Where Were They

[FISHY1118]

Polly Nichols , 2.30am [ ten minute s from bucks row ] 3.45am found dead . 1 1/4 hours where was she?

Annie Chapman last seen 1.35 am, found dead 6.00am 4 hours no reported sighting, where was she ?

Catherine Eddows 1.00am [ten minutes from mitre sq] 1.44am found dead . no positive i.d since leaving police station, where was she ?

[drstrange169]

Mrs Chapman was reported seen by Elizabeth Long.
Catherine Eddowes was seen (but not absolutely conformed) by Lawende et al.

[FISHY1118]

Not if we take cadosch as true . anyway still leaves 4 hour in between .

[drstrange169]

Question is, was it unusual for people walking the streets at night to be not accounted for, for gaps in time?


If they were soliciting then absences are to be expected and clients unlikely to come forward.

If they were begging then they would need to distance themselves from fellow beggars to eliminate competition.

Plus there is always the "Rhubenhold option", that they might have been having a quick kip.


Mrs Nicols and Catherine Eddowes could easily fill an hour gap wondering around, particularly as time in the Victorian era East End was a malleable notion.

Mrs Chapman has a rather long gap, but the fact that Long saw her rules out any kidnap or similar ideas, so really she is the only curiosity.

If Mrs Tabram, Stride and Mary Kelly were killed by the same hand as the other three, we have no serial killer pattern with regard to time gaps.

[FISHY1118]

Thanks for the post , and all very possible ,.. although chapman is indeed a long time .

[DJA]

Mrs Chapman was reported seen by Elizabeth Long.

Might have been the only sighting of Jack the Ripper.

Height tallies with GSG. 5'3".

Possibly been catching up with friends at The Black Swan where a relative once worked.

[FISHY1118]

Long was mistaken when she saw Annie, or Cadosch was mistaken when he heard Annie hit the fence with a thud. Something doesn't add up'',IF'' their times are accurate . As we only have their inquest times to work from , thats what we have to go by.One must not assume clocks or watches were wrong or peoples habits differ or change the times to suit another narrative .

If we are to believe Codosch and the majority of people i would say do, then he has Annie hitting the fence at 5.25am. Dr Phillips testified ''he could not perform all the injuries to that women in under 15 minutes''. Therefor One must accept that JTR was ripping into dear poor Annie right up until 5.40am in the now daylight hour while the entire occupants of 29 Handbury st were getting ready to begin their day .Not to mention that at any moment anyone could have entered the back yard to use to privy , after all there was 17 people living at 29 Hanbury st . Then theres Codosch, who from 5.15am went into his yard and back ''twice'' , just meters away from a 5 foot 6 inch fence and neither he or jack flinched or battered an eyelid to either ones presence.

so i guess because clever jack was never caught then this is how it must of went down right ?

Well we all know he was never caught , but i for one have a hard time believing poor Annie Chapmans murder went down like that . Maybe in the movies

[Cogidubnus]

If we are to believe Codosch and the majority of people i would say do, then he has Annie hitting the fence at 5.25am. Dr Phillips testified ''he could not perform all the injuries to that women in under 15 minutes''. Therefor One must accept that JTR was ripping into dear poor Annie right up until 5.40am in the now daylight hour while the entire occupants of 29 Handbury st were getting ready to begin their day .Not to mention that at any moment anyone could have entered the back yard to use to privy , after all there was 17 people living at 29 Hanbury st . Then theres Codosch, who from 5.15am went into his yard and back ''twice'' , just meters away from a 5 foot 6 inch fence and neither he or jack flinched or battered an eyelid to either ones presence.

Hi Peter

Not at all...not if the thud on the fence was, say, her arm or leg striking it as the killer posed her body...ok it might mean the killer crouching beside the body and pausing as Cadosche performed his first set of ablutions...or it might mean that the voices Cadosche heard were the killer muttering to himself...but then that would put the final phase of the killing at about 5.25am.

I've also never been sure about Bagster-Phillips estimate of time taken in this case...the killer managed it in less time than a doctor because he doesn't give a fig about the outcome and doesn't need to take such care...and, after all, the killer managed to achieve even more in considerably less time, later at Mitre Square

Cheers

Dave

[FISHY1118]

Then in that scenario Long is 100 percent wrong in her sighting of Chapman at 5.30am. Isnt she ?

[FISHY1118]

Dr. Phillips: ''I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour.''

Remember, no changing the inquest statement to fit a different narrative . Lets stick to what the Dr said shall we, and his is quite clear.

[Cogidubnus]

Then in that scenario Long is 100 percent wrong in her sighting of Chapman at 5.30am. Isnt she ?

But she is at least slightly mistaken about her timings, according to most scenarios Peter...which is far from being 100% wrong...many surmise she may have heard the 5.15 strike rather than the 5.30, and at that time of the morning, on autopilot until she saw someone or something out of the ordinary which attracted her attention, how would she tell? In all probability nobody would bat an eyelid if she turned up a little early for work...late might've been different!

Cheers

Dave

[FISHY1118]

and, after all, the killer managed to achieve even more in considerably less time, later at Mitre Square

And here we have another dilemma , more damage in quarter of the time .

[FISHY1118]

One must not assume clocks or watches were wrong or peoples habits differ or change the times to suit another narrative .

As suggested lets not assume the witnesses may or may not have been mistaken , based on what they said at the inquest . lets try and accept what they said as true in there minds and try and work to that . it then forces us to try and figure out other ways in which the crime may have been committed . . .

[drstrange169]

>>One must not assume clocks or watches were wrong .. .<<

Given the technology, it is an almost certainty that people did not have access to the exact time. The question we don't knows how inaccurate their times were.

With doctors statements, with have to interpret them through modern advances in medicine.

[Cogidubnus]

As suggested lets not assume the witnesses may or may not have been mistaken , based on what they said at the inquest . lets try and accept what they said as true in there minds and try and work to that . it then forces us to try and figure out other ways in which the crime may have been committed . . .

Why not? In an age where most working folk couldn't afford watches, and many homes didn't have a clock...and many folk don't even have a home to go to, time as a concept, and peoples' perception of it, has to be a good deal more fluid...In terms of time, what they perceived was true in their minds may easily have been out...even at it's simplest, if something happened about halfway between the hour and quarter past, then it might've been at five past, or ten past...and who sets the clock anyway, and how, unless he can hear Big Ben, does he know?

This was an era when it took until 1880 for the government to legislate on the establishment of a single Standard Time and a single time zone for the country...The railway companies started it, but they had an extensive private telegraph system...the local verger didn't...To deny this fluidity of time is to assume every person on the street knew instinctively exactly where they were to the minute at any time of day...which is self-evident nonsense...sorry Peter, but that doesn't wash...

Dave