Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It looks like the Truman Brewery clock in Brick Lane is still there. Is it known for sure that it chimed on the quarter hour?

You're not suggesting that some posters have been making an assumption?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Richardson doesn't strike me as reliable, I feel that he invented the whole boot trimming sitting on the step, and much more likely glanced at the cellar door from the top step to check everything was ok, as he originally stated. The whole thing with the knife, cutting a carrot for a rabbit etc.. isn't convincing to me, especially what he produced as the knife he used. I suppose he could have chosen to produce the bluntest, crappiest butter knife to show that he couldn't possibly have inflicted Chapman's wounds with it.

I had been cutting up carrots for my rabbit, and I put the knife into my pocket. I do not usually carry it about with me in my pocket. It must have been a mistake on my part.

I did not go into the yard, and went away. The yard door closes itself. I shut the front door when I went away. I was there altogether about two minutes.

(Lloyd's Weekly)


If Richardson put the knife in his pocket by mistake, why did he happen to become aware of it while visiting number 29?

Why would he suddenly get the urge to cut some leather as he checked the yard?

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps he just stuck his hand in and got lucky. You can't prove otherwise

I can prove he didn't do what you have just posted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dickere]

This is a point that those who prop up the belief that the killer removed the organs will argue against. Modern-day medical experts opine that it is not just a case of ripping open the abdomen and sticking a hand in, the killer would have to know where the organs were located in the first instance.

Let me ask a general question how many on here would know where these organs were located and have the knowledge to be able to remove them in almost total darkness from a blood-filled abdomen?

Dr Sequeira states 3 mins the murder and mutilation could be done in that time but not the removal of the organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Perhaps he just stuck his hand in and got lucky. You can't prove otherwise

[FISHY1118]

'' Much more likely glanced at the cellar door from the top step to check everything was ok, as he originally stated. ''


Exactly, ''just like he originally stated is the key here'' .

Its all there on the John Richardson thread ,3444 post pretty much cover all this .

[Camus]

Regarding Mrs Long hearing the brewery clock in Brick Lane strike the half hour, it is often thought that maybe she heard it chime 5:15 rather than 5:30. It looks like the Truman Brewery clock in Brick Lane is still there. Is it known for sure that it chimed on the quarter hour? I've always thought that Mrs Long was mistaken in her identification of Chapman. IIRC her identification was 4 or 5 days after the event and by her own admission she didn't pay much attention to the couple.

Cadosche strikes me as an honest witness, as does Mrs Long (but I suspect she is mistaken). Richardson doesn't strike me as reliable, I feel that he invented the whole boot trimming sitting on the step, and much more likely glanced at the cellar door from the top step to check everything was ok, as he originally stated. The whole thing with the knife, cutting a carrot for a rabbit etc.. isn't convincing to me, especially what he produced as the knife he used. I suppose he could have chosen to produce the bluntest, crappiest butter knife to show that he couldn't possibly have inflicted Chapman's wounds with it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A lot longer than has been suggested by Sequeira and Brown, but of course, their times were based on what they saw when they arrived at the crime scene before the organs were ever found missing. Not even a modern-day surgeon could open up a body and remove a uterus and a kidney from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness in those times as stated by the doctors.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But Brown's estimate of five minutes did take account of the excision!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Not if you factor in PC Harvey`s time !

and to put another nail in the organ removal theory there is no evidence to show what time the couple left the point where they were seen by Lawende and moved into the square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As I pointed out in # 177, it had to be by about 1.38, which is the time at which I have consistently been suggesting the murder took place.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

So how much time would be required for the killer to do all he was alleged to have done?

- Jeff

A lot longer than has been suggested by Sequeira and Brown, but of course, their times were based on what they saw when they arrived at the crime scene before the organs were ever found missing. Not even a modern-day surgeon could open up a body and remove a uterus and a kidney from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness in those times as stated by the doctors.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

The amount of time that the killer had in Mitre Square is most often calculated by using Joseph Lawende's alleged 1:35am sighting of Kate at Duke and Church passage, juxtaposed with Watkins discovery at approx 1:45. The fact is Lawende ID'd the dark clothing, he didnt identify Kate Eddowes. Neither did Harris or Levy. If that sighting is not accurate, then the timing is down to PC Watkins last pass through the square to the time he then finds her. PC Harveys account takes us to the entrance of the square only. So then the probable actual time with the body can only be reasonably estimated by Watkins passes. He is the ONLY one, aside from the killer and Kate, who is inside that square during the critical times. So its not 3 or 5 minutes, its as many as 15.

Not if you factor in PC Harvey`s time !

and to put another nail in the organ removal theory there is no evidence to show what time the couple left the point where they were seen by Lawende and moved into the square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

There doesn't have to be direct proof, enough circumstantial evidence will suffice

Well, perhaps you would care to explain why the only victims who were found to be missing organs were the only two out of the whole series of murders which were attributed to the same killer were Chapman and Eddowes and why all those other victims, there was no attempts made to remove any organs at their crime scenes.?

Strange do you not think of a killer who was said to be collecting trophies he clearly wasn't an avid collector

And I don't take any notice of Herlocks rants

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Circumstantial evidence is ''Never'' enough , you of all people should know this.


''There doesn't have to be direct proof,''


''Whole series ''????? Just 5 murders were attributed to the Whitechapel Murderer .


He put your Theory to rest many time tho didnt he [ where is he btw ]

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The killer could have been there in the dark and left the same way Harvey had come to the square, just after Harvey left.

A man and a woman out at night doesnt translate to a prostitute and client unless there is substantive evidence that was the case. There is no such evidence here.

We do not know what happened to Sailor Man and the dark clothed woman after being seen, so again any assumptions about what they did or where they went are just that. For example, they were not seen heading into, or away from, the square.

My point is that there is no empirical evidence that exists to discount the idea that the killer had...shall we say approx 10 minutes?...alone with Kate.

Why would the murderer follow Harvey when he could leave via the nearest exit, i.e. Mitre Street?

Is it reasonable to ask for evidence that the woman and man were a prostitute and prospective client?

Here is what Joseph Levy testified:

I passed on, thinking they were up to no good at so late an hour.

Do you really think he was making an invalid assumption?

You say she could have been a local woman ... out with her sailor man while his ship was in town.

Why then were they not walking hand in hand or arm in arm rather than her having her hand on his chest, with the two facing each other in a street at 1.35 a.m.?

You say we cannot make any assumptions about what they did or where they went afterwards.

One thing we can safely assume is that they were not still there when Harvey next arrived.

I recall reading in his testimony - a more detailed version than the one published in the Telegraph - that he took his time walking down Church Passage and then walking back.

If he approached Church Passage at about 1.38 a.m., where was the couple?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Here is an excerpt from John Richardson's testimony:

Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
[Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.


His evidence suggests that Chapman might have taken a man into that back yard at such a time that it was at its darkest.

It has never been disputed that the yard was used for immoral purposes at night. The question is how much light would JtR have needed to perform the mutilations as expertly as Phillips descibed, and what time might that have been. I think most of us would argue that some light, say very early dawn would be the absolute minimum.

[Doctored Whatsit]

As we seem to be in agreement that the organs were removed by the murderer, would you not agree with me that he must have intended to do something similar to Nichols and Stride, but was unable to do so because he was disturbed?

It was so dark in Dutfield's Yard that Diemschutz could not see Stride, let alone the murderer - who may still have been there.

He had to strike a match in order to see her at all and it was only when he used a lighted candle that he saw any blood on the ground.

How could the murderer have contemplated committing mutilation, let alone the removal of internal organs, unless he had some means of seeing what he was doing?

I suggested some time ago on another thread that JtR might have been unable to mutilate Stride as he wished because of the darkness.I don't think anyone agreed with me! Louis D needed to strike a match, just to be able to identify the object on the ground was a woman. I still think it is possible that Stride was not mutilated because JtR couldn't see to do it. Assuming, of course, that Stride was a victim of JtR.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think that's right.

First, Watkins testified that he entered the Square at 1.44.

He had last entered it at 1.30.

Then the murderer had to leave before 1.44 in order to avoid being caught by Watkins.

If he left via Mitre Street, then 1.43 might have been too late.

If he left earlier than 1.43, via Church Passage, he might have been seen by Harvey.

Even if Lawende did not see Eddowes, the murderer could hardly have had more than ten minutes to do everything.

It was clear from Lawende's testimony that the woman he saw was a prostitute and the man whose chest she had her hand on was a prospective customer.

What likelier place would they have gone to next than the nearby square?

And if they did so, would they not have likely disturbed the murderer?

IF Watkins' earlier pass was at precisely 1:30 then youre probably right, more than 10 minutes and not quite 15 minutes with the victim. Harvey claimed to have looked into the square around 12:40, he didnt enter it. The square was very dark. The killer could have been there in the dark and left the same way Harvey had come to the square, just after Harvey left. Lawende saw a dark clothed woman with a sailor"ish" man, her hand placed on his chest. That could signify a local woman, be she a part time/full time street prostitute or not, out with her sailor man while his ship was in town. A man and a woman out at night doesnt translate to a prostitute and client unless there is substantive evidence that was the case. There is no such evidence here. Lets not forget that all the victims, ALL of them, had personal relationships with men that were not clients. Liz Stride was seen out with several men before she is found dead, yet there is no evidence there that these were solicited encounters of a sexual nature. Be careful with assumptions.

We do not know what happened to Sailor Man and the dark clothed woman after being seen, so again any assumptions about what they did or where they went are just that. For example, they were not seen heading into, or away from, the square.

My point is that there is no empirical evidence that exists to discount the idea that the killer had...shall we say approx 10 minutes?...alone with Kate.