Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Well, to me it appears your talking about your own approach. Every time we discuss this you consistently omit Levey's testimony, you consistently state there was only 3 minute window when there's at least a 6 minute window, and you consistently ignore medical opinions that suggest less than 5 minutes were required. I'm just presenting what the testimony is, including the ranges we have to work with. If that is seeing what I want to see, then thank you, I see the evidence as it is stated, and yes, I am fully aware that the evidence we have could be wrong, something I've consistently said and which you appear to not have seen as well If the data is wrong, though, we have nothing to interpret, and in that case we are not granted carte blanche to suggest anything at all, rather, we should just acknowledge that if the evidence is wrong then we have nothing upon which to build and so we should say nothing further. We certainly should avoid the temptation to say the evidence is wrong and then go on to suggest a bunch of "what if ..." stories, and to me, that appears to be what you are doing. It may just be a difference in how we present things, but from where I stand the blinkers are on your side of the table.

- Jeff

For the final time and I hope you an other listen because so far you and others are not doing that. With regards to all the witness timings we cannot say for certain if they were accurate but we have to work with what we have.

Levy says they came out at about 1.33.1.34 the couple were standing so the earliest they could have moved from that standing point into the square was 1.35am but no one saw them move so it is right to say that when they did move it could have been as early as 1.35am and so calculations have to be made to take in the fact that they could have moved any time between 1.35am any time thereafter. These time scenarios cannot be proved or disproved. So any scenario thereafter postulated by you and others and myself is potentially possible, until we close scrutinize the evidence.

So therefore it is right to calculate timings thereafter based on the different scenarios that could have taken place.

Based on a 1.35am start what do we have
Just under a minute to walk slowly from the entrance to Church Passage to the murder spot. I know this is right because I have walked it
Arriving at the murder scene 1.36am

Watkins arrived back in the square at 1.44. He had a watch so we must accpet what he says as being correct, although the nightwatmean says it was 1.43am. So a gap of 8 mins or 7. But i will work with the 8 mins.

That 8 mins is reduced by Harvey who says he was in Mitre Square at approx 1.38/39 and no doubt disturbed the killer when he came down the passage.

So that leaves a time of only 3-4 mins and if the killer saw and heard Harvey approaching that time is reduced ever so slightly

If the couple left that spot any later then the time window would be reduced.

I cant see that the problem is with what I have written, well I can because those who want to believe the old accepted theory and for them to be able to believe in that they need to be able to show a time window of at least 5 mins. But of course Dr Brown says at least 5 mins, and then we have Dr Phiilps whay says that for him to have removed the uterus and the fallopian tubes attache it would have taken him almots 3 times that time.

So do we have a superhuman killer whose medical skills and expertise far exceeded the medical men of the day ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Hey. I think we can all agree that if Lawende did see Kate this killer could do his thing very quickly under adverse conditions, like the almost nonexistent lighting. That makes him an experienced killer I would think. He acts, he doesn't hesitate. No fumbles. That same man may well be Pollys killer, and the window there is from 5:25ish until almost 6am. Plenty O time.

[JeffHamm]

I am sorry to say that you only see what you want to see and interpret what you see to suit your own way of thinking and not what the facts and evidence tells us

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Well, to me it appears your talking about your own approach. Every time we discuss this you consistently omit Levey's testimony, you consistently state there was only 3 minute window when there's at least a 6 minute window, and you consistently ignore medical opinions that suggest less than 5 minutes were required. I'm just presenting what the testimony is, including the ranges we have to work with. If that is seeing what I want to see, then thank you, I see the evidence as it is stated, and yes, I am fully aware that the evidence we have could be wrong, something I've consistently said and which you appear to not have seen as well If the data is wrong, though, we have nothing to interpret, and in that case we are not granted carte blanche to suggest anything at all, rather, we should just acknowledge that if the evidence is wrong then we have nothing upon which to build and so we should say nothing further. We certainly should avoid the temptation to say the evidence is wrong and then go on to suggest a bunch of "what if ..." stories, and to me, that appears to be what you are doing. It may just be a difference in how we present things, but from where I stand the blinkers are on your side of the table.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, we've been through the maths before, but I'll try again.

