Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[lynn cates]

Lloyd's

Hello MB, Dave. Here is a snippet from 9 September, 1888. It is from "Lloyd's Weekly."

The story was part of an interview by a Lloyd's representative.

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Hello MB, Dave. Here is a snippet from 9 September, 1888. It is from "Lloyd's Weekly."

The story was part of an interview by a Lloyd's representative.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn ,
Great job , digging this out . So what now does this tell us ? My take on it is Cadosh is ready and willing to ham it up and customize his story to fit in with whatever his listener wants to hear .. its certainly a far cry from ..
" I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from" ( ON WHICH SIDE IT CAME FROM )
followed by .. " I was thinking about work and didn't really pay it much attention "
It may well have also been the reporter hamming it up and filling in the blanks to sensationalise his article ( wouldn't be the first or last time ) but either way it only adds to the mud in the already murky water
i find myself holding on even tighter to my own personal belief that none of these witnesses are credible .. their stories seem to evolve further as each day passes , painting themselves more and more into the picture ... i would not be too surprised to find an article a month or so after the murder where he actually looked over the fence and saw the ripper at work !

cheers
moonbegger .

[curious]

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 .. go pick apples off your own tree

Actually, MB, you should be kind to me. I mostly see things the same way you do -- just slightly different.

I think Annie was long dead by 5:30.

I believe Cadosch's testimony. He never said what he heard involved Annie, he just told what he heard that morning and he told it on the day of her death.

Richardson I believe got dragged into this by his mother (thanks whoever mentioned that earlier in this thread) and did not dare admit to not coming by. That's why his story grew and changed.

Mrs. Long's story was just too long after the fact. On my way to work, I don't really pay attention. If I notice something unusual, I will remember the event, but the days all slide together for me and I can't be sure which day.

She could have been trying to help and had recalled seeing someone there within a day or two. Because Annie knew the house, perhaps she did sleep there in the hall occasionally. Perhaps she had been soliciting there and Mrs. Long had seen her before. . . . Who knows why she would recognize the face.

However, because of the condition of Annie's body, I don't believe it is possible Mrs. Long saw Annie at either 5:15 or 5:30 on the morning her body was discovered.

[lynn cates]

conflict?

Hello MB. I don't see the conflict between, "I heard 'No' but am not sure whence it came" and the Lloyd's story about falling against the fence.

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Hello MB. I don't see the conflict between, "I heard 'No' but am not sure whence it came" and the Lloyd's story about falling against the fence.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn ,

i think the conflict comes in the guise of how precise and definative cadosh's story is in the Lloyds interview compared to his inquest statement ..

Lloyds .. he got up in the middle of the night .. unwell ..
Inquest .. he got up for work .
Lloyds .... The sound came from across the fence at 29 ..
Inquest ... I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from" ( ON WHICH SIDE IT CAME FROM )
Lloyds ... mentions a scuffle in the corner of the yard of 29
Inquest ... No mention of it ?
Lloyds .....He heard a heavy fall on the ground and the fence was touched ( exactly where body was found later)
Inquest .. just mentions a slump against the fence
Lloyds ... heard couple talking but couln'nt make out what was said .
Inquest .. only mentioned womans voice .. a faint "No"

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Actually, MB, you should be kind to me. I mostly see things the same way you do -- just slightly different.

I think Annie was long dead by 5:30.

I believe Cadosch's testimony. He never said what he heard involved Annie, he just told what he heard that morning and he told it on the day of her death.

Richardson I believe got dragged into this by his mother (thanks whoever mentioned that earlier in this thread) and did not dare admit to not coming by. That's why his story grew and changed.

Mrs. Long's story was just too long after the fact. On my way to work, I don't really pay attention. If I notice something unusual, I will remember the event, but the days all slide together for me and I can't be sure which day.

She could have been trying to help and had recalled seeing someone there within a day or two. Because Annie knew the house, perhaps she did sleep there in the hall occasionally. Perhaps she had been soliciting there and Mrs. Long had seen her before. . . . Who knows why she would recognize the face.

However, because of the condition of Annie's body, I don't believe it is possible Mrs. Long saw Annie at either 5:15 or 5:30 on the morning her body was discovered.

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

[lynn cates]

lack of precision

Hello MB. Thanks.

I still don't see conflict so much as a lack of precision.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Inquest: only mentioned womans voice .. a faint "No"

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.

[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.

[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,

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.