AC was murdered. Philips was a good Doc but he just didnt have the technology to pin much down. Richardson doesnt come clean enough soon enough to seem credible although most likely he was. So AC dies sometime between the time she is last seen and first discovered.

[Chris]

It sounds to me like Lynn that Chris is saying youre incorrect and there were no contradictory elements in those statements based solely on what he interprets is the "true" meaning of the wording. And its not for the first time this kind of rebuttal argument been used by him, nor will it be the last. When we all see an "o", Chris sees an "i", but his would be the correct interpretation.

Ive seen similar stuff across many topics and with equal disdain for us, less capable, mere mortals...and our misguided interpretations.

I have stated my opinion here, just as I stated my opinion about the Lusk letter (and that topic has its own thread, which is the appropriate place to discuss it). I have also made it perfectly clear that I think other people have a right to different opinions.

What I don't do is bear grudges against people, indulge in personal attacks and threaten other posters. You've made it abundantly clear that you have a personal problem with me - and don't imagine for a moment that I've forgotten anything you've done, or threatened to do, in the past. But please don't start following me around the boards trying to pick arguments. The site actually has an effective policy to prevent that.

[lynn cates]

perserverance

Hello Mike. I shall, of course, look further into the testimony. I wish to leave no stone unturned.

I am VERY mortal when it comes to this complex case. I have dreams at night about it!

Do you think AC would have given up before 5:30 if she had not turned a trick or did she take "perserverance" as a virtue?

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

leather apron

Hello Archaic. Not only was the knife Richardson's, but also the leather apron. Very unnerving for R.

But my point was that his various stories were not harmonious.

Your dictum:

"I've always wondered about the time of Annie's death; I tend to think she was killed while it was still quite dark- partly because to kill her inside a fenced yard at an hour when people were getting up for work & could be expected to use the backyard privy seems too reckless even for the Ripper. It's interesting that no one claimed to have seen Annie out soliciting during the late night/early AM hours."

Is dead on.

The best.
LC

It sounds to me like Lynn that Chris is saying youre incorrect and there were no contradictory elements in those statements based solely on what he interprets is the "true" meaning of the wording. And its not for the first time this kind of rebuttal argument been used by him, nor will it be the last. When we all see an "o", Chris sees an "i", but his would be the correct interpretation.

Ive seen similar stuff across many topics and with equal disdain for us, less capable, mere mortals...and our misguided interpretations.

All the best Lynn

[Archaic]

Richardson's Boot-Trimming Testimony

I have to agree with Chris that the discrepancies in Richardson's testimony about trimming his boot are very minor, and perfectly normal as far as witness testimony goes. Look at it from Richardson's point of view: he must have been upset by the gruesome murder, by knowing he'd been so close to it, and by having it happen in his own Mother's backyard. In addition to this he must have felt rather nervous about the fact that he himself was using a knife in that vicinity... Such circumstances would quite naturally unsettle anyone.

My impression of Richardson is that he was an honest man doing his best to assist the police by telling them the truth. It seems to me that in a ghastly murder case like this many people would have been afraid to even admit that they were using a knife anywhere near the place in which the body was found. If Richardson was a dishonest man he could have omitted this fact completely. It's understandable that he felt a little nervous about admitting that he had used a knife in any way that morning.

As for his boots, they were probably cheap work-boots of hard-tanned leather with a bad inner seam that irritated his toe. You need a very sharp knife to cut tanned boot-leather; if you have a dull knife you can saw away at it but won't be able to get a neat edge. I think this is why he had to borrow a sharp knife later to complete the job.

I've always wondered about the time of Annie's death; I tend to think she was killed while it was still quite dark- partly because to kill her inside a fenced yard at an hour when people were getting up for work & could be expected to use the backyard privy seems too reckless even for the Ripper. It's interesting that no one claimed to have seen Annie out soliciting during the late night/early AM hours.

Best regards, Archaic

[Chris]

Lynn

No - it sounds to me as though the second attempt wasn't entirely successful either, and that he had to borrow a sharper knife and have a third attempt later on.

I'm not sure what you mean about wasting the constable's time. Apparently the coroner simply wanted to inspect the knife that was on Richardson's person when he was in the yard.

Let me try to make a constructive suggestion. What you've quoted (I think) are the reports of the inquest from the Daily Telegraph. But the reports of the inquests in the different papers tend to vary quite a lot in detail. There are quite a lot of different reports in the press section of this site. It may well be that some of the others include additional information that would shed light on Richardson's efforts to make his boot more comfortable, and make it clearer whether there is any real contradiction between what he said at different times. There is also a useful calendar feature that enables you to find all the press reports for a specified date.

[lynn cates]

PC's time

Hello Chris. Very well. Then you are saying the "steps" event was another go at it (after the try a day before)? So, the second time he was successful?

Right. Let's proceed. He sits down on the step; makes a second try with a borrowed knife; he successfully removes the offending piece; ties up the shoe; leaves the yard.

But why, then, did he waste the constable's time by retrieving the dull knife that was unsuccessful?

The best.
LC

[Chris]

So when he said he needed another knife, he was in error?

Again, I see no reason to think that. The report doesn't say exactly why he needed another knife, but I can only assume the result of the operation still wasn't satisfactory because of the bluntness of his own knife.

According to other reports, the cutting of the boot that morning at Hanbury Street was already his second attempt to make it comfortable:
"When did you first think your boot wanted cutting? - It hurt my toe, and I cut a piece out the day before, but I found I had not cut enough."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/eastern_post/easternpost880915.html

[lynn cates]

error

Hello Chris. Very well. Then the leather was cut off? That's fine.

So when he said he needed another knife, he was in error?

The best.
LC

[Chris]

I think you will agree that the "cut off" is an error?

Why?
__________________________________________________ _

[lynn cates]

cut off

Hello Chris. Compare:

"After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up[.]"

[Notice the leather in this story is CUT OFF.]

Now, in 3, it is cut. But perhaps he means "cut off." Very well. So now, what use does he have for a second knife?

I think you will agree that the "cut off" is an error? So it is both cut off and not cut off? Is that not a contradiction?

The best.
LC

[Chris]

Hello Chris. I take it, then, he did NOT cut off the leather?

As I have already pointed out, the report you yourself quoted and labelled "Story 3" describes his own knife as that "with which he had cut his boot". So obviously there is no implication in that report that he had not cut his boot with that knife.

[lynn cates]

sic et non

Hello Chris. I take it, then, he did NOT cut off the leather?

The best.
LC