First, Lawende's estimate of 1:35 is the latest, and the walk would require about 30 seconds at an average walking speed. PC Harvey said he heard the whistle blow a couple minutes (as in 2) before the whistle (so at 1:42). His reported position when he heard the whistle corresponds to a 2 minute walk at regulation patrol speeds (2.5 mph, which is slower than an average walking pace, of 3.1 mph), so again, his testimony seems reliable.

Now, I don't know how you come up with 3 minutes, but from 1:36 to 1:42 I get 6 minutes, not 3, not "less than 5", but more than 6, by 1 minute.

And, since we also have to consider Levey's estimate of their wait (given we have no reason to prefer Lawende over Levey), then there is another 2 minutes, so that's 8 minutes. And since time is critical, given the walk only requires 30 seconds, then really, we have 6 min 30 seconds up to 8 min 30 seconds. Perhaps a bit more, as there would be a bit of time required for PC Waitkins to go from the body, to summon the watchman and for him to grab his whistle and start blowing it, giving us another minute, meaning PC Harvey may have patrolled closer to 1:43, extending that to as much as 7 minutes 30 seconds at a minimum up to 9 min 30 seconds. And we have estimates of 3-5 minutes required, so the longest time required is still shorter than the shortest time available.

How you get 3 minutes between 1:35 and 1:42 (and that's the minimum time window) is beyond me. And why PC Harvey's signed inquest statement becomes carved in stone, and yet, the doctor's signed statements concerning missing organs are dismissed, Richardson sitting on the steps is dismissed, etc, is just another example of your blinkers, blocking what you need to block from view amd allowing only what you need to see so you can say what you want to say - you cannot evaluate the evidence based upon the theory, you evaluate the theory based upon the evidence. You accuse everyone else of wearing them, but I think you would be better off removing your own first. You've got a lot of experience and some creative ways of thinking, but unless creativity is held in check by the evidence, it runs amok.

- Jeff

I am sorry to say that you only see what you want to see and interpret what you see to suit your own way of thinking and not what the facts and evidence tells us

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Well I am all for challenging witness testimony, but his signed inquest testimony states " I went down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square" So he was at a point at the end of Church Passage/Mitre Square at either 1.38.1.39am-appox 5 mins before Watkins came back

Now comes the real time problem

If the couple seen at 1.35am were the killer and Eddowes what time do they go into the square not 1.35am, it must have been 1.36am or later cutting the time down even more, If it were 1.36am that would have left only 3 minutes before Harvey appeared, and the killer forced to make good his escape. 3 minutes not enough time to do all his supposed to have done

Or unless they waited for Pc Harvey to come out, but that would reduce the murder time even more. But if they had waited where they were standing Harvey would have seen them on his way in and out. Because if Harvey was at the end of Church passage when he said he was, then that leave less than 5 minutes before Watkins appears. But Harvey sees no one when he comes down Church Passage, or anyone in the immediate vicinity

So realistically we dont even have a 5 minute window

Looking at it from another angle. If the killer and Eddowes had entered the square from another direction then that must have been after Pc Watkins left at around 1.33-1.34. Because he said he walked around the square checking the property. He says he saw no one at that time. Which then leaves a time gap of 10-11 minutes before he comes back. In order for these times to be relied upon they have to be accepted as fact because any deviation from these time dictates how much time time the killer must have had but we know the timings were not that accurate, although Pc Watkins says he had a watch, the night watchman had some from of a time piece ,although he says it was 1.43 when the body was discovered

So working on these times and including Pc Harveys times the killer could only have had a max of 5 minutes or perhaps less to do all that he is supposed to have done.

Dr Brown states it would have taken the killer at least 5 mins to do all that he did,but that statement was first made to the press on or about Oct 1st and appeared in The Star Newspaper on Monday Oct 1st before the inquest was conducted on Oct 4th. Dr Sequeira say about 3 mins again in the same interview.

And we know that clearly Dr Brown was concerned about the timings to ask a another doctor to replicate the killers action in removing organs which took that doctor 3 minutes to just remove the uterus and with that he damaged the bladder something the killer had avoided doing. But we dont know under what conditions this test was conducted it probably wasnt on some wet pavement with almost no light and with only using a long bladed knife.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, we've been through the maths before, but I'll try again.

