Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    We don't assume that Mrs Long was incorrect, its provable based on the fact that Cadosche heard a voice on the spot where a murder is about to happen involving the woman Long thought she saw. We don't presume that Phillips estimate of TOD is incorrect, its provable based on the fact that Richardson was almost standing on the murder spot just before 5am. Annie Chapman was killed on the spot she is found on, we have one witness that saw that spot just before 5, and one who heard a voice on that spot after 5 and before 5:30. Ergo, Annie is killed within that window of time.

    There was no "call out" from Annie, there was a soft cry of "no". The thud is heard later. The killer is likely dropping the body he choked to death and bumps the fence with her in the process.
    But Cadosche doesn't describe the cry as "soft". He doesn't comment on how loud it was. The sound of someone falling against a fence was heard 3 or 4 minutes after the cry of "No." Now, considering the killer must have been under intense time pressure, why would he spend as long as 4 minutes on the choking element of the crime? In comparison, all of the elements of Eddowes murder were completed in around 7 or 8 minutes, despite the much worse illumination.

    I agree either Long's or Cadosche's evidence is unreliable. I'm just not sure which one.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      The issue is that we’re assuming that the ‘no’ was in reaction to being attacked. In reality all that it means as that he heard the word ‘no.’ It could simply have meant that the word ‘no’ was spoken slightly louder than whatever was said. Or that he heard the word because he got closer to the fence. Obviously as none of us were there circumstances can change. Events take affect. It’s not impossible that Annie managed to say ‘no’ before she was attacked.

      The sound of something brushing against the fence might easily have been the killer brushing a shoulder against the fence as he was over Annie making the mutilations. He might simply have needed to change is position by moving to Annie’s left nearer the fence.

      These suggestions are far more likely than Cadosch mistakenly hearing ‘no’ from elsewhere when he was standing next to the fence. Surely the police would have spoken to the neighbours and asked if anyone had been in their yards who might have uttered the word ‘no’? Yes, Cadosch was cautious but when we weigh things up we have to come down in favour of the ‘no’ being connected to Annie and her killer.

      Taken together the overwhelming likelihood, unless we have proof of Cadosch lying (and we don’t) is that Cadosch heard Annie and her killer.
      I think the obvious inference is that "No" was Chapman being alerted to the killer's intentions, which I still say is inconsistent with JtR's MO.

      And Cadosch clearly states that the sound he heard was like someone falling against the fence, not just brushing against it.

      Cadosch's timings are inconsistent with Long's, inferring that at least one of the witnesses was unreliable or mistaken.

      Unfortunately this inquiry is littered with questionable witnesses. Take Caroline Maxwell, for example. She was regarded as a pillar of the community, unlike other witnesses, some of whom were drunk! And yet, it appears she was inexplicably mistaken in her identification of Kelly, unless you accept an extraordinarily late ToD.

      Comment


      • And Cadosch clearly states that the sound he heard was like someone falling against the fence, not just brushing against it.
        According to The Times he described the noise in two ways:

        A sort of fall against the fence.

        and

        Something seemed suddenly to touch the fence.

        This could very easily have been the killer brushing against the fence as he was doing what he did. We still have a sound coming from a yard where a woman had been murdered and the word ‘no’ possibly coming from that yard too. What are the odds of these being unconnected to the murder?
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • .
          Cadosch's timings are inconsistent with Long's, inferring that at least one of the witnesses was unreliable or mistaken.
          Id say that this doesn’t make the witnesses themselves unreliable but just that their timings might have been unreliable. The only thing that we know for certain is that Cadosch couldn’t have heard Annie and her killer before Long saw her in the street.

          So one or both of them made their story’s up. Or they were both mistaken. Or one or both of them were simply slightly out with their timings. And as we know that they didn’t own watches I think that the third option is likeliest.
          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            According to The Times he described the noise in two ways:

            A sort of fall against the fence.

            and

            Something seemed suddenly to touch the fence.

            This could very easily have been the killer brushing against the fence as he was doing what he did. We still have a sound coming from a yard where a woman had been murdered and the word ‘no’ possibly coming from that yard too. What are the odds of these being unconnected to the murder?
            But what are the odds Caroline Maxwell was wrong? Although she must have been, unless you accept a very late ToD, which also seems very unlikely.

            Based upon timings either Cadosch or Long must have been wrong, however, unlike Michael I'm not sure which one.

            The only witness that I do think was virtually certain to be correct is Richardson.

            Comment


            • There's no reason to think the "no" is Annie's response to an attack. In only one paper, I think, is an apostrophe added, to make "no!". Cadosch is reported on the 10th as saying that he heard voices as if in conversation, but could only make out the word "no". And bearing in mind that he was on his way back into the house, it's unlikely any attack would have commenced while he was walking past.

