Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eye-witness? Ear-witness? Timelines in the Chapman Murder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eye-witness? Ear-witness? Timelines in the Chapman Murder

    Annie Chapman vanishes from sight around 1.45 am. She re-appears, dead at some time around 6.00 am. Davies, who found her body, deposes that he woke up via Spitalfields clock at 5.45 am. Had a cup of tea. Then went into the backyard and found her body. Richardson who rented a large part of the house deposes that her grandson went down at 6.00 am to find out what all the noise was about and told his grandmother that there was a woman murdered in the yard.

    I'd like to discuss this.

    Davies says he was woken by Spitalfields Church Clock chiming the three-quarter. He has a cup of tea. And then goes out into the backyard, presumably to use the privy. Davies does not have access to a high-speed fast-boiling electric kettle. It's possible that his wife had gotten up earlier and banked-up the fire, but even so, water has to boil, tea has to be made and drunk. I don't think there is enough time for Davies to do all of this and then pull his clothes on and go out to the backyard, find the body and set up a hue and cry, and get others back there to bustle around in time for Mrs Richardson to be woken by the noise at 6.00 am. And we know he didn't, because James Kent testifies that he didn't arrive at the packers where he worked until 6.10 am and it was after that when Davies came around calling for help. Inspector Chandler says that it was 6.10 am when he saw men running to tell the police that another woman had been murdered. He accompanied them back to Hanbury Street.

    So how do we deal with this? Chandler has a watch, I'm sure, so knows the time he saw Davies and the others trying to get help. But his watch may not be exactly correct. Davies tells the time by Spitalfields Church Clock and he's probably correct. Richardson says she was woken up at around 6.00 am but that's impossible. It's likely she was woken around 6.15 am and we don't know how she knew the time. She may have had a watch that's 15 minutes out, but I suspect it's more likely she also heard Spitalfields Church Clock and made a mistake about the chime.

    The point I'm laboriously making is that it's very possible that Mrs Long was also mistaken about the time she saw the couple outside #29. She may have heard the quarter chime rather than the half. It's equally possible that Cadoche may have gotten his time wrong as well, and that the noises he heard were later. No one has come forward to say that they were in the backyards of #27 or #31 and were responsible for the noises that Cadoche heard.

    I don't think we can trust any of these witnesses times to be accurate. So I think it's entirely likely that the couple Mrs Long saw 'at around 5.30 am' were responsible for the noises Albert Cadoche heard 'around 5.20 am'. If that's the case, then Long is an eye-witness who should be paid attention to...

  • #2
    Originally posted by Chava View Post
    So I think it's entirely likely that the couple Mrs Long saw 'at around 5.30 am' were responsible for the noises Albert Cadoche heard 'around 5.20 am'. If that's the case, then Long is an eye-witness who should be paid attention to...
    Hello Chava,

    I agree that Cadosch and Long have surely heard/seen the same couple - and think most will agree with that.

    But what do you mean exactly with your last sentence ?

    That her description was accurate ? That she really saw a 40 years old "foreigner" ?

    Amitiés,
    David

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Chava,

      Paul Begg makes the same assumptions you do about Long and Cadosch in his book JtR: the facts. It does seem plausible that they were the same couple, otherwise: why didnt Longs couple come forward, if they went into the house they would practically have stumbled over the Ripper leaving the premisis.

      Greetings,

      Addy

      Comment


      • #4
        David, I mean that we should listen to her description even though it doesn't match my Mr Blotchy Suspect! 'Foreign-looking' could mean anything. However she does have him as short. I think Chapman was around 5' tall, and she describes the man as being a little taller.

        The other thing that interests me is the reported conversation. 'Will you?' 'Yes'. If Chapman had approached the Ripper, I imagine she would have used a variant of the approach Hutchinson reported he got from Mary Jane Kelly. As oblique as 'can you lend me 6d?' to as obvious as 'wanna have fun, sailor?' But in this conversation, he seems to approach her. He's doing the asking. Which probably means she was hovering around outside looking as if she was open for business. But no one else reports having seen her, and no one reports that she was a prostitute who often used that area as a stroll.

        The thing is, I can't work out where she was between 1.45 am and her death. It sounds like she had just taken up position on Hanbury Street, so where was she before? And it also sounds like the conversation between her and her killer was a fairly brief one. I can't believe he met and talked with her for longer than 5 minutes before bringing up the idea of finding somewhere private. It wasn't winter, but it wouldn't be all that warm. If he picked her up earlier he would have had to take her somewhere fairly quickly. I don't see her agreeing just to walk the streets with him for a few hours. After all, she left to get her bed-money and what she wanted to do was go to sleep for the night.

        So what this does suggest to me is that the Ripper doesn't spend much, if any, time with his victims before he kills them.

        Comment


        • #5
          I mean that we should listen to her description even though it doesn't match my Mr Blotchy Suspect!
          I know you "like" Blotchy...!

          'Foreign-looking' could mean anything.
          It means that Mrs Long had in mind all those tales about Leather Apron... Clear enough, as she only saw his back.



          The thing is, I can't work out where she was between 1.45 am and her death.
          I can't work out either where Nichols was before she met Jack.


          So what this does suggest to me is that the Ripper doesn't spend much, if any, time with his victims before he kills them.
          Right. The Ripper certainly tried his best to "quickly negociate" with his victims. Lawende and Long just caught a glimpse of him.
          Isn't that a significant point against Blotchy ?

          Amitiés,
          David

          Comment


          • #6
            Oh I love Blotchy! He's my boy.

            And I agree, this doesn't sound like him at all. However it's possible that he thought he'd go back to Kelly's place, kill her and then leave. But Mary Ann Cox spoiled that by eyeballing him as he walked up the passage. And then Mary Jane commenced to singing. It would have looked very obvious if she had stopped mid-warble... I think he crept out and then crept back. But I also think the Ripper's preferred method was to kill them quickly.

            Which, as you've pointed out, leaves time unaccounted for in Nicholls and Chapman.

            Comment

            Working...
            X