Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[Cogidubnus]

Would a man who didn't go to #29's backyard early that morning and sit on the step with a knife in his hand lie and say he did, just because he didn't want his mom to be annoyed with him for not bothering to check the lock that day- despite the fact that such a lie could possibly backfire by getting him named as a Ripper suspect and maybe even lynched by his nervous neighbors??

Depends on the witness...I see him as weak willed, possibly dominated by his mother, maybe even a tad simple or afflicted...

His first story involved NO knife...NO cutting...just that he'd checked the lock...and I suspect he agreed only to that because his mum had already dropped him in it ("My boy checks the yard every morning") and he lacked the confidence to contradict her...

Later he says he KNOWS there was no body there because he sat on the step and trimmed some leather from his boot with the knife that was on him because he'd used it to slice rabbit food...

Finally when challenged at the inquest to produce said knife he gets it into his thick head he may've talked himself into trouble...and so produces a rusty old relic that wouldn't cut anything more resistant than cheese...(probably not even carrots)...

When challenged on this point he abruptly changes his story and says he tried to trim the bit of leather off his boot, failed, and eventually completed the job at work...

Does this realistically sound like a witness who thinks ahead? I don't think so...Does this sound like a reliable witness? I don't think so...

He also, had been a coroner long enough to understand the variables involved in ascertaining time of death, which the practical Phillips readily admitted. Phillips was not adament in his belief and this very experienced solicitor saw that. If he had only Richardson's testimony to contradict the surgeon's findings on that matter, he probably would have sided with Mr. Phillips

Now that's an interesting concession to make...why? Possibly because in all honestly, leaving aside for one minute Long and Cadosch, you like me see Richardson as a potentially flawed witness...

I understand fully if people disagree with the foregoing...and I understand (for the most part) their reasons...I myself don't like the discounting of witness testimony to more conveniently fit a pet theory. But in this case I don't really have a pet theory to fit in with...just a straightforward instinct warning me to distrust this man's shifting testimony...

All the best

Dave

[Archaic]

When Annie Died

Hi everyone.

I don't believe that some unknown couple came along, entered the backyard, saw Annie's horrifically mutilated body, callously stole a couple of worthless brass rings from her dead hand, and then casually walked back out to the sidewalk without even reporting the ghastly murder.

There is absolutely NO evidence for this; it's a completely made-up scenario, and it was made up in order to make a particular theory and timeline seem to fit the testimony. That's called "speculation". People are free to speculate all they want, but they have to face the fact that they are engaged in speculation.

Personally I find this particular scenario to be unfair, unwarranted, and deeply offensive to the memory of the residents of the East End who had the misfortune to experience the terror of the Whitechapel Murders. I'm sure they felt a combined sense of utter horror at the viciousness of the murders and pity for the butchered victims.

Moonbeggar, you offered a particular timeline. If Cadosch heard a thump on the fence at 5:15-5:20, yet Mrs Long claims to have seen Annie alive on the street talking to a man at 5:30, obviously the reported times don't work. Either their times are off or they didn't both hear/see Annie.

And either Annie wasn't lying dead in the yard when Richardson arrived to check the padlock, or she was and he didn't see her. Either the medical estimation of the time of death was correct, or it was incorrect for reasons already discussed. That's what we're left with.

The truth is that we simply don't have enough reliable facts to say we know exactly when Annie died.

Best regards,
Archaic

[moonbegger]

Hi Archaic ..
The Facts are there to be interpreted .. And that is what i have done here .. i have given them a fresh interpretation .. when you follow the same ol same ol worn path , you find you end up in the same ol same ol worn out place . in fact the only minor diversion i have made , is to bypass Longs ID testimony . One that you Blindly place all your faith in ( good luck with that but I dont buy it ) once you exclude her ridicules ID , and richardson's cobblers story ( that was crafted for gullible ears ) everything else falls into place .. i also suggest you re-read my timeline post.. and as for..

"Personally I find this particular scenario to be unfair, unwarranted, and deeply offensive to the memory of the residents of the East End who had the misfortune to experience the terror of the Whitechapel Murders. I'm sure they felt a combined sense of utter horror at the viciousness of the murders and pity for the butchered victims"

Well Actually being from there , born and bred , four generations i think i know more than most, how the Residents of the East End Felt about the murders , and even today , how they feel about outsiders treating the area , in particular the murder sites like historical road kill ... you need to wake up and smell the real world coffee .. you see just like anywhere in the world , we have some great kind people , who will do anything for you and make you feel welcome , and we also have some right horrible B******s who will rob you blind , dead or alive ! and its always been that way. its Not a Glossy magazine Story .. its the real word . Its all about the truth , and that's all i'm trying to squeeze out of this big fat witness lemon , its something that the real people of whitechapel , past and present would respect a whole lot more that following the same old donkey along that same old path , time after time . ( i've probably lost you by now anyway , but if your still here try reading it again ) the facts are still the same , its all about the interpretation ..