              Morning Advertiser 10 Sept;

              "Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings as if between two people. He caught the word "No," and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but, thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice, and went to his work."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                I think the obvious inference is that "No" was Chapman being alerted to the killer's intentions, which I still say is inconsistent with JtR's MO.
                The problem is, we don't know whether this was part of his MO, as we don't have too many "ear-witnesses" to hand. Given the near-desertedness of the relevant parts of Bucks Row and Mitre Square, who knows whether Nichols or Eddowes were alerted to their killer's attentions, or whether they cried out? With Stride and Kelly, there is a strong possibility that they both knew that they were being assaulted, in that it appears that they put up a bit of a struggle before death. Indeed, according to the witness testimony, it's quite possible that they were both heard crying out just before they were killed.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  The problem is, we don't know whether this was part of his MO, as we don't have too many "ear-witnesses" to hand. Given the near-desertedness of the relevant parts of Bucks Row and Mitre Square, who knows whether Nichols or Eddowes were alerted to their killer's attentions, or whether they cried out? With Stride and Kelly, there is a strong possibility that they both knew that they were being assaulted, in that it appears that they put up a bit of a struggle before death. Indeed, according to the witness testimony, it's quite possible that they were both heard crying out just before they were killed.
                  Yes, we can't be certain it was part of his MO, but it's a reasonable inference, particularly in Chapman's case where there is no evidence of a struggle or defensive injuries.

                  Stride may not have been a Ripper victim. I disagree that there is a strong possibility that Kelly knew she was being attacked. In fact, it's even possible she was murdered whilst she was asleep in bed. Moreover, cries of "Oh Murder" which I assume is what you're referring to, were common, and the witness couldn't be at all certain where the cry originated from.
                  Last edited by John G; 09-12-2019, 03:12 PM.

                  Comment


                  • to me the most reasonable explanation is the killer and chapman were in the back yard, with chapman thinking she was soon about to be having a go. they are talking, cadoshe catches the word no as part of the conversation, and then later either hears the killer or chapmans body brushing up against the fence after the rippers rendered her unconscious. whats the big controversy?
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      According to The Times he described the noise in two ways:

                      A sort of fall against the fence.

                      and

                      Something seemed suddenly to touch the fence.

                      This could very easily have been the killer brushing against the fence as he was doing what he did. We still have a sound coming from a yard where a woman had been murdered and the word ‘no’ possibly coming from that yard too. What are the odds of these being unconnected to the murder?
                      agree. slim to none.
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                        to me the most reasonable explanation is the killer and chapman were in the back yard, with chapman thinking she was soon about to be having a go. they are talking, cadoshe catches the word no as part of the conversation, and then later either hears the killer or chapmans body brushing up against the fence after the rippers rendered her unconscious. whats the big controversy?
                        Firstly, because Cadosch's evidence is not consistent with Mrs Long. Secondly, becuse he said that he heard a fall against the fence, not simply someone brushing the fence (I have already highlighted why this is important.)

                        And what of Caroline Maxwell? It appears she made a serious mistake of identification, or was lying. However, unlike many witnesses, who were either drunk or disreputable, she was a pilar of the community.

                        Comment


                        • Summation of the coroner concerning Annies hearing.."Mrs. Long passed on her way, and neither saw nor heard anything more of her, and this is the last time she is known to have been alive. There is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important. She was found dead about six o'clock. She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m. She was talking outside the house at half-past five when Mrs. Long passed them. Cadosh says it was about 5.20 when he was in the backyard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say "No," and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence; but if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half-hour when he passed Spitalfields clock. It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces. But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed the man and woman cannot have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, close by where she was last seen by any witness."

                          Just a reminder that the coroner seems to agree with many of the, shall we say, sensibly minded posters here. Bringing in another witness from another case who was told when she gave her evidence that it disagrees with all the other evidence submitted is hardly a valid approach to bringing doubt into what is fairly clear to most. Long didn't see Annie. Richadson didn't see Annie, and Cadosche heard Annie.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • For anyone who would look uncritically at Cadosch's testimony, here's an account that he gave to a newspaper:

                            "On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say 'No' . Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found." (Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper 9 September 1888)

                            Isn't this remarkable? I mean, in Cadosch's inquest testimony there's no mention of a scuffle (which I maintain is inconsistent with JtR's MO), no mention of anyone falling heavily on the ground.

                            As I've long argued: it's a mistak to view this case from a twenty-first century perspective. The reality is, there's so many questionable witnesses in this case-Packer, Scwartz, Maxwell, Hutchinson, Lawende, PC Mizen etc- it's easy to conclude that, for many Whitechapel residents of this period, lying, attention seeking, selling stories to the press, seemed to be part of the culture; almost a way of life.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              there is every good reason to dismiss them , because their contradictory and unreliable
                              Within their individual statements there is reason to apply caution, especially if they were stand alone accounts. However there are three statements which all support the conclusion that poor Annie Chapman was alive at around 5.30 am. Three such independent accounts all supporting a single conclusion is much more reliable and much more difficult to dismiss. It is not certain, but the balance of probabilities swings in the direction of accepting the main elements of their accounts.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                                As I've long argued: it's a mistak to view this case from a twenty-first century perspective. The reality is, there's so many questionable witnesses in this case-Packer, Scwartz, Maxwell, Hutchinson, Lawende, PC Mizen etc- it's easy to conclude that, for many Whitechapel residents of this period, lying, attention seeking, selling stories to the press, seemed to be part of the culture; almost a way of life.
                                Hey John

                                I live in the east end of London, not so far from Whitechapel. This tendency to be colourful, to make individuals closer to stories than perhaps they really were and to seek to sell information to the press is still alive and kicking. For the most part though, it is my opinion, that when talking to the police, people are more circumspect. I do not know if that holds for Victorian Whitechapel.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X