Where Were They

[Herlock Sholmes]

And why should we put weight in the medical opinion of a carman? How could he make any judgment of value? You yourself, on other threads, have repeatedly stressed how doctors got the TOD’s correct in three cases including Nichols. Yet again you are desperately looking for absolutely any none existent thread to suggest that the victims weren’t killed where they were found. Nichol’s was killed in Buck’s Row. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[FISHY1118]

left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there.''

Robert Paul 1888... co discovery of the body
...



Trying to show that Annie being unaccounted for for 3 or 4 hours before her death somehow points to the fact that she was killed earlier and elsewhere is an exercise in futility.

herlock 2019

[JeffHamm]

Hi,
From reading this thread, I thought we were not allowed to disregard the testimony? The doctors all stated they were certain the victims were killed where they were found, so, don't the rules already preclude killed elsewhere? Also, if we're required to take the testimony as given, then doesn't that mean we have to take, as given, Long's identification of Chapman and Lawende's identification of Eddowes? (tentative though Lawende's identification may be, he did testify he thought it was Eddowes' clothes, ego Eddowes, at least by the rules outlined).

I don't know, the rules seem a bit ... adjustable when convenient (or is it when inconvenient?)

- Jeff

[GUT]

Hi,
From reading this thread, I thought we were not allowed to disregard the testimony? The doctors all stated they were certain the victims were killed where they were found, so, don't the rules already preclude killed elsewhere? Also, if we're required to take the testimony as given, then doesn't that mean we have to take, as given, Long's identification of Chapman and Lawende's identification of Eddowes? (tentative though Lawende's identification may be, he did testify he thought it was Eddowes' clothes, ego Eddowes, at least by the rules outlined).

I don't know, the rules seem a bit ... adjustable when convenient (or is it when inconvenient?)

- Jeff

That’s where you went wrong you thought there was come consistency in what is and isn’t allowed by various posters.

[FISHY1118]

Just found it interesting that Pauls first thoughts were that the body of Nichols may have been dumped after she was murderer .

[drstrange169]

Paul's views may well have been coloured by the early press reports that said just that.

They were all based on Llewellyn's initial statements about the lack of blood at the scene. Once he examined the body Llewellyn knew where the blood went and changed his story accordingly.

Paul also appears to gilding his Lloyd's story to put the boot into the police.

[FISHY1118]

They were all based on Llewellyn's initial statements about the lack of blood at the scene. Once he examined the body Llewellyn knew where the blood went and changed his story accordingly.

Exactly where did Llewellyn know where the blood went .?

[drstrange169]

Do you where was he? When he saw the unaccounted for blood, he was in the mortuary.

If you mean where was the unaccounted for blood? According to Llewellyn, in the body cavity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just found it interesting that Pauls first thoughts were that the body of Nichols may have been dumped after she was murderer .

The point is that Paul’s first thoughts were hardly relevant. He was a Carman not a Doctor or Sherlock Holmes. He was mistaken.

[FISHY1118]

The point is that Paul’s first thoughts were hardly relevant. He was a Carman not a Doctor or Sherlock Holmes. He was mistaken.

Its my opinion his first thoughts were very relevant , he may well have been mistaken, but then again he may not have been

[FISHY1118]

Do you where was he? When he saw the unaccounted for blood, he was in the mortuary.

If you mean where was the unaccounted for blood? According to Llewellyn, in the body cavity.

Nope not that i can see, he doesn't say that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its my opinion his first thoughts were very relevant , he may well have been mistaken, but then again he may not have been

I can’t see how Paul’s opinion carries any weight at all. If doctors TOD estimates were potentially unsafe it’s difficult to see how this Holmes-like deduction made by someone that drove a cart for a living should be considered valid.

Again, just because something is not impossible it does not mean that it’s worth considering. It’s probably not absolutely impossible that Abberline was the ripper or that Donald Trump was the Zodiac Killer but we don’t give them a moments consideration. The idea that these women were killed elsewhere is nonsense. Again, Buck’s Row, a very quiet backstreet and yet no one saw or heard a coach and horses clattering along the cobbles. People going to work, police officers on the beat (Neill, Mizen, Thain etc) Emma Green, Walter Purkiss. No one. Horses and carts are one thing but a coach and horses was the mode of transport of the wealthy and so would have been even more noticeable in that area.

[Damaso Marte]

The killer may have socialized with his victims for hours before killing them. After all, it's not like he planned to actually pay them at the end of the night. We have no proof but it's not inconsistent with the evidence. Then again, it's also not inconsistent with the evidence to say he was an ambush predator who killed within seconds of meeting the victims, so not exactly a high standard.

[FISHY1118]

Again, Buck’s Row, a very quiet backstreet and yet no one saw or heard a coach and horses clattering along the cobbles. People going to work, police officers on the beat (Neill, Mizen, Thain etc) Emma Green, Walter Purkiss. No one. Horses and carts are one thing but a coach and horses was the mode of transport of the wealthy and so would have been even more noticeable in that area.

And yet no one saw jack the ripper murder poor Mary Ann Nichols between 3.30am and 3.45am in the morning...... but he did . Didn't he . ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And yet no one saw jack the ripper murder poor Mary Ann Nichols between 3.30am and 3.45am in the morning...... but he did . Didn't he . ?

The difference is obvious to all Fishy. We are comparing a) a man and a woman walking together (prostitutes and their clients were hardly a rarity) The woman is unsuspecting. He silenced her before she could scream then he killed her with a knife and not a chainsaw. Pretty noiseless? And b) a coach and horses clattering along the otherwise silent cobbled streets in an area where it wouldn’t have been the norm to have seen one especially at that time of the morning. An area where at least 3 officers were patrolling their beats. It’s not a particular stretch of the imagination for a killer to be able to use the shadows, the doorways and the side streets to avoid police attention. Somewhat more difficult to make a coach and horses inconspicuous. I suppose that it’s not impossible that they asked the horses to keep the noise down as people were asleep.

Not really comparable are they?