Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[Observer]

Hello Observer ..

Holy Cow , you've got some pent up aggression issues going on there sunshine You really need to drop a chill pill and wipe the frothy foam from your mouth . Then sit back and slowly ( very slowly ) read through the last ten or so posts . It may all fall into place for you ( enlightenment is a wonderful thing and should be embraced ) or it may not , Either way i think you should talk to someone , Firstly about your crazy nonsensical and stubborn attitude towards anything or anyone that doesn't go along with the world according to you .. And secondly your venomous and ( bully boy ) style ramblings , roughly disguised as facts, or should i say ( your opinion of them )

Ta Tar for now

moonbegger .

"It's nice to be important , but its more important to be nice "

Hi Moonbegger

Thing is, I seem to remember some time ago having very similar arguments with a poster who wrote something approaching your style of putting pen to paper so to speak. He/she was not known as Moonbegger. It could well be I am totally wrong in this assumption, and if I am then I apologise, but as I said, certain traits in your posting rang a few bells.

You know Moonbegger it takes two to create an argument, and I think if you look at the exchanges between us here in this thread, you'll see that the comments you have made have been as ill placed as mine. Take the passage above, apparently I have a crazy nonsensical attitude, that's a red rag to a bull, get my drift ? And nonsensical? I've just proved to you beyond any doubt that it was indeed the killer who placed Annie Chapman's comb etc, at her feet,

One thing in certain however, that is, I do not need to be enlightened by the likes of you, I must admit that I had a little chuckle to myself when I read this.

I also found this section of your last post amusing

And secondly your venomous and ( bully boy ) style ramblings , roughly disguised as facts, or should i say ( your opinion of them )

Ramblings disguised as facts ???? haha. The killer placed Annie Chapmans belongings at her feet, that's a fact. Mr's long saw Annie Chapman with her killer that's a fact. Cadosh heard Annie Chapman fall against the fence of No 29 Hanbury street that's a fact. And finally the much maligned Richardson, he told the truth, that's a fact.

What is not fact, is your rather bizarre theory that Mr's Long saw an entirely different couple outside of 29 Hanbury street at 5:30, on the morning of the 8th August.

That it can be ascertained, beyond any doubt that the murder took place sometime between 4:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. this on the say so of Dr Philips using decidedly unscientific methods.

That the body of Annie Chapman lay in the yard as Richardson checked the locks of No 29.


That what Cadosh heard at roughly 5:30 a.m. namely someone exclaim "no", and then a sound as if someone was falling against the fence was indeed Annie Chapman and her killer, not another prostitute and her client. The "no" exclaimation actually being the fully alive and well well second prostitute expressing her distaste, as her client robbed poor Annie Chapman of her two rings. He then apparently ransacks her pockets and places her two combs, and a piece of muslin at her feet in a neat orderly fashion, it must have been him, as none of the attending police officers or Dr Philips performed this task.

And you accuse me of roughly disguised facts, I don't know hahaha.

Listen Moonbegger, I'll admit, I do get a little bit hot under the collar, this website is a little bit of light relief in my life, that's all, so I shouldn't be as aggresive. If you look at my various posts though you'll see that I agree with lots of people on this site, it's just that most of them don't come up with ridiculous theories such as your own. But dream on my friend ,dream on, it provides us with a little bit of entertainment. and I don't mean this in a bad way.

Au revoir Moonblagger

best regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Hello Observer ,

Firstly , i accept you apology in so much as i am not your well masked nemesis in the guise of a new poster . Although i am new to these boards , i have been studying the Ripper murders since the early 80's .. i think Don's book was my first .. and most there after .Growing up in the very streets i was reading about , and my sometimes over inquisitive mind has always led me along the path less travelled .. I know how difficult and frustrating it must be to watch a newbie to these boards attempting to uproot fundamental witness statements , But at the end of the day it all comes down to opinion , and our own personal interpretation of what facts we choose to stand by .

Having said that, i also must say that i have never seen such Arrogance and Ignorance entwined so perfectly in a post , and for that i commend you . This was your finest .

[Observer] " One thing in certain however, that is, I do not need to be enlightened by the likes of you "

Please sir, may i have some more I can even see you frothing at the mouth again as you write .

But in all seriousness Observer, your comment stinks to high hell like that of a Arrogant, Elitist Bigot , which i'm sure your not

And that is precisely why my friend you cant accept anything new , Because you think you know everything already . It is becoming Clear that the " likes of me " cant teach you anything , so what i suggest you do old chap is confide in greater minds than your own ( of which i'm sure there are many) although you may find that hard to believe . ( as a rye smile breaks the frothy seal ) Concerning the evidence we have batted back and forth .