First, Lawende's estimate of 1:35 is the latest, and the walk would require about 30 seconds at an average walking speed. PC Harvey said he heard the whistle blow a couple minutes (as in 2) before the whistle (so at 1:42). His reported position when he heard the whistle corresponds to a 2 minute walk at regulation patrol speeds (2.5 mph, which is slower than an average walking pace, of 3.1 mph), so again, his testimony seems reliable.

Now, I don't know how you come up with 3 minutes, but from 1:36 to 1:42 I get 6 minutes, not 3, not "less than 5", but more than 6, by 1 minute.

And, since we also have to consider Levey's estimate of their wait (given we have no reason to prefer Lawende over Levey), then there is another 2 minutes, so that's 8 minutes. And since time is critical, given the walk only requires 30 seconds, then really, we have 6 min 30 seconds up to 8 min 30 seconds. Perhaps a bit more, as there would be a bit of time required for PC Waitkins to go from the body, to summon the watchman and for him to grab his whistle and start blowing it, giving us another minute, meaning PC Harvey may have patrolled closer to 1:43, extending that to as much as 7 minutes 30 seconds at a minimum up to 9 min 30 seconds. And we have estimates of 3-5 minutes required, so the longest time required is still shorter than the shortest time available.

How you get 3 minutes between 1:35 and 1:42 (and that's the minimum time window) is beyond me. And why PC Harvey's signed inquest statement becomes carved in stone, and yet, the doctor's signed statements concerning missing organs are dismissed, Richardson sitting on the steps is dismissed, etc, is just another example of your blinkers, blocking what you need to block from view amd allowing only what you need to see so you can say what you want to say - you cannot evaluate the evidence based upon the theory, you evaluate the theory based upon the evidence. You accuse everyone else of wearing them, but I think you would be better off removing your own first. You've got a lot of experience and some creative ways of thinking, but unless creativity is held in check by the evidence, it runs amok.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Michael,

It's impossible to know if Lawende, Levey, and Harris (I think that's the 3rd fellows name) saw Eddowes & JtR or two other people. The identification is weak, at best. The location does make sense, given it's about a 30 second walk from where they were seen to the location Eddowes was later found, but there are other entrances to Mitre Square from which they could have entered. However, Lawende and company went to leave their club at 1:30 by Lawende's watch, but because the rain was coming down heavily, they waited for it to pass before heading out. Lawende estimated they waited 5 minutes, Levey makes it 3 or 4.

Now, it seems where ever Eddowes and JtR were at 1:30 (the time of Watkins patrol), it wasn't in Mitre Square. And it seems reasonable that they too would have waited out the rain (which could be what the Church Passage couple were doing - sheltering against the wall), so it is most probable that the earliest Eddowes and JtR enter Mitre Square would be around 1:33 (Levey's estimate) to 1:35 (Lawende's estimate). From 1:33 to 1:44 would be 11 minutes.

Now, while I was ribbing Trevor on PC Harvey, we have no evidence that PC Harvey didn't do his full patrol (though to use Trevor's logic, given that the murder required a certain amount of time, I could all that evidence that PC Harvey didn't do his patrol, but that's erroneous logic). PC Harvey says he had patrolled Church Passage 2 minutes prior to hearing the whistle blow at 1:44, so around 1:42, That leaves a window as wide as 9 minutes for the murder, and as narrow as 7. Contemporary doctors estimated 5 minutes for the murder, though some modern medical experts have said as little as 3 would be required. Either way, even the narrowest window of 7 minutes is greater than the 5 minutes required. And since the margin of error goes out to 9 minutes, it seems enough time was available.

It also suggests that the estimates for Chapman's murder are probably much too long, and reflect the fact nobody at that time had any experience with a series of crimes like these.

- Jeff

Well I am all for challenging witness testimony, but his signed inquest testimony states " I went down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square" So he was at a point at the end of Church Passage/Mitre Square at either 1.38.1.39am-appox 5 mins before Watkins came back

Now comes the real time problem

If the couple seen at 1.35am were the killer and Eddowes what time do they go into the square not 1.35am, it must have been 1.36am or later cutting the time down even more, If it were 1.36am that would have left only 3 minutes before Harvey appeared, and the killer forced to make good his escape. 3 minutes not enough time to do all his supposed to have done

