Chapman’s death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suggest you go and read what chandler said at the inquest as you clearly dont have a clue what your taking about. come back when you have .

[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

1. Why is Chandler undoubtedly correct? Why couldn’t he have been mistaken? What if he was simply covering his back because he’d failed to press Richardson on where he’d been at the time?

2. Why is it impossible that when Richardson said that he didn’t go down the steps that he’d said this in response to be asked whether he’d actually gone into the yard? “Sitting on the steps” is not the same as “gong down the steps.”

3.What possible reason could Richardson have had for specifically telling Chandler that he did not go down the steps and then go on to say, under oath, that he did? Why would Richardson have changed his story without needing to?

4. It also has to be pointed out that Richardson was adamant that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there.


All efforts to discredit Richardson are pretty desperate stuff. And from someone so hopelessly biased that he allows his desire to promote a theory to cloud his already poor judgment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wow how dumb can some people be really , a waste of 5000 post. clown in the building everyone

I’ll throw out a challenge to any poster.

Please try to decipher Fishy’s post #1135

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good to see your now making travel arrangements for the movements of Annie Chapman hours before her death

No, what I’m saying is that she could have gone pretty much anywhere. We can’t know where she went. We weren’t there. There were no cctv cameras. She could be traced by her mobile phone. She wouldn’t have used a cash machine or updated her Facebook page.

The fact that an impoverished East End prostitutes movements cannot be traced for a while is so unremarkable as to be not worth mentioning apart from by conspiracy theory loons.

[Herlock Sholmes]

there is every good reason to dismiss them , because their contradictory and unreliable

Trevor’s parrot.

[Michael W Richards]

I can vouch for that, Trevor; Michael's quite the nonconformist in many ways. I should add that, personally, I don't care when the Chapman murder occurred, but the balance of evidence points to a later TOD than Phillips suggests.

I don't know why I feel good about that Sam, Im sure even salmon get tired of swimming against the current.

[John G]

Regarding Inspector Chandler. I think Sugden makes a reasonable point in his book: that the Inspector interviewed Richardson at 6:45, shortly before his arrival at the mortuary just after 7:00; he may therefore have been in hurry, and could have misunderstood Richardson as the consequence of a hastily conducted interview.

Moreover, as far as I know Chandler didn't bother taking any notes, which was a bit remiss of him given the importance of Richardson as a witness. He was therefore recalling the conversation from memory, five days later, at the inquest.

[FISHY1118]

I’ll throw out a challenge to any poster.

Please try to decipher Fishy’s post #1135

Hmmmm let me help you Herlock , that post was in direct response to another poster that tried to suggest that Codosch hearing the ''no'' was that he wasn't sure which side of 29, either the left hand side of that particular yard or the right hand side ,go check out the post yourself stop being childish .

[FISHY1118]

Trevor’s parrot.

Even a parrot could see the contradictory and unreliable testimony of L.C.R . DOESN'T SAY MUCH FOR YOU THEN HERLOCK DOES IT ?

[John G]

The evidence of Albert Cadosch is much more problematic. Firstly, assuming he heard the murder being carried out, his timings cannot be reconciled with Mrs Long's, and we can't just assume that one of them must have got the time wrong in order to make the pieces fit.

And there's another problem. At the inquest he stated that he first heard the word "No", and then several minutes later he heard what sounded like someone falling against the fence. However, the forensic evidence suggests that JtR's MO involved catching his victims completely by surprise, whilst launching a blitz attack. But if Chapman was able to call out in alarm then she couldn't have been caught by surprise. Furthermore, the falling against the fence suggests Chapman falling as the fatal blow was struck (I mean, why would the killer fall against the fence? And how could Chapman fall against the fence if she had been killed minutes earlier?) This last point is important because, having alerted Chapman to his intentions, why would her killer then delay for several minutes before striking?

[FISHY1118]

the evidence of albert cadosch is much more problematic. Firstly, assuming he heard the murder being carried out, his timings cannot be reconciled with mrs long's, and we can't just assume that one of them must have got the time wrong in order to make the pieces fit.

And there's another problem. At the inquest he stated that he first heard the word "no", and then several minutes later he heard what sounded like someone falling against the fence. However, the forensic evidence suggests that jtr's mo involved catching his victims completely by surprise, whilst launching a blitz attack. But if chapman was able to call out in alarm then she couldn't have been caught by surprise. Furthermore, the falling against the fence suggests chapman falling as the fatal blow was struck (i mean, why would the killer fall against the fence? And how could chapman fall against the fence if she had been killed minutes earlier?) this last point is important because, having alerted chapman to his intentions, why would her killer then delay for several minutes before striking?

exactly . I wrote a post entirely on this subject , the ''no'' and the noise of hitting the fence are 6 minutes apart, was the killer holding annie chapman up all that time ?

[Michael W Richards]

The evidence of Albert Cadosch is much more problematic. Firstly, assuming he heard the murder being carried out, his timings cannot be reconciled with Mrs Long's, and we can't just assume that one of them must have got the time wrong in order to make the pieces fit.

And there's another problem. At the inquest he stated that he first heard the word "No", and then several minutes later he heard what sounded like someone falling against the fence. However, the forensic evidence suggests that JtR's MO involved catching his victims completely by surprise, whilst launching a blitz attack. But if Chapman was able to call out in alarm then she couldn't have been caught by surprise. Furthermore, the falling against the fence suggests Chapman falling as the fatal blow was struck (I mean, why would the killer fall against the fence? And how could Chapman fall against the fence if she had been killed minutes earlier?) This last point is important because, having alerted Chapman to his intentions, why would her killer then delay for several minutes before striking?

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.

[Michael W Richards]

exactly . I wrote a post entirely on this subject , the ''no'' and the noise of hitting the fence are 6 minutes apart, was the killer holding annie chapman up all that time ?

If he started choking her while she stood, maybe her back to him, then that might have taken some time, then he would lower and position the body so he could work...he might reposition her..hence the thud. Making this harder to understand isn't really in anyone interest here, its there, its there on page. Annie killed after Richardson and during Cadosches visits.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The evidence of Albert Cadosch is much more problematic. Firstly, assuming he heard the murder being carried out, his timings cannot be reconciled with Mrs Long's, and we can't just assume that one of them must have got the time wrong in order to make the pieces fit.

And there's another problem. At the inquest he stated that he first heard the word "No", and then several minutes later he heard what sounded like someone falling against the fence. However, the forensic evidence suggests that JtR's MO involved catching his victims completely by surprise, whilst launching a blitz attack. But if Chapman was able to call out in alarm then she couldn't have been caught by surprise. Furthermore, the falling against the fence suggests Chapman falling as the fatal blow was struck (I mean, why would the killer fall against the fence? And how could Chapman fall against the fence if she had been killed minutes earlier?) This last point is important because, having alerted Chapman to his intentions, why would her killer then delay for several minutes before striking?

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmmmm let me help you Herlock , that post was in direct response to another poster that tried to suggest that Codosch hearing the ''no'' was that he wasn't sure which side of 29, either the left hand side of that particular yard or the right hand side ,go check out the post yourself stop being childish .

I don’t care about the intention of the post I’m talking about how literate it is. It’s unreadable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even a parrot could see the contradictory and unreliable testimony of L.C.R . DOESN'T SAY MUCH FOR YOU THEN HERLOCK DOES IT ?

Can you point to a witness in this case that cannot be questioned in any way?

We have to use judgment.

You just don’t do that. You start from a position of - Annie Chapman was killed elsewhere in a coach and mutilated by Sir William Gull - and so for you everything has to fit in with that. If it doesn’t you desperately seek to discredit it.

What is noticeable is that you’ve never answered this question. If you are so trusting of Dr Phillips; if you are so sure that he couldn’t have been wrong in the complicated matter of estimating TOD, why do you distrust him when he rather inconveniently said this in regard to the much simpler matter of where Annie was killed:

““Coroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive? - I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard.””

Nice piece of cherry-picking Fishy.