witnesses
Hello MB. I agree about Richardson--no problem there.
Cadosch not only heard a sound but he seemed to see something fall against the fence. 3-4 minutes earlier he heard, "No." Of course that may NOT have been Annie and her assailant, but someone seems to have been in the yard.
Mrs. Long being suborned? To what purpose?
Cheers.
LC
Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by lynn cates View PostHello Mac. Would it not be natural for a punter to speak in an undertone whilst conducting a "business deal"?
Cheers.
LC
Depends on the situation.
In front of a policeman, yes, sensible.
In front of a member of the public in Whitechapel in 1888 - why?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cogidubnus View PostWell we're all entitled to our opinions Moonbegger and I understand your frustration at the conflict between the medical evidence and the witnesses...I and I suspect many others share it!
However, beyond my belief that Richardson doesn't come across as a particularly reliable witness, I'd be very chary of disregarding ALL the witness evidence...that way anarchy lies!
My inclination is to try to file away the anomoly as potentially interesting, pass on and try to keep an open mind...
All the best
Dave
I am in Absolute, and total agreement with you ........ Almost
The Tree is in my garden ... Born and raised in whitechapel , if i wanna pick apples of my tree i will , and they wont hurt me if they do fall on my head ..
cheers
Moonbegger .
Leave a comment:
-
Well we're all entitled to our opinions Moonbegger and I understand your frustration at the conflict between the medical evidence and the witnesses...I and I suspect many others share it!
However, beyond my belief that Richardson doesn't come across as a particularly reliable witness, I'd be very chary of disregarding ALL the witness evidence...that way anarchy lies!
My inclination is to try to file away the anomoly as potentially interesting, pass on and try to keep an open mind...
All the best
Dave
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by curious View Postand likely come crashing down on your head.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by lynn cates View PostHello MB. A bit astonishing. I can understand a witness or two being a bit off, but all three?
Cheers.
LC
I know it sounds a bit strange at at first , But i really do see the witnesses who come forward in this particular murder ( and few in some of the other murders too ) more like mud in the water , They muddy up and cloud the water , and distort what could be a clearer view . so my thinking is remove the mud from the water ! and in this case i dont think its that hard to do .. i think everyone is in agreement that Richardsons Cobblers story should be put to one side for the moment . That leaves Long and Cadosh ...
Cadosh heard something from somewhere , From where exactly and from whom, he cannot be sure ( but strangely enough no one has a problem with putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 7 ? And in fact Given my Science of " Acoustic sound modulation" argument at that time of the morning, Along with FleetwoodMac's suggestion that Cadosh may have added relevance to what he heard in accordance to finding out that a murder was committed across the fence around that time .. all add up to rendering his " vague statement " insignificant , and only partially relavant in supporting Longs statement . And this is where i may loose a few of you if havent alreadyI'm not convinced that long saw anything of importance .. Like i mentioned in my earlier post what if she too was telling phibs .. or at the very best over egging the pudding ? so we'd then have ..
Richardson, unreliable , Cadosh, vague , and Long, over egging, or possibly lying ? or put up to lie by someone else ? who wanted to point a finger at a certain class/race of people. Either way , what if she sat back later that day and thought ,, " 29 Hanbury street is on my route to work , 5.30am ( around the time the murder was believed to have happened ) is around the time i would be passing by , Why not take advantage of the fact , and paint myself into the picture ". So whatever time she left home and arrived at work that morning didn't matter if she was gonna tie it together to make her story fit. ( guess she didn't take into account that her timing issues would be under the microscope a 100 years later ) So .. was in fact Elizibeth Long the original Weir side Jack ?
cheers
moonbegger
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Bridewell,
Yes, you are correct. My memory did not serve me right. Should have checked primary sources first.
Good call.
Leave a comment:
-
Both Cadosch and Long showed up late in the very extensive inquest and Baxter thought such important witnesses should have been located and brought forth sooner. If my memory serves me right, I think the press found Cadosch before the police did. Its a little strange he didn't just go to the police... he certainly knew about the murder. Long took a while to appear too.Both Cadosch and Long showed up late in the very extensive inquest
If my memory serves me right, I think the press found Cadosch before the police did. Its a little strange he didn't just go to the police... he certainly knew about the murder
"He informed the police the same day of what he had heard" (my italics).
Regards, Bridewell.
__________________
Leave a comment:
-
It's the way you tell'em
Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View PostSometime in the late 1800s Queen Victoria made a visit to the East End and stepping out of her coach half way up Brick Lane she broke the heel off one of her shoes. Luckily this happened in front of the shop of a Jewish shoe mender. The owner quickly repaired the shoe and the Queen went on her way. He then wrote on his window 'Cobblers to the Queen' The next day he found someone had written underneath it 'Bollocks to the Chief Rabbi'.
Dave
Leave a comment:
-
sotto voce
Hello Mac. Would it not be natural for a punter to speak in an undertone whilst conducting a "business deal"?
Cheers.
LC
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by lynn cates View PostHello Mac. Well, loud enough to hear them as she passed by, unconcerned with their business.
Cheers.
LC
We could argue that whsipering wouldn't have been useful when attempting to snare a victim: "what yer whispering for?"...."ahh, don't worry about that, you'll soon find out, here's a couple 'o bob".
In all probability, he wouldn't whisper, nor would he shout.
But, it does raise an interesting question surrounding the views of the denizens of Whitechapel and their picture of Jack. Seems they saw him as someone shouting in the streets for no good reason. Bit like that fella who zig-zagged across the road when he could have walked in a straight line no problem.
Leave a comment:
-
Sometime in the late 1800s Queen Victoria made a visit to the East End and stepping out of her coach half way up Brick Lane she broke the heel off one of her shoes. Luckily this happened in front of the shop of a Jewish shoe mender. The owner quickly repaired the shoe and the Queen went on her way. He then wrote on his window 'Cobblers to the Queen' The next day he found someone had written underneath it 'Bollocks to the Chief Rabbi'.
Leave a comment:
-
loud
Hello Mac. Well, loud enough to hear them as she passed by, unconcerned with their business.
Cheers.
LC
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: