Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[lynn cates]

fencing

Hello MB. Thanks.

"would a sudden slump of any kind make the fence shudder?"

That would depend on the force exerted. I believe AC said something touched the fence.

"and if so, would not Cadosh make more of a point of including it in his statement?"

Possibly, but not necessarily.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

signs

Hello Velma. Of course, with Bury it is legend.

And you are right that we don't know who took the rings. Of course, we do know they were wrenched off, given the marks. So:

1. It was ante mortem.

2. Not done gently.

Cheers.
LC

[cats meat man]

Funny.

We really must draw the line at some re-enactment! Someone could get hurt.

Hello Curious
It's ok. I'm a stunt man. At least I think that's what he called me!

[cats meat man]

From the latest A-Z relating to Annie Chapman:
She may be the same as the Annie Chapman ( aged 45) who is recorded in the Thames Police Court Register on 10 October 1885 as being convicted of stealing a hammer , being fined 20/- or 14 days.
John Richardson
About 4.45am, on 8 September 1888, he called in at 29 Hanbury Street on his way to work to check the cellar door padlock. The cellar was broken into some months earlier and two saws and two hammers had been stolen, since which time he had taken to visiting the house on market mornings.

See saw Margery Daw
Jacky shall have a new master
Jacky shall work for a penny a day
Because he can't work any faster

[curious]

Hello Lynn. The neighbours were'nt too happy when I came crashing through their fence this morning!

Funny.

We really must draw the line at some re-enactment! Someone could get hurt.

[cats meat man]

Hello MB. Thanks. But sound aside, if someone falls the other side of the fence, you would see a slight shaking. (This may be tried if you have a wooden fence.)

The argument about Mrs. Long could be made for any one of the witnesses.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn. The neighbours were'nt too happy when I came crashing through their fence this morning!

[moonbegger]

Hello again Bridewell ,

"As for Mrs Long's evidence. If she was making it all up, why was she certain of some things, but unsure of others? If the whole thing was invention, why not claim to be confident throughout? She quite clearly impressed the coroner, so where is the justification for suggesting that she lied?"

Yes she did quite clearly impress the Coroner , But so too did Richardson ? And when you weaken Richardson's pivitol strangle hold on the inquest .. it automatically adds a ton of extra weight behind Dr Phillips original TOD , which in turn renders Longs ID of Annie and her killer redundent , along with all the timing issues .. which leaves us with cadosh , who clearly heard something , Who knows , maybe a low life riffling through dead Annies pockets while his or her freind protests " No ", or maybe even another couple a yard or three down ?

"so where is the justification for suggesting that she lied?"

i would much rather go along with the idea that she was confused about the
date, as Curious proposed a few posts back . but failing that i wouldn"t rule out the possibility that she sold viniger with lumps in, as pickled onions
for many a reason that i mentioned earlier .. also a heafty reward that was awaiting some lucky bugger .. Honest people lie , Liars are occasionally honest .. and for most of the time its for personal reasons that most on the outside wouldn't understand anyway .

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Hello MB. Thanks. But sound aside, if someone falls the other side of the fence, you would see a slight shaking. (This may be tried if you have a wooden fence.)

The argument about Mrs. Long could be made for any one of the witnesses.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

You make a great point here ,, We know from the inquest that the fence was not it great shape .. infact it was quite the opposite apparently .. so would a sudden slump of any kind make the fence shudder .. and if so , would not cadosh make more of a point of including it in his statement ?

cheers
moonbegger .

[curious]

Hello MB.


Why would a sane person steal 2 worthless rings?

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn,

for trophies. If killers can be considered sane.

I know you think your man took them because he collected trinkets. Plausible.

But J Issen???? was not the only suspect to have trinkets in his possession.

There is a legend that William Bury had such rings.

Also, we don't know who took Annie's rings. We are guessing it was her killer, but we can not be positive of that.

[curious]

Bearing in mind possible doubts over Richardson's reliability, it's a superficially attractive piece of hypothesising, in that it certainly ties in with the apparent predilection for killing in darkness, and squares better with the medical evidence...just so long as you feel Mrs Long could have been so easily mistaken about the day...(Someone remind me - How soon after the crime did she come forward?).

However, Pages 73-78 (Horror upon Horror) of JtR Scotland Yard Investigates argues the case powerfully the other way...and instinctually I feel uneasy about discarding too much eyewitness testimony to fit in conveniently with such a hypothesis.

So whilst in many ways I'd really like to go along with this, I do feel restrained from doing so unless more evidence turns up!

All the best

Dave

Hi, Dave,
From Casebook: On 12th September, she went to the mortuary and identified the body of Chapman as being the woman she had seen on the morning of the 8th.

Ask yourself: how observant you are on your daily treks to work? How many vehicles do you remember exactly? When you are pulling from your driveway, and wait for a vehicle, in four days can you tell me which vehicle you waited for last Friday or Saturday?