Or unless they waited for Pc Harvey to come out, but that would reduce the murder time even more. But if they had waited where they were standing Harvey would have seen them on his way in and out. Because if Harvey was at the end of Church passage when he said he was, then that leave less than 5 minutes before Watkins appears. But Harvey sees no one when he comes down Church Passage, or anyone in the immediate vicinity

So realistically we dont even have a 5 minute window

Looking at it from another angle. If the killer and Eddowes had entered the square from another direction then that must have been after Pc Watkins left at around 1.33-1.34. Because he said he walked around the square checking the property. He says he saw no one at that time. Which then leaves a time gap of 10-11 minutes before he comes back. In order for these times to be relied upon they have to be accepted as fact because any deviation from these time dictates how much time time the killer must have had but we know the timings were not that accurate, although Pc Watkins says he had a watch, the night watchman had some from of a time piece ,although he says it was 1.43 when the body was discovered

So working on these times and including Pc Harveys times the killer could only have had a max of 5 minutes or perhaps less to do all that he is supposed to have done.

Dr Brown states it would have taken the killer at least 5 mins to do all that he did,but that statement was first made to the press on or about Oct 1st and appeared in The Star Newspaper on Monday Oct 1st before the inquest was conducted on Oct 4th. Dr Sequeira say about 3 mins again in the same interview.

And we know that clearly Dr Brown was concerned about the timings to ask a another doctor to replicate the killers action in removing organs which took that doctor 3 minutes to just remove the uterus and with that he damaged the bladder something the killer had avoided doing. But we dont know under what conditions this test was conducted it probably wasnt on some wet pavement with almost no light and with only using a long bladed knife.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And in Richardson’s Inquest testimony he said that he’d sat on the steps.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think you mean Cadoche, as Long didn't hear a No.

The 14 minutes I quote is the maximum. You only have your belief that JtR left when PC Harvey came down Church Passage, if of course PC Harvey even did do that - do you have proof he actually completed his patrol? no? So, it's unsafe, and you're wrong to assert PC Harvey went down Church Passage.

Hey, this making stuff up out of thin air is fun!

- Jeff.

Well I am all for challenging witness testimony but his signed inquest testimony states " I went down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square"

So it is as likely as not that when the killer saw or heard Pc Harvey coming down the passage towards him he quickly made good his escape

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s no evidence at all that any of the women were killed elsewhere. Specifically with Eddowes there is no evidence of her being killed elsewhere. None of the experts present on that night suspected that she was killed elsewhere. It’s pretty obvious that she was killed by the same man that killed Annie. So however risky the situation was to our eyes or however tight the timing was to our minds this is still what occurred. We have to work far too hard to come up with an alternative. The ripper left the women where he killed them. Eddowes was killed by the ripper. Therefore she was killed where she was found.

[JeffHamm]

Ok..., if Harvey didn't actually go down and look into the square at all that particular pass, then from Lawende to Watkins is around 8 or 9 minutes uninterrupted. But that's from outside the square until being found gutted inside it. Everything has to happen within that 8-9 minutes. To the spot, the kill, then everything else. Could it be done...medical opinion said yes, is it likely that it was that efficient...not for me. There could be no blips there....Kate getting cold feet and pulling back, someone trips, hesitation on either part......then the kill, not instantaneous I would imagine,..then all that tedious cutting. All done and gone before Watkins has returned.

Id say its improbable. And without the sighting, its unnecessary. Lets remember what is being banked on...a sighting that was described as …"

The woman was standing with her back to Lawende, wearing a black jacket and black bonnet. He had been shown Eddowes's clothing at the police station, and believed it was the same he had seen on the woman (thus most reports of his testimony, though some say only that he recognized them as the sort of dress worn by the woman, or that they looked like the clothes she was wearing". 2 weeks after his statement he believed he would not be able to recognize the man he saw. We know he was used later on as well. So they bought in to Lawende. But should we?

Hi Michael,

It's impossible to know if Lawende, Levey, and Harris (I think that's the 3rd fellows name) saw Eddowes & JtR or two other people. The identification is weak, at best. The location does make sense, given it's about a 30 second walk from where they were seen to the location Eddowes was later found, but there are other entrances to Mitre Square from which they could have entered. However, Lawende and company went to leave their club at 1:30 by Lawende's watch, but because the rain was coming down heavily, they waited for it to pass before heading out. Lawende estimated they waited 5 minutes, Levey makes it 3 or 4.