But at this point i'm sure you'll agree .. we are much better off, agreeing to disagree. I am however looking forward to our exchanges ,when i put some of the other fundamental witnesses in this case to the sword

Its Been Emotional .

moonbegger .

[Observer]

Hi Moonbegger

First off I never foam at the mouth, steam from the ears perhaps.

Secondly before you try to put any of the other witnesses to the sword in this fascinating, and mystifying case we call The Whitechapel Murders, it would be prudent of you to try a little bit harder, and put the witnesses in the Annie Chapman murder to the sword first. In my mind you have failed miserably to do so.

Despite what you think arrogance is not part of my makeup. I fully accept that the vast majority of posters to this website have forgotten more than I know about the case.

I will agree with you on one point though, that we agree to disagree, although if you appraise other witnesses testimony as you have in the way you have treated the Chapman witnesses then we are in for more great laughs I suspect.

Incidentally, as we are now leaving the Chapman murder alone, let me ask you, you didn't really believe that anyone would believe that Annie Chapmans body was found by a prostitute and her punter, and it was they who took her rings did you? At least concede that that was a wind up.

One final thing it's interesting to know that you were brought up in the East End, if you don't mind me asking which part? I fully understand if you do not want to divulge this information though.

Regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger

First off I never foam at the mouth, steam from the ears perhaps.

Secondly before you try to put any of the other witnesses to the sword in this fascinating, and mystifying case we call The Whitechapel Murders, it would be prudent of you to try a little bit harder, and put the witnesses in the Annie Chapman murder to the sword first. In my mind you have failed miserably to do so.

Despite what you think arrogance is not part of my makeup. I fully accept that the vast majority of posters to this website have forgotten more than I know about the case.

I will agree with you on one point though, that we agree to disagree, although if you appraise other witnesses testimony as you have in the way you have treated the Chapman witnesses then we are in for more great laughs I suspect.

Incidentally, as we are now leaving the Chapman murder alone, let me ask you, you didn't really believe that anyone would believe that Annie Chapmans body was found by a prostitute and her punter, and it was they who took her rings did you? At least concede that that was a wind up.

One final thing it's interesting to know that you were brought up in the East End, if you don't mind me asking which part? I fully understand if you do not want to divulge this information though.

Regards

Observer

Hello Observer ,

i cant help but feel every time i receive a post back from you that i am on some kind of hidden camera show . you seem to totally disregard all forms of plausible as well as substantial solid evidence regarding time lines , and possible witness era . if you are as you appear, a well versed scholar of the whitechapel murders i am even more confounded by this . that your mind is so firmly closed to anything other than the possibility that it all happened just the way you know it did .. i take it , it was also beneath you to go back and read the previous posts regarding , TOD , Mitre sq , body mass , Blood , heat , and all the other overwhelming evidence , by some very well informed posters on this matter . still i guess you know best

Can you Prove to me beyond doubt that Annie wasn't robbed after death and had her rings wrenched off .. er.. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt that all of the witnesses were 100%right .. er .. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt that Chandler didn't pile her belongings together without the knowledge of Dr Phillips who saw a neat pile, as opposed to Chandler who made no mention of a neat pile .. er .. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt Dr Phillips TOD was wrong .. er .. NO

Put that in your pipe and smoke it .. with regards of course


Born Hackney , raised Hoxton , Whitechapel , and Islington .

moonbegger .

[curious]

Incidentally, as we are now leaving the Chapman murder alone, let me ask you, you didn't really believe that anyone would believe that Annie Chapmans body was found by a prostitute and her punter, and it was they who took her rings did you? At least concede that that was a wind up.
Regards

Observer

Hi, Observer,
I am surprised that you seem to think this idea originated with Moonbegger.

It also did not originate with me. Apparently, it was discussed some time ago, but I'm not sure when. Over the weekend I found a dissertation in which it was mentioned -- I don't recall who wrote it. Thought I would, but don't.

You see, once you realize that everything about the condition of the body says Annie Chapman was dead long before 5:30, you look at the witness testimony for reasonable explanations . . .

Or at least I did -- some time ago.

Now, to the best of my recollection, the idea that someone else discovered the body but chose not to go to the police came up when I reviewed Cadosch's testimony -- who never once claimed he saw Annie Chapman.

In the East End there had to have been many characters who would not have involved themselves with the police for perfectly understandable reasons. After all, Annie was past being helped (unlike perhaps Polly Nichols).

So, I suggested someone else in the back yard. Someone else came up with the possibility of another prostitute and a punter -- but apparently there is nothing new under the sun. The dissertation I found was one of those suggested in this thread, or another by the same author.

In other words I got to the dissertation from this thread. But I think the idea has been around for awhile.

So, there you have it. Moonbegger is not responsible for the idea of someone else discovering the body but not reporting it. And had you read this thread carefully, you would have noticed that I suggested someone stealing the rings as a reason for the thump on the fence as someone skirted Annie.

I'm not married to the idea of a prostitute and punter. I am almost married to the idea of an earlier TOD. Taking everything into consideration, it makes a lot more sense to me.

curious

[Observer]

Hello Observer ,

i cant help but feel every time i receive a post back from you that i am on some kind of hidden camera show . you seem to totally disregard all forms of plausible as well as substantial solid evidence regarding time lines , and possible witness era . if you are as you appear, a well versed scholar of the whitechapel murders i am even more confounded by this . that your mind is so firmly closed to anything other than the possibility that it all happened just the way you know it did .. i take it , it was also beneath you to go back and read the previous posts regarding , TOD , Mitre sq , body mass , Blood , heat , and all the other overwhelming evidence , by some very well informed posters on this matter . still i guess you know best

Can you Prove to me beyond doubt that Annie wasn't robbed after death and had her rings wrenched off .. er.. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt that all of the witnesses were 100%right .. er .. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt that Chandler didn't pile her belongings together without the knowledge of Dr Phillips who saw a neat pile, as opposed to Chandler who made no mention of a neat pile .. er .. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt Dr Phillips TOD was wrong .. er .. NO

Put that in your pipe and smoke it .. with regards of course


Born Hackney , raised Hoxton , Whitechapel , and Islington .

moonbegger .

Hidden camera show? What a strange person.

Could you explain "witness era" to me, you have me beat there.

"body mass , Blood , heat , and all the other overwhelming evidence ,"

Do you think Dr Phillips took body mass into consideration ? I don't think he did, and really it's his TOD we are discussing here. And could you please supply me with all the other overwhelming evidence ? It's not inconcievable taking everything into account, that Chapman was murdered at 5:30 a.m.

You ask me to go back and read other posts regarding TOD, there's no need I believe Dr Philips was incorrect in his estimation of TOD.

It's quite plain to me that you do not read my posts, at no time whatsoever have I denied that Annie Chapman's rings were wrenched off her fingers. I believe her killer performed that task, it was also her killer who went through her pockets, and arranged her belongings at her feet, much as he did in the case of Catherine Eddowes.

Can you prove that the witnesses were 100% incorrect errr no.

And please not Chandler again placing the combs etc at her feet, last time, Chandler from the inquest.

"After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman"

Found, found, found, not laid, how can you not get that into your head?

You know you accuse me of arrogance, what really pees me off with you my friend is because I do not agree with your own far fetched theories then I need enlightening, I quote you

" sit back and slowly ( very slowly ) read through the last ten or so posts . It may all fall into place for you ( enlightenment is a wonderful thing and should be embraced ) or it may not ,"

incredible.

That's it, no more posts on this thread to you my friend.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Curious

Moonblaggers description of a prostitute and her customers finding Annie Chapmans body, then robbing her of her rings is new to me, hence I thought it was his /her original idea.

I fail to see why an earlier TOD makes more sense in the case of Annie Chapman. Witness testimony is a stronger candidate to me than a doctor who could well have been mistaken in his estimation of TOD.

That's it, I have no more to say on the matter.

Regards

Observer

[curious]

Witness testimony is a stronger candidate to me than a doctor who could well have been mistaken in his estimation of TOD.

That's it, I have no more to say on the matter.

Regards

Observer

You and most of the rest of the world -- juries in particular -- feel this way according to numerous studies. And this is despite the knowledge that eye witness testimony is notoriously wrong so much of the time. People just believe a strong witness who does not add qualifying clauses.

I believe you and I will have to agree to disagree on the time of Chapman's death.

Best,

curious

[Archaic]

A Better Eye-Witness? (*Pure Speculation*)

Hi everyone.

One thing I've wondered about- though I hasten to add that we have no actual evidence for- is whether it's possible that someone in No. 29 did actually see or hear the Ripper, but was too scared by the encounter to come forward?

Maybe someone passed right by the killer in the passage? This could have happened either while he was on his way out to the backyard with his victim, or when he was on his way in from the backyard and heading for the front door. Or perhaps someone heard a small noise, stuck their head out of the window, and saw the crime occur. Maybe some unfortunate witness got a pretty good look at the killer, but was terrified because the killer had either got a good look back at them, or now knew which room they lived in.

Of course it's the sort of thing we'll probably never know, so it's merely a possibility. And it's not by any means my "theory" of what happened, just an idea born of frustration at the fact that there were so many people living at No. 29, yet none of them saw or heard anything. I've wondered if after killing Annie Chapman the Ripper lay low for several weeks at least in part because he wasn't sure if a better eye-witness would come forward?

Maybe getting away with the Chapman murder made him confident that he could also get away with a murder in Dutfield's Yard. Both murders occurred behind doors; behind the back door at Hanbury Strret and behind the big gate at Dutfield's.

Best regards,
Archaic

[moonbegger]

Hi Archaic ,

Yes ( if only ) wouldn't that be fantastic ! Although would we believe them if they did

Moonblagger .

" They don't like it up em "

[curious]

Hi everyone.

One thing I've wondered about- though I hasten to add that we have no actual evidence for- is whether it's possible that someone in No. 29 did actually see or hear the Ripper, but was too scared by the encounter to come forward?

Maybe someone passed right by the killer in the passage? This could have happened either while he was on his way out to the backyard with his victim, or when he was on his way in from the backyard and heading for the front door. Or perhaps someone heard a small noise, stuck their head out of the window, and saw the crime occur. Maybe some unfortunate witness got a pretty good look at the killer, but was terrified because the killer had either got a good look back at them, or now knew which room they lived in.

Of course it's the sort of thing we'll probably never know, so it's merely a possibility. And it's not by any means my "theory" of what happened, just an idea born of frustration at the fact that there were so many people living at No. 29, yet none of them saw or heard anything. I've wondered if after killing Annie Chapman the Ripper lay low for several weeks at least in part because he wasn't sure if a better eye-witness would come forward?

Maybe getting away with the Chapman murder made him confident that he could also get away with a murder in Dutfield's Yard. Both murders occurred behind doors; behind the back door at Hanbury Strret and behind the big gate at Dutfield's.

Best regards,
Archaic

wouldn't it be terrifying to know you had that kind of knowledge and the killer had that kind of knowledge? I suspect some people probably did see things with these murders that perhaps they did not realize were important. . . but I don't see any way we can ever know now.

[Observer]

Don't know about the bayonets Moonblagger, you're definitely firing blank rounds though.

[moonbegger]

Oh Hello Observer ,

So glad to have you back .. Thought you left us

"That's it, no more posts on this thread to you my friend.

Regards

Observer"

Keep an eye on those stress levels my friend .

moonbegger

[Archaic]

wouldn't it be terrifying to know you had that kind of knowledge and the killer had that kind of knowledge? I suspect some people probably did see things with these murders that perhaps they did not realize were important. . . but I don't see any way we can ever know now.

Hi Curious.

Even today there are people who witness horrific crimes that choose to lay low and "mind their own business" rather than speak up.

I have to wonder- in the fall of 1888, how much faith did poorer Londoners have that the police were truly capable of protecting them if they came forward and testified? What about protecting their families? It would be cold comfort to have the police show up when you're already lying dead and utterly desecrated, ripped open like a pig in a butcher's shop! After all, the Ripper had shown that he could kill multiple times in the most brazen fashion and get away with it.

As you say, there's very little chance we'll ever know if a witness saw, heard or knew more than they let on, but based upon the crowded conditions in Whitechapel and the rather 'public' nature of the crimes I can't help feeling that it's likely.

Even if it wasn't enough to actually identify the perpetrator, it might have helped to fill in some of the blanks that drive us all crazy.

Best regards,
Archaic

[curious]

Hi Curious.

Even today there are people who witness horrific crimes that choose to lay low and "mind their own business" rather than speak up.

I have to wonder- in the fall of 1888, how much faith did poorer Londoners have that the police were truly capable of protecting them if they came forward and testified? What about protecting their families? It would be cold comfort to have the police show up when you're already lying dead and utterly desecrated, ripped open like a pig in a butcher's shop! After all, the Ripper had shown that he could kill multiple times in the most brazen fashion and get away with it.

As you say, there's very little chance we'll ever know if a witness saw, heard or knew more than they let on, but based upon the crowded conditions in Whitechapel and the rather 'public' nature of the crimes I can't help feeling that it's likely.

Even if it wasn't enough to actually identify the perpetrator, it might have helped to fill in some of the blanks that drive us all crazy.

Best regards,
Archaic

Very plausible. In addition to the law-abiding citizens who did not trust the law to protect them there must have been people who were actually hiding from the law and would never draw attention to themselves by telling what they had seen.

Filling in the blanks would certainly be great.