How about last Wednesday, when you reached an intersection, did you get a red or green light? how about the day after that? Do you remember precisely?

Long said she was not paying attention. She did not look back to see where the couple went. They were simply two people she passed on her way to work one day. . . After a lapse of four days, tell me, on your own treks how much do you really remember about which vehicles or people you passed and which day? Do you really believe Long could know?

Honestly, now, can you be positive of what or who you passed 4 days ago?

If you walk in a densely populated area, how many of the people do you specifically recall? How many could you identify?

I'm on auto pilot on my trip to work. What about you?

Besides, in my little mind, the condition of the body is the evidence.

[lynn cates]

2 visits to the yard

Hello MB.

"If Chapman was killed then and there right under his nose I'm sure he would have heard a lot more than what he did"

Of course, he was in the house for a bit before he came back and heard the fall. He made 2 visits that morning.

Why would a sane person steal 2 worthless rings?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

That fence may be for sitting on!

I quite like Curious's idea that what he actually heard was someone finding her body , then maybe riffling through her pockets and pinching her rings ?

Bearing in mind possible doubts over Richardson's reliability, it's a superficially attractive piece of hypothesising, in that it certainly ties in with the apparent predilection for killing in darkness, and squares better with the medical evidence...just so long as you feel Mrs Long could have been so easily mistaken about the day...(Someone remind me - How soon after the crime did she come forward?).

However, Pages 73-78 (Horror upon Horror) of JtR Scotland Yard Investigates argues the case powerfully the other way...and instinctually I feel uneasy about discarding too much eyewitness testimony to fit in conveniently with such a hypothesis.

So whilst in many ways I'd really like to go along with this, I do feel restrained from doing so unless more evidence turns up!

All the best

Dave

[moonbegger]

Hi, Moonbegger,

Can you give us your source for "faint". The above is the second time you have used that word with reference to Cadosch's evidence.

According to the inquest report in the Times newspaper:

'As he returned across the yard, to the back door of his house, he heard a voice say quite close to him, "No". He believed it came from No.29.'

As it was 'quite close to him' No.29 seems far more likely than not.

He goes on to say:

'He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence, which divided his yard from No.29 . Something seemed suddenly to touch the fence.'

This is unambiguous, surely. He's referring to this specific fence and no other, isn't he?

As for Mrs Long's evidence. If she was making it all up, why was she certain of some things, but unsure of others? If the whole thing was invention, why not claim to be confident throughout? She quite clearly impressed the coroner, so where is the justification for suggesting that she lied?

I should perhaps point out that I'm not having a go at you. I also have doubts about the evidence of Cadosch, but not for the same reasons.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell ,
i fear i may have over egged the pudding myself Especially as this particular pudding really requires no eggs to begin with . But it shows just how easy it is to do . Not really sure where it came from , maybe Millers court's "Faint" cry of murder ? However , i don't think it lends weight either way . If Chapman was killed then and there right under his nose i'm sure he would have heard a lot more than what he did ... according to an inquest statement .."The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat" .
I quite like Curious's idea that what he actually heard was someone finding her body , then maybe riffling through her pockets and pinching her rings ?

cheers
moonbegger

[curious]

I also have doubts about the evidence of Cadosch, but not for the same reasons.

Regards, Bridewell.

I would be interested in hearing your reasons.

Thanks,

[curious]

Hi Curious ..
Thought i was being kind
You do make some very good points .. is it really so inconceivable that all three witnesses here could have been misread .. or mistaken . i really dont think its that far beyond the relms of possibility ..

cheers
moonbegger

Hi, Moonbegger,
you're fine -- just teasing a little since you started using my line about the apples coming down on your head.

Actually, I have been thinking about something I have observed over the years -- if mistakes start happening, they continue.

For example, years ago I worked as a teller in a bank. We observed that if a teller made a mistake on a deposit or with a customer, quite often that person had just had another mistake made recently, say by our bookkeeping department or at another branch. There was no way to account for it, but sometimes they just piled up on the same account while others could go mistake free for many years.

Since then I have observed that same chain of mistakes that seems unexplainable and unlikely, but happening occasionally.

So, yes, all three could be wrong.

At this date, we have realized that eye witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence available, that's why the condition of the body is more compelling to me.

Mrs. Long I think was telling the truth, but had her days wrong because of my own trips to work experience and how they slide together. Annie had sold crochet work to Mrs. Richardson, so she had spent time in that immediate area. Mrs. Long had seen her, perhaps with the man she described, but not on that particular morning. I, too, can close my eyes and sometimes have amazing recall. However, time slides by.

Richardson -- good grief!

Cadosch I believe. However, I think what he heard was the body being discovered by someone who did not report it. It has occurred to me that that may have been when Annie's rings were taken or even explain the rifling of her pockets. But I have my doubts at anyone being that brazen. . . . just thinking.

Again, the condition of Annie's body is what I find most telling and influences how I interpret the witness testimony.