Originally posted by MK114
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Was John Richardson A Reliable Witness?
Collapse
X
-
-
There have been studies that have shown eye witness testimony is very unreliable. Throw in that it's dark and people aren't really paying attention to things and forget it. It Is best to work with the facts of a case and come back to witness statements later or not at all.
The police at the time were definitely handcuffed so to speak when gathering evidence. A suspects demeanor and actions while being interviewed or watched is the best thing to look at when there is little evidence.
Respectfully ,
MK114
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View PostIt’s certainly interesting. Why send the letter to Mrs Hardiman and why a month after Nichols murder? Who is the mysterious Mile End correspondent?
Leave a comment:
-
It’s certainly interesting. Why send the letter to Mrs Hardiman and why a month after Nichols murder? Who is the mysterious Mile End correspondent?
Leave a comment:
-
That is an interesting snippet. It seems to me that the only way someone could obtain that information is by actually seeing Polly with someone that night, or by a second hand account of a sighting. The certain men line is also interesting, I agree seanr. We know men were out at night in vigilance groups, some from Mile End...is this a letter from someone like Lusk maybe?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jerryd View Post
Hi seanr.
It was a letter to Mrs. Hardiman.
EchoLondon, U.K.20 September 1888
A DOCUMENT OF SOME IMPORTANCE.
Inspector Helson, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Chandler are now busy making inquiries regarding a letter received this morning by Mrs. Harderman, proprietor of the cat's-meat business carried on at 29, Hanbury-street. The police themselves naturally decline to give any information whatever respecting this document, which is regarded as of some importance, especially as certain men are alluded to, and the writer, who resides in Mile-end, desires his name to be kept a secret. The letter has more special reference to the crime in Buck's-row, for the writer positively asserts: "The poor woman was made tipsy, then murdered, and carried to the spot where she was found." Our reporter called upon Mrs. Harderman, who assured him that she had received the letter in question. The source from which it came she could not at present state.
It's an intriguing report. In that the way the Echo tells it, Inspectors Helson, Abberline, and Chandler took the letter's contents seriously. The writer was known but not revealed and I do wonder who the 'certain men' were which the letter identified.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seanr View PostI believe there was a poison pen letter sent to 29 Hanbury Street alleging Nichols had been killed there and then moved to Buck's Row.
It was a letter to Mrs. Hardiman.
EchoLondon, U.K.20 September 1888
A DOCUMENT OF SOME IMPORTANCE.
Inspector Helson, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Chandler are now busy making inquiries regarding a letter received this morning by Mrs. Harderman, proprietor of the cat's-meat business carried on at 29, Hanbury-street. The police themselves naturally decline to give any information whatever respecting this document, which is regarded as of some importance, especially as certain men are alluded to, and the writer, who resides in Mile-end, desires his name to be kept a secret. The letter has more special reference to the crime in Buck's-row, for the writer positively asserts: "The poor woman was made tipsy, then murdered, and carried to the spot where she was found." Our reporter called upon Mrs. Harderman, who assured him that she had received the letter in question. The source from which it came she could not at present state.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seanr View PostI believe there was a poison pen letter sent to 29 Hanbury Street alleging Nichols had been killed there and then moved to Buck's Row.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
I copied this bit from the Inquest Herlock, cant say for sure who the source was...."Mr. Crawford: The theory has been put forward that it was possible for the deceased to have been murdered elsewhere, and her body brought to where it was found. I should like to ask Dr. Gordon Brown, who is present, what his opinion is about that.
Dr. Gordon Brown: I do not think there is any foundation for such a theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think that the deceased moved the least bit after that."
Crawford didn't believe it, but someone suggested it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.
PC Harvey also testifies he estimated the time of his patrol of Church Passage as being 18 or 19 minutes to 2 (which is 1:41-1:42). Given it's an estimate, that fits really well with the 1:42-1:43 based upon the more reliable watch-based time of PC Watkins.
I don't know where you got the 1:38/39 time from, but I got the above from the Inquest testimony.
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 ?
- Jeff
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
I believe there was a poison pen letter sent to 29 Hanbury Street alleging Nichols had been killed there and then moved to Buck's Row.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Wasn’t it originally suggested by Llewelyn about Nichols? Who made the suggestion about Eddowes Michael?
Dr. Gordon Brown: I do not think there is any foundation for such a theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think that the deceased moved the least bit after that."
Crawford didn't believe it, but someone suggested it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
There was suggestion by the contemporary investigators Herlock that she had indeed been killed elsewhere. I don't recall any other Canonical murder where that was suggested either...it was likely due to the smallish amount of blood found around the body and on the front of her clothing.
Leave a comment:
-
I have no issue with quibbling over timings but...
Why would a killer kill Catherine elsewhere and then lug her corpse into Mitre Square? Anyone questioning the riskiness of killing at that location would surely have to accept the riskiness of being interrupted whilst carrying a corpse (possibly a greater risk considering the movement involved?) Are we suggesting that he carried an horrifically mutilated corpse and yet miraculously left no traces of this gruesome journey? Or are we suggesting that he killed in seclusion and safety but chose to commit the mutilations in the street? Why did the killer suddenly break his habits? Trevor often brings up the fact that killer of Annie Chapman would have changed his habits by killing at a later hour and in the increased daylight but how much greater is the change from killing in situ to killing elsewhere then moving the body? Why is this not an ‘issue?’
Let’s remember that not one single person that was present that night, whether police officer or Doctor, saw a single thing that lead them to even suspect that Catherine was killed elsewhere. Most of us, I think, believe that Jack the Ripper was a serial killer that killed and mutilated women in the street (except for MJK of course but the killer wouldn’t have known that she’d got her own room) and so there’s no grounds for suspecting that he drastically altered his habits in the case of Eddowes. I can’t help feeling that we’re entering into conspiracy theorist mode when we suggest Eddowes being killed elsewhere. She quite obviously wasn’t.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View PostThere’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.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: