Chapman’s death.

[Sam Flynn]

If the statement he supplied Joseph Chandler is true, he may have missed seeing Annie's corpse.

That's only Chandler's supposition, which is somewhat called into question given that Chandler was inaccurate as to the position of the body. He said that the door "swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was" however, the body was not up against the palings, and the head was offset from the bottom step by some 9 inches, with the body itself extending into the yard, and the intestines in line with the steps, draped as they had been over the right shoulder. The corpse, or at least parts of it, would have been visible with all but the most tentative opening of the door.

[Fisherman]

Much is made of what Richardson said to Chandler. Firstly, we have to remember that he wasn’t compelled to speak to the police. He came forward voluntarily. I think that by far the likeliest explanation is that, when he spoke to Chandler in the passageway he simply said to him something like this -

I got here and ten to five. I went to the back door to check the cellar doors and there was definitely no body there or I’d have seen it.

Is that a lie? No. He might simply have felt..

a) this was sufficient detail. The police were getting the most important piece of information I.e. that there was no body at 4.50.

b) If he deliberately withheld the info about him sitting on the step then he might simply have been wary of putting himself at the seen of a murder in possession of a knife?

We have to remember of course that at The Inquest, under oath, he told the full story (obviously after it had been pointed out to the police that it would have been possible for him to have just looked outside and missed the body.) If that was indeed all that he’d done Richardson simply have had to have admitted it - no problem - yes, I suppose I might have missed it. Hardly a disgrace for him but no, he was adamant. He’d sat on the step with a view of the entire yard and he couldn’t have missed a mutilated corpse had it been there.

Very many people who want fifteen minutes of fame come forward voluntarily - it´s not as if they feel a need to wait for an invitation.

Richardson WAS adamant. And so was Long. It WAS Chapman she had seen and she DID see her at 5.30. The problem is that Cadosch was ALSO adamant - he DID hear what he heard well before Long saw Chapman in Hanbury Street.

Adamant is adamant. But is is not necessarily correct by any stretch of the imagination.

Phillis was ALSO adamant. NO LESS than two hours. But we can be sure in his case that he did not come for fifteen minutes of fame!

He is too tough a nut for Richardson to even begin to crack. I mean he could not even cut a piece of leather from his boot. Then again, he said that he could - and did. Which was untrue. Although he was adamant that he had done so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmmmmm perhaps it might have been better to drip feed you Herlock as your a bit slow in picking up on thing where Chapman is concerned. You've made my point exactly he wouldn't have killed her in those circumstances ive mentioned, dont you get it .....it was much earlier than that, even before Codosch was ever in his yard . Shhhhhhishhh its sure lunacy that you cant see that .

I’m afraid not Fishy. The idea that Phillips must have been correct has been thoroughly and irrevocably exploded. It’s game over. Expert after expert tell us this. Unless you can show me that you are a Forensic experts then you have nothing to add that’s of note. Phillips was overwhelmingly likely to have been wrong.

Whats really pathetic Herlock is the nonsensical way you try and justify your logic, its truly amazing .You know as well as i you can never prove that the thud Codosch heard was Annie Chapman hitting the fence . IT WAS JUST A NOISE WASN'T IT , so yes its quit possible any animal could have made such a noise, or even something falling against the fence whos knows , but the fact remains ,we shouldn't just assume it was Annie Chapman because codosch heard a thud, now can we .[ wait dont answer that ,you do ]

Of course we can never totally prove it. Please don’t accuse me of doing what you tend to do which is talk of definites. Could it have been an animal? Very little is completely impossible but something as light and agile as a cat sounds an unlikely candidate. So a dog? Would an animal have approached a human being? Even a dead one?

What about something else? Maybe something falling from the sky? Maybe next doors kids were playing cricket and one of them knocked the ball over which knocked against the fence? Then someone climbed over to retrieve it but missed seeing the corpse?!

Anyone think we’re clutching at straws here?

A noise of something falling against a fence came from a backyard where nothing else occurred except for a murder half an hour or so after a man looked into that yard and saw no corpse. I’d say that the odds against that noise being Annie’s killer are huge.

