Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Reckon I'll call it the Alexander Diddles
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DJA View Post
      Reckon I'll call it the Alexander Diddles
      I'm honoured!!!

      Comment




      • Pretty close to the original which was made with avocados.
        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          She found out later that a murder had occurred nearby?
          15 minutes of fame !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Her name written in tiny print in newspapers that most of the people that she knew wouldn’t have bought. Yeah, she became an instant media legend.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Can anyone confirm when Long was first interviewed by the Police? George believes that she contacted the Police after 3 days and saw the body on the fourth. I’m certainly not doubting him for a second but can this be confirmed by anyone? It’s just that I got the impression (maybe incorrectly) that George wasn’t 100% certain.

              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • She viewed Chapman's corpse on the 12th,so after four days.
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • Thanks. Do we know when she was first interviewed by the police?
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    Can anyone confirm when Long was first interviewed by the Police? George believes that she contacted the Police after 3 days and saw the body on the fourth. I’m certainly not doubting him for a second but can this be confirmed by anyone? It’s just that I got the impression (maybe incorrectly) that George wasn’t 100% certain.
                    As Dave says, 12th, but under the name Durrel.
                    https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s880912.html
                    https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s880913.html

                    The police control who see's the body, so again, the 12th is when she first spoke to police.
                    Last edited by Wickerman; 08-14-2022, 07:06 PM.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      As Dave says, 12th, but under the name Durrel.
                      https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s880912.html
                      https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s880913.html

                      The police control who see's the body, so again, the 12th is when she first spoke to police.
                      Thanks Wick
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        As Dave says, 12th, but under the name Durrel.
                        https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s880912.html
                        https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s880913.html

                        The police control who see's the body, so again, the 12th is when she first spoke to police.
                        That's interesting. The first article, published on the 12 says:
                        "
                        A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields Market, stated yesterday that, about half-past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29, Hanbury-street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.
                        "
                        indicating she spoke to the press (at least) on the 11th, though it may be the press caught wind of that because she had also made her original statement to the police on the 11th.

                        The 2nd article, published on the 13th, reads:
                        "
                        A woman named Mrs. Durrell made a statement yesterday to the effect that at about half-past five o'clock on the morning of the murder of Mrs. Chapman she saw a man and a woman conversing outside No. 29, Hanbury-street, the scene of the murder, and that they disappeared very suddenly. Mrs. Durrell was taken to the mortuary yesterday, and identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury-street. If this identification can be relied upon, it is obviously an important piece of evidence, as it fixes with precision.
                        "
                        Which now suggests the statement and viewing was on the 12th.

                        Both are The Star evening paper.

                        So, either the two issues are referring to different statements (i.e. she spoke to the Star on the 11th, but how they located her if she hasn't spoken to the police would be hard, if not impossible, to explain), the first on the 11th and a near identicle statement on the 12th that also included a viewing. Alternatively, or possibly the 2nd article is referring to the statement in the first article and hasn't updated the "yesterday" portion to describe the statement as it applies to the viewing; this presumes, of course, the viewing was on the 12th (taking a day for the police to arrange it maybe?) rather than the viewing was also on the 12th and overlooked in the first article.

                        Regardless, her statement to the police appears to be at the earliest as being made on the 11th (first article), and the viewing only appears to have been on the 12th (as there is no mention of it in the article published on the 12th, only the 13th), and either she's been interviewed twice making similar statements and then proceeding to a viewing after the 2nd one, or there is some conflation between the articles in regards to which day she made her statement.

                        When describing when she gave her statement, one either has to say the article on the 12th used "yesterday" incorrectly, or the article on the 13th used "yesterday" incorrectly, or suggest she gave two similar statements, one on the 11th and again on the 12th, with the viewing being on the 12th.

                        Some support for the "two statement" idea is that in the first she appears to say she could not identify the couple. In the 2nd, presumably after the viewing in which she apparently does identify Annie, she appears to have been able to after all or, as some have suggested, she falsely believes she recognized Annie upon being shown her at the morgue. It's a shame we do not know the details of this identification because if she was only shown Annie, and did not have to pick her out from a group, then the latter possibility seriously needs consideration. Even if she was only shown 2 bodies to choose from, that means there's a 50/50 chance of her picking Annie.

                        - Jeff
                        Last edited by JeffHamm; 08-14-2022, 09:03 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Crikey Wicky,we're sprung.
                          Someone read both links
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                            Hi George,
                            You are correct about the door misunderstanding. As for James Hardiman collecting supplies early that morning, it seems extremely unlikely, as Annie H. reported that she slept undisturbed til about 6am when there was a commotion due to the discovery of the body.
                            Hi Doc,

                            Harriett Hardiman [Hardyman, Hardman], living at 29, Hanbury-street, catsmeat saleswoman, the occupier of the ground-floor front room, stated: I went to bed on Friday night at half-past ten. My son sleeps in the same room. I did not wake during the night. I was awakened by the trampling through the passage at about six o'clock. My son was asleep, and I told him to go to the back as I thought there was a fire. He returned and said that a woman had been killed in the yard. I did not go out of my room. I have often heard people going through the passage into the yard, but never got up to look who they were.

                            My impression is that when witnesses say they heard nothing they mean they
                            had not "noticed anything at all suspicious". Look at Bucks Row. Nobody heard anything but we know that Paul and Lechmere walked down the street, as well as Neil on his beat. There would be no reason for her to mention James as his visits were a regular morning event. Besides, I doubt that she would have wanted to place him at a murder scene.

                            Cheers, George
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Using your ADVOKATE method.

                              So 1-4 are favourable to Long.
                              5 and 6 are unfavourable.
                              7 is a bit of an unknown as far as I can see unless other evidence can be provided.
                              8 in total is a 15 minute discrepancy with Cadosch, which taken with hat we know (via Jeff) is pretty much nothing in the LVP

                              And you would illuminate Long entirely on the basis of this? Come off it Trevor.
                              Hi Herlock,

                              Looking at someone for your speculated 4-5 seconds would be generally regarded as staring. "I did not take much notice of them" would indicate more of a glance. Since the later is what she testified, I think this point can be awarded to Trevor.

                              For 8., we're talking about identification, not clock times. The fact that she initially said that she did "not think she could identify the couple" and then "identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury-street" also awards this point to Trevor.

                              You will recall that it is recorded that when Packer was taken to the mortuary he was deliberately shown the wrong body and stated that it wasn't the woman (Stride) that he saw, and then correctly identified Stride. Jeff makes a very good point in raising the possibility that perhaps Long wasn't given the opportunity to mis-identify Chapman.

                              Cheers, George
                              Last edited by GBinOz; 08-15-2022, 04:08 AM.
                              “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                              “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Perhaps because she wasn’t Sherlock Holmes. In the relatively short time that she saw the woman she was looking at her face. In what we have from the inquest it looks like she wasn’t asked about the woman’s clothing so the fact that she didn’t answer what she wasn’t asked is hardly surprising and as we don’t have her police interview we don’t know how far she might have described her clothing. Another non-issue.
                                Hi Herlock,

                                At the Kelly inquest the coroner asked Maxwell to describe Kelly's clothing because he was trying to discredit her. To his chagrin, she got the description right. Had Baxter done the same thing it would have added legitimacy to Long's testimony. I find it surprising that the coroner missed that opportunity.

                                Cheers, George

                                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                                “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X