Now, it seems where ever Eddowes and JtR were at 1:30 (the time of Watkins patrol), it wasn't in Mitre Square. And it seems reasonable that they too would have waited out the rain (which could be what the Church Passage couple were doing - sheltering against the wall), so it is most probable that the earliest Eddowes and JtR enter Mitre Square would be around 1:33 (Levey's estimate) to 1:35 (Lawende's estimate). From 1:33 to 1:44 would be 11 minutes.

Now, while I was ribbing Trevor on PC Harvey, we have no evidence that PC Harvey didn't do his full patrol (though to use Trevor's logic, given that the murder required a certain amount of time, I could all that evidence that PC Harvey didn't do his patrol, but that's erroneous logic). PC Harvey says he had patrolled Church Passage 2 minutes prior to hearing the whistle blow at 1:44, so around 1:42, That leaves a window as wide as 9 minutes for the murder, and as narrow as 7. Contemporary doctors estimated 5 minutes for the murder, though some modern medical experts have said as little as 3 would be required. Either way, even the narrowest window of 7 minutes is greater than the 5 minutes required. And since the margin of error goes out to 9 minutes, it seems enough time was available.

It also suggests that the estimates for Chapman's murder are probably much too long, and reflect the fact nobody at that time had any experience with a series of crimes like these.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Ok..., if Harvey didn't actually go down and look into the square at all that particular pass, then from Lawende to Watkins is around 8 or 9 minutes uninterrupted. But that's from outside the square until being found gutted inside it. Everything has to happen within that 8-9 minutes. To the spot, the kill, then everything else. Could it be done...medical opinion said yes, is it likely that it was that efficient...not for me. There could be no blips there....Kate getting cold feet and pulling back, someone trips, hesitation on either part......then the kill, not instantaneous I would imagine,..then all that tedious cutting. All done and gone before Watkins has returned.

Id say its improbable. And without the sighting, its unnecessary. Lets remember what is being banked on...a sighting that was described as …"

The woman was standing with her back to Lawende, wearing a black jacket and black bonnet. He had been shown Eddowes's clothing at the police station, and believed it was the same he had seen on the woman (thus most reports of his testimony, though some say only that he recognized them as the sort of dress worn by the woman, or that they looked like the clothes she was wearing". 2 weeks after his statement he believed he would not be able to recognize the man he saw. We know he was used later on as well. So they bought in to Lawende. But should we?

[JeffHamm]

Long is not certain where the "no" came from !

The 14 mins you quote for Eddowes is wrong, you have to factor in Pc Harvey, which brings that time down to an almost impossible time frame for the killer to have done all that he is supposed to have done in Mitre Square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think you mean Cadoche, as Long didn't hear a No.

The 14 minutes I quote is the maximum. You only have your belief that JtR left when PC Harvey came down Church Passage, if of course PC Harvey even did do that - do you have proof he actually completed his patrol? no? So, it's unsafe, and you're wrong to assert PC Harvey went down Church Passage.

Hey, this making stuff up out of thin air is fun!

- Jeff.

[Trevor Marriott]

Take Lawende away and you have ample time Trevor. There is nothing in that sighting that for me compels belief that he saw Kate. im in agreement with you in principle on the point though...from 1:35 to discover at 12:44 ish doesn't allow for much time to get to the spot, kill her, mutilate her and leave via a passageway that Watkins and Harvey didn't see anyone in.

Well we get back to witness testimony and who to belive. Pc Watkins is adamant that she wasnt there at 1.30am. Lawenede and co definitley saw someone and it appears no one else was seen, nor did anyone come forward to say they were the couple. even if you disregard Lawenede there is still a time gap of less that 14 mins, again if you believe Pc Harvey, and no matter how much you dont want to believe in their testimony it cannot be challenged to the point where we can prove either of them wrong.

If you factor in Pc Harvey the killer had no more than 5 mins to do all that he is supposed to have done, and that is walk down into the square. carry out the murder and the mutilations, rifle her pockets and surgically remove part of a uterus and a whole kidney, and then cut a piece of her apron which was at that time hidden under the rest of her clothing. (forget the cut and slash theory postulated by some that didnt happen. You cant remove a kidney by any other method than by locating it, taking hold of it am cutting it out of the renal fat that encases it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Long is not certain where the "no" came from !