Now pay attention to this bit ok , Phillips t.o.d puts Chapman in the yard at between lets say 3.30 to 4.30 am Richardson then stands on the step ,looks to his right at the cellar door ,turns and goes off to work, according to chandlers report . Thus by totally missing the corpse of Annie Chapman to his left blocked by the open door. [ why this part is so hard for you to understand or at least say yes thats possible based on the what Richardson told chandler escapes me] .So when you say there was a noise in the yard where a murder took place 30 mins earlier after a man said the yard was empty is totally irreverent, as Chapman was already dead for at least 1 whole hour maybe two before Codosch heard the thud at 5.20 . Again Codosch statements is not the gospel truth[ and that why its ok to have a another opinion and scenario to how and when Chapman was murdered. why cant you see that ?] that it was the killer and Chapman he heard in the back yard at 5.15 and 5.30am .

Because you very conveniently ignore the expert testimony of every Forensic expert that has been quote. Every one of them had far greater knowledge than a Victorian Doctor. But of course you go for the Victorian Doctor because it suits you. Phillips can and should be ignored. We now know this beyond doubt. You are basing your whole point on a man to whom you are ascribing skills and knowledge that he didn’t possess.

Im relying on all of modern Forensic knowledge. You are relying on a Victorian Doctor who couldn't possibly have made a accurate TOD apart from by fluke.

[/B]


ITS far from a smoke screen Herlock, would such a cold heated, calculated ,elusive killer such as jack the ripper, really have butchered a prostitute in day light hour at 5.30 and 5.45 behind a 5/6 fence with Albert Codosch walking to and from 4 times just two feet away?. Possible i guess, but highly unlikely in this case given the contradictory testimonies of L.C.R.

And finally ill take that as compliment that Mrs long was indeed flat out wrong . Now which cake do you want to eat as you cant have them both?, you go on and on about codosch hearing the killer and the thud ,yet for that to be true long must be wrong mustn't she ? because she says that she saw them at 5.32 longgggggggg after CODOSCH heard the ''NO '' AND ''THUD''. so please pick one if you must they cant both be right . Please refrain from using the clocks were probably wrong excuse, or there times were slightly off or whatever else to try to use to align their stories, that part becoming very tiresome and boring on your behalf .

The killer with puts his hand over Annie’s mouth and pulls her down below the level of the fence. There’s absolutely nothing unbelievable about this. He was behind a fence. Cadosch, as far as we know, didn’t have x-ray vision. It’s very simple.

Theres no such thing as a clocks were wrong excuse Fishy. The suggestion - clocks could be wrong- is a fact. Have you never seen a clock that was wrong? Besides this very obvious fact I have said that this was definitely the case. I’ve said that like might have been mistaken and seen 2 entirely unconnected people. It’s called honesty. But equally she might simply have gotten her time wrong. Either way she doesn’t detract from anything of course.

Its looking more likely that he was tho doesn't it Herlock ?

On the contrary Fishy. The game is up I’m afraid. We know that Phillips was very probably wrong. Bad luck.

Continue to ignore the experts if you want to Fishy. It’s impossible to make any more foolish arguments than you’ve already done I’m afraid.

Im looking at experts whilst you are employing desperate bias. You simply need an earlier TOD. And I’d like to win the lottery.

[Fisherman]

That's only Chandler's supposition, which is somewhat called into question given that Chandler was inaccurate as to the position of the body. He said that the door "swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was" however, the body was not up against the palings, and the head was offset from the bottom step by some 9 inches, with the body itself extending into the yard, and the intestines in line with the steps, draped as they had been over the right shoulder. The corpse, or at least parts of it, would have been visible with all but the most tentative opening of the door.

But did Chandler say that the body was "up against the palings" or just that it was by the palings? According to the DT, he said "The body was lying parallel with the fencing dividing the two yards", and it seems the other press reports are in line with that. So where does the idea that he said that the body was up against the fencing come from? Maybe I just missed it, and if so, how long from the fencing could the body have lain? It was a very crammed recess, was it not?

What supposition on behalf of Chandler is it you are talking about? I find no such supposition in the post you are quoting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll respond to Fish’s increasingly desperate propaganda later.

[DJA]

[Fisherman]

As for how Chapman was lying and how that would have disabled Richardson any chance to miss her, that is patently untrue. If the door was not fully opened, it certainly could - and WOULD - have obscured Chapman from view as long as Richardson was behind the door. It is all a question about whether or not he at any remove in time put his head past the door blade - and whether he looked down to his left when doing so. It also deserves repeating that although all representations we have of the scene depicts it in daylight, it was DARK as Richardson was there.

He could have missed her, the police recognized that he could have done so - but some out here claim that it is impossible, until they are put under pressure and start gabbing on about how he would have been "imbecile" if he missed her, as if intelligence was what makes us able to see things! A remarkable statement indeed!

[Fisherman]

I’ll respond to Fish’s increasingly desperate propaganda later.

Well, I am not sure that I will respond to much more of yours. It lacks more and more of the quality that inspires a wish to do so. Failures to see things being comparable to imbecility, skin coolness prohibiting the ability to feel for underlying warmth, Chapman loosing much more blood than Eddowes, Phillips contradicting himself at the inquest - what will be the next move, one wonders?

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes:

Im relying on all of modern Forensic knowledge. You are relying on a Victorian Doctor who couldn't possibly have made a accurate TOD apart from by fluke.

When will you understand that nobody is questioning that the victorian method of feeling for warmth was unable to establish an exact TOD? How many posts must I make before you admit that I have said this a thousand times? Modern forensics tells us that it is impossible today too, going on temperature only. And it is also something that Phillips was aware of. He knew quite well that he was not able to establish any exact TOD. Which-was-why-he-never-tried-to-do so! He did not say that she died at 3.32.15, did he?

Indeed , if he was to chance on an exact TOD for Chapman, it would - just as you say - be a complete fluke if he succeeded. He would reasonably be likely not to be too far from the target (but that is another discussion), but to get it spot on would be a feat that could only be accomplished as a stroke of totally freakish luck. We all know that, Herlock! Nobody denies it!!

There! Do you see now that you are not speaking of what SHOULD be spoken of here? What SHOULD be spoken of is whether Phillips would be unable to tell the difference between a quite warm or reasonably warm body and a cold one!

He does NOT say that she died at any exact time, what he instead does is to stretch the minimum time as much he knows the circumstances allow for - and then he gives a minimum time of two hours since death. He does NOT say that she has been dead exactly two hours, he says that at any rate, she has not been dead less than two hours. And he predisposes that she has been dead a lot longer than so, on account of how she has grown cold and on account on how she has developed onsetting rigor. He BELIEVES she has been dead for three or four hours, but he is at a MAXIMUM stretch willing to accept two.

At no stage does he claim that he can be exact in any way, and therefore, my fine friend, you should not claim that he DOES so, because that is pointing away from the REAL issue. You are either being ignorant or dishonest, and I really cannot say that I favour any of the options.

Now, the next time I hear you claiming that anybody has said that Phillips would have established an exact TOD for Chapman, I will remind you of this conversation. If you want to have any credibility left (and you are scraping the bottom of the barrel since very long now) you will refrain from such antics. Fair is fair!

[Fisherman]

Is ANYBODY going to answer my question? Would Richardson have been asked whether he checked behind the door or not? And what would his answer have been?

[Joshua Rogan]

But did Chandler say that the body was "up against the palings" or just that it was by the palings? According to the DT, he said "The body was lying parallel with the fencing dividing the two yards", and it seems the other press reports are in line with that. So where does the idea that he said that the body was up against the fencing come from? Maybe I just missed it, and if so, how long from the fencing could the body have lain? It was a very crammed recess, was it not?

Not all the press reports agreed...

Times 14th Sept;
"The body was lying parallel with the fencing, and was about two yards distant."

[Fisherman]

Not all the press reports agreed...

Times 14th Sept;
"The body was lying parallel with the fencing, and was about two yards distant."

Well, that still does not put her up against the fence, does it? Can you explain to me what "two yards distant" means it the context? That her body was at the furthest about two yards away from the wall, or?

[Joshua Rogan]

Is ANYBODY going to answer my question? Would Richardson have been asked whether he checked behind the door or not? And what would his answer have been?

He would probably have said there was no need.

Morning Advertiser 13 Sept
"Did you sit on the top step? -No, sir, the second step.
Where were your feet? -On the flags of the yard, sir.
You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? -She was found lying just where my feet were."

[Joshua Rogan]

Well, that still does not put her up against the fence, does it? Can you explain to me what "two yards distant" means it the context? That her body was at the furthest about two yards away from the wall, or?

Parallel with the fence, but two yards away from it. Which, if true, would make it impossible for Richardson to miss. However, I very much suspect this is a misreporting of the line you mentioned "parallel with the fencing dividing the two yards"

[Sam Flynn]

Not all the press reports agreed...

Times 14th Sept;
"The body was lying parallel with the fencing, and was about two yards distant."

That would be entirely congruent with her head being between 6 and 9 inches from the line of the bottom step.