If you actually place Everyone exactly where the said they were at the time they said they were there .. and cross reference it with Dr Phillips original TOD ( from which he never strayed ) You find that it all fits together like a well fitting glove on the hand of a man who is in need of a well fitted glove .
4-430am Annie murdered
4.45 .. Richardson checks lock , leaning forward and peering low to his right hand side , completely missing Annies dead body low to his left , masked by the self closing back door ( or maybe didn't even bother going out to yard at all , Just checked stairs and passage for unwanted guests )
5.15-5.20 cadosh hears kerfuffle next door ( what he is hearing is a prostitute and her client discover poor ol Annie ) and possibly robbing her rings and riffling her pockets . The prostitute may have voiced her disapproval "No" .
5.30am Long passes by 29 on her way to work .. not paying any attention to couple outside 29 ( the couple who just left the yard ) " Will you " Keep your mouth shut " yes" .
And finally Dr Phillips shows up at 6.30 and rightly declares the Body of Annie has been dead for at least 2 hours , probably more ..

i should also add that i am a firm non believer in Long's positive identification of Annies 4 day old remains .. a woman she passed on the street and paid no attention to 5 days earlier ?

cheers
moonbegger

[harry]

Personnely I went for upwards of fourty years,believing ,on doctors advice that I suffered from a certain medical condition,untill a young doctor with updated learning,showed that all previous doctors were in error.There are no facts? as to whenChapman died.There is information provided by witnesses.Three witnesses suggest a time nearer 5.30 am than any other time.I'm inclined to accept their evidence.

[Observer]

Hi Moonbegger

Lets take another look at your interpretation of the discovery of Annie Chapmans body. I quote

"cadosh hears kerfuffle next door ( what he is hearing is a prostitute and her client discover poor ol Annie ) and possibly robbing her rings and riffling her pockets . The prostitute may have voiced her disapproval "No" .

And you consider Richardson's evidence dubious! Lets get this straight, a prostitute and her client are suddenly confronted with a sight that would not have been out of place in a slaughterers yard. The difference here of course is that instead of an animal lying butchered a human being lies ripped open, like a pig on a block. In your scenario, I suppose once they got over their initial shock, the client decide to rob the poor woman of her rings. If he riffled her pockets then I suppose he arranged her meagre belongings alongside her body in an orderly fashion? Those are the facts. Do you really consider this a likely scenario? Richadrson's evidence is infinitely more believable than the scenario you present, and yet you dismiss Richardson as an outright liar. Doesn't wash does it?

Regards

Observer

[Abby Normal]

Hi Moonbegger

Lets take another look at your interpretation of the discovery of Annie Chapmans body. I quote

"cadosh hears kerfuffle next door ( what he is hearing is a prostitute and her client discover poor ol Annie ) and possibly robbing her rings and riffling her pockets . The prostitute may have voiced her disapproval "No" .

And you consider Richardson's evidence dubious! Lets get this straight, a prostitute and her client are suddenly confronted with a sight that would not have been out of place in a slaughterers yard. The difference here of course is that instead of an animal lying butchered a human being lies ripped open, like a pig on a block. In your scenario, I suppose once they got over their initial shock, the client decide to rob the poor woman of her rings. If he riffled her pockets then I suppose he arranged her meagre belongings alongside her body in an orderly fashion? Those are the facts. Do you really consider this a likely scenario? Richadrson's evidence is infinitely more believable than the scenario you present, and yet you dismiss Richardson as an outright liar. Doesn't wash does it?

Regards

Observer

Good post
Moonbegger would have us believe that all the witnesses were morons, thieves and liars.

[moonbegger]

Good post
Moonbegger would have us believe that all the witnesses were morons, thieves and liars.

Hello Abby , Observer

I know it can be difficult stepping off that well worn path now and again .. but once you switch off auto pilot , take off your tour headphones , and remove your rose tinted glasses .. what you will actually find is a big fat YES.
Yes There are Morons , Yes there are Liars , and Yes there are Thieves, Riddled through out this whole case .. Just like in any town, in any city, in any busy pub, at any given time ( In the Real World )
Where you slightly over egg the pudding is in suggesting i believe everyone is .. Not the case ! Cadosh prob heard what he heard , when he said he did .
Long prob Saw a couple talking outside 29, at the TIME SHE SAID ( just not Annie ) Richardson's original statement was prob correct [ stood top of steps , looked right towards lock ] No problem with that . further more i give Dr Phillips TOD the thumbs up ..Unlike most .. So Who is the Moron ? Who is the liar ? We have Longs ID of a 5 day old dead woman she paid NOT MUCH attention too 5 days earlier. This is Point i cut through the bushes and left the path ..

So in actual fact if you toll up the ( conflicting confusing statement's) In My scenario .. And the ( conflicting confusing statement's) in the regular On the old path scenario .. i think you'll find i am accusing less people being wrong or confused . For me its just Longs ID of 5 day old dead Annie ( who she didn'nt actually see outside 29 that morning ) for you and most, its Longs being wrong about the time , and also Dr Phillips TOD ..

Now, i am not saying this all exactly how it all went down .. but i am saying it makes a lot more common sense .. if only to me

Oh ... one more thing , Observer .. you mentioned the neat pile of Annies unstealable junk .. Does it not even register that maybe the policeman on the scene may have put it together after collecting from around her person ?

cheers all
moonbegger

[Bridewell]

So in actual fact if you toll up the ( conflicting confusing statement's) In My scenario .. And the ( conflicting confusing statement's) in the regular On the old path scenario .. i think you'll find i am accusing less people being wrong or confused . For me its just Longs ID of 5 day old dead Annie ( who she didn'nt actually see outside 29 that morning ) for you and most, its Longs being wrong about the time , and also Dr Phillips TOD ..

Hi Moonbegger,

The coroner was so impressed with Mrs Long's evidence that he preferred it to that of the police surgeon as to the time of death. You think she was wrong or confused. I think Wynne Baxter, an experienced lawyer might have picked up on that if she had been. Where Long was uncertain - colour of the man's coat etc - she said as much. Where she was certain, she stuck to her guns. Yes, a witness can be certain and still be wrong, but IMHO her evidence should not be cast aside.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Hunter]

Oh ... one more thing , Observer .. you mentioned the neat pile of Annies unstealable junk .. Does it not even register that maybe the policeman on the scene may have put it together after collecting from around her person ?

That is not how Inspector Chandler or Mr. Phillips described the scene... unless both are liars. Chandler was the first policeman at the scene and he waited there until the divisional surgeon arrived. Both men inspected the area around the body, the yard and the passageway for evidence.

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Moonbegger but I still end up butting my head against the constraints I described in post #148 - Even disregarding Richardson (who, like you, I believe to be flawed) I cannot dismiss Long and Cadosch so easily...

Regarding your theory of a second prostitute/client combo robbing the body, as previously stated, I believe the time intervals between "No" and the thump are enough to cast significant doubt...moreover others here have commented upon the inherent unlikelihoods of this occurring...

In many ways I'd like to go along with you, but still feel unable...it's an evidence thing you understand! This doesn't leave me feeling any better about the discrepancies in timing between the medical opinion and the witnesses, but until something firmer comes along...

All the best

Dave

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger,

The coroner was so impressed with Mrs Long's evidence that he preferred it to that of the police surgeon as to the time of death. You think she was wrong or confused. I think Wynne Baxter, an experienced lawyer might have picked up on that if she had been. Where Long was uncertain - colour of the man's coat etc - she said as much. Where she was certain, she stuck to her guns. Yes, a witness can be certain and still be wrong, but IMHO her evidence should not be cast aside.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Bridewell ,

Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.
[Coroner] You are certain about the time? - Quite.
[Coroner] What time did you leave home? - I got out about five o'clock, and I reached the Spitalfields Market a few minutes after half-past five.

So Given her certainty on the time Bridewell , and the fact she see's people standing outside 29 all the time .. is it so inconceivable that she may have seen Annie the day before at 5.30am .. and just tied it all in with the couple she saw standing there that morning .. also baring in mind it was a few days before she actually came forward .. And then that line of thought could possibly even clear up the decomposing Annie ID .

I really do think that Dr Phillips TOD was discounted due to .. the multiple witness statements combined , And maybe a little bit of attitude bettween Phillips and Baxter . And for sure when you look at it at first glance , it seems like the wise route to take . But we are not handicapped by the same time restrictions , or lack of oversight . Infact we are blessed with heinsight .

cheers
moonbegger .

[Observer]

Good post
Moonbegger would have us believe that all the witnesses were morons, thieves and liars.

Hi Abby thanks. I'm begining to wonder if our cages are being rattled.

Regards

Observer

[Bridewell]

it seems like the wise route to take . But we are not handicapped by the same time restrictions , or lack of oversight . Infact we are blessed with heinsight .

Hindsight - Interesting. What is it that we know in hindsight which wasn't known to the inquest?

Regards, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

That is not how Inspector Chandler or Mr. Phillips described the scene... unless both are liars. Chandler was the first policeman at the scene and he waited there until the divisional surgeon arrived. Both men inspected the area around the body, the yard and the passageway for evidence.

"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. A portion of an envelope was found near her head, which contained two pills" ( no mention of a neat little pile by the fence )

Ok .. so he Found all of the above and placed them all together in a neat pile by the fence ? ( Dare i say i'm venturing into the dark recess of speculation Here , but bare with me, the path is not to far away! if we all hold hands i'm sure we can make it through )

Dr Phillips shows up .. and describes a neat little pile by the fence ..

Mmmm.. wonder how that got there ? Better call in the A team

Answers to www. knowyourfactsbeforeyoujumponabandwagon.com

cheers
moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Hindsight - Interesting. What is it that we know in hindsight which wasn't known to the inquest?

Regards, Bridewell.

That if we spend too much time on here, it can give you a bloody headach