The 14 mins you quote for Eddowes is wrong, you have to factor in Pc Harvey, which brings that time down to an almost impossible time frame for the killer to have done all that he is supposed to have done in Mitre Square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Take Lawende away and you have ample time Trevor. There is nothing in that sighting that for me compels belief that he saw Kate. im in agreement with you in principle on the point though...from 1:35 to discover at 12:44 ish doesn't allow for much time to get to the spot, kill her, mutilate her and leave via a passageway that Watkins and Harvey didn't see anyone in.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, it is in the realm of possibilities. Your conditions are that if Long did see Annie, then she must have been killed after Long saw her after all. And if Long's time is correct, she must have been killed after 5:30. That only leaves 15 minutes. The same amount of time that was available for Eddowes murder, which did happen in the space of 14 minutes (PC Watkin's patrol time). As far as we know, Annie has been walking around since 1:45, and it was a chilly morning. She may already have felt quite cold or cool to the touch (Eddowes, remember, was in jail only 45 minutes prior to her discovery in Mtire Square - she had been in a warmer location much of the night, Annie has been outside on a cold night). And Dr. Phillips does indicate their was warmth under the intestines still inside Annie, so she hasn't cooled completely, which one might expect if she had been laying there for 2 or 3 hours. So yes, it is absolutely possible.

It just seems very improbable though, which is another reason why Long's statement seems to have something wrong with it. Whether that error is in the identification of Annie (meaning she saw other people) or her time (she misrecallls the chimes, and it was 5:15 when she saw Annie), or even both, we don't know, and can't reinterview her to try and find out. But, we can examine the variations.

If she is mistaken in the identification, well, nothing she says really needs further consideration or time.

If her time is incorrect, and she saw Annie at 5:15, then the rest of her statement seems to fit with the other witnesses, even to the point that the couple appeared to be speaking loud enough to be overheard by others (i.e. Cadosche hearing No from the backyard). As such, a single error in recollection of the time could be the source of the conflict and when something like that brings things into focus, then you have to consider that a very probable solution to the conflict.

It's not proof, though, it is still an assessment based upon the weight of probabilities. But that is all we really can do. The more evidence that one dismisses (by which I mean - saying Long may have misidentified someone else as Annie is to dismiss her evidence because it no longer will constrain us) the less one can say. Oddly, it is very common for arguments to be made that evidence should be dismissed and then rather than reducing the claims of what happened, more complex and elaborate activities are described. Less evidence does not allow more theory. The more evidence one works with, that doesn't create self contradictions (and by saying Long's error is the time removes the contradiction with Cadosche), only then can one argue for more specific events - provided they tie to the evidence.

For example, in the combination of Richardson, Long, and Cadoshe, where one considers Long's stated time to be incorrect and the actual time was 5:15, we have a fairly specific description of events. Richardson comes to check the cellar door, sits on the steps, works on his boot for a while, then heads off to work, at around 4:50 I think it is. Then, around 5:15 Long passes #29 and sees Annie talking to a man, and here's him say "Will you?" and she replies "Yes", and Long moves on to the market. At about that time Cadosche gets up to start his day. Around 5:20 he goes to the loo and hears someone say "No" from the backyard of #29. He goes back inside, and a few minutes later (so we're probably around 5:25 now) returns to the loo, and hears a noise against the fence but pays no mind. Around 5:30 he heads to work, passing the Spitalfield's clock at 5:32, which he checked and noted the time as he was making sure he wasn't late for work.

Now that's not a proven thing, but it is the story derived from the evidence we have, with only 1 statement changed - Long's time shifted to 5:30. We remove Long from that story if we go with the "incorrect identification", and she at most ends up at a later point (i.e. Cadosche heads to work around 5:30, but does not notice Long or the couple, as he heads straight to work, and Long does not see him either, as the events really only need to be a slightly different times for them to miss each other).

And so forth.

There are multiple possible interpretations that one gets from the evidence, but they depend upon how one resolves the conflict in the original statements.

- Jeff

Long is not certain where the "no" came from !

The 14 mins you quote for Eddowes is wrong, you have to factor in Pc Harvey, which brings that time down to an almost impossible time frame for the killer to have done all that he is supposed to have done in Mitre Square

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk