John Richardson

[Lewis C]

No, but I am suggesting that the evidence suggests that she brought her potatoes to the lodging house to eat them there, ate her potatoes at the lodging house, and then went out to find a customer, minus her potatoes.

We have no way of knowing if she took food with her, and if she had done so, it wouldn't necessarily have been potatoes. Her reason for going out wasto find a customer, but that doesn't mean that that's all she did while she was out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one is claiming that the clocks were perfectly synchronised.

But if they were reasonably well synchronised, then Long's and Cadoche's testimonies cannot be reconciled.

There are no conflicts among timings in the Eddowes case, in spite of all the claims that the clocks were all hopelessly wrong.

Do you do this on purpose PI because I’m now seriously of the opinion that you’re on a wind-up mission.

Five minutes or so is reasonable well synchronised. I have clocks in my house now that are more than 5 minutes apart.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reductio ad absurdum.

Look it up.

Silentium Est Aureum.

Look it up.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Long timing fits unless we stupidly claim the clocks were perfectly synchronised. Oh, you do.

No one is claiming that the clocks were perfectly synchronised.

But if they were reasonably well synchronised, then Long's and Cadoche's testimonies cannot be reconciled.

There are no conflicts among timings in the Eddowes case, in spite of all the claims that the clocks were all hopelessly wrong.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Long timing fits unless we stupidly claim the clocks were perfectly synchronised.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Look it up.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do you really think that I was saying that her purpose for going out at 1:50 was to eat potatoes?

No, but I am suggesting that the evidence suggests that she brought her potatoes to the lodging house to eat them there, ate her potatoes at the lodging house, and then went out to find a customer, minus her potatoes.

[Fiver]

I reckon people like to theorise, PI.

It's a 'whodunnit'.

Actually, that's a problem - a lot of people treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit you are given all the clues and can solve the case if you are clever enough. Barring deliberate deception, all information is accurate. This includes times, especially times of death. There is a direct link between the killer and the victims. There is a clear list of suspects. Alibis are either rock solid or further deceptions by the killer. Anything found is a clue or deliberate red herring.

None of this is true in a real case. We don't even have a clear list of victims, let alone a clear list of suspects. Human perception and memory are fallible. Eyewitnesses can contradict each other and not be lying. Objects found may just be random objects that have nothing to do with the case. Alibis are often soft and generally can't be proven or disproven this long after the events. Times given are usually estimates by people who didn't own a pocket watch. Estimated times of death are little more than guesswork, based on variables we are still trying to understand in the 21st century.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Strictly speaking, only one witness - Long - testified that Chapman was still alive at 5.30 a.m.

Richardson was there about three-quarters of an hour earlier.

The only invention is your claim that other people are inventing things.

And it does not seem to be catching.

If that’s the kind of response that you’re reduced to PI then it really isn’t worth bothering,

[Fiver]

A bit of back and forth is one thing; advertising an event from the past that clearly isn't going to be the liking of the subject person, in order to support a point of view on a message board, is another.

I for one didn't know anything about it and I'm sure there are more.

Is that what you want on your board? It's opinions on a case and explanations, and not a journey into someone's career; or at least it should be.

Trevor and his supporters routinely proclaim him as an expert because of his supposed history as a murder squad detective. Trevor started the journey into his career, so he has no right to complain when his real career is addressed.

[Fiver]

Bad form. Advertising something that most people on here knew nothing about and the person in question would rather wasn't posted. It's a place to discuss and argue from time to time but not to bring personal matters into it, or at least it shouldn't be.

'Says a lot about you.

The article was originally posted by one of the moderators.

The ball is sponsored and the game is promoted by “Retired Murder Squad Detective” when it’s just another shtick in a long line of side hustles going all the way back to the “Showbiz Detective” and “Tony Rivers: Comedian & Impressionist”.

“Trevor Marriott: Retired Murder Squad Detective” is For Entertainment Purposes Only.

It’s a sham.

JM

[Lewis C]

The evidence is that she ate potatoes at the lodging house and then went out to find a customer - not that she went out to eat potatoes.

Do you really think that I was saying that her purpose for going out at 1:50 was to eat potatoes?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s a complete invention. It’s obviously contagious.

Strictly speaking, only one witness - Long - testified that Chapman was still alive at 5.30 a.m.

Richardson was there about three-quarters of an hour earlier.

The only invention is your claim that other people are inventing things.

And it does not seem to be catching.

[Abby Normal]

A police officer who was forced out at age 34 for failing to do his job and couldn't even manage a bicycle lost and found properly does not inspire confidence. Then we add in his claim of being "a murder squad detective with Bedfordshire police for 28 years", which is only possible if he was promoted to detective at age 6.

lol yeah forgot about that one too! lol

[Abby Normal]

Bad form. Advertising something that most people on here knew nothing about and the person in question would rather wasn't posted. It's a place to discuss and argue from time to time but not to bring personal matters into it, or at least it shouldn't be.

'Says a lot about you.

no actually it says alot about trevor. especially since hes constantly touting his "many years experience as a murder squad detective". whatever the hell that is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So..it’s around 5.30 am and a penniless woman who often resorts to prostitution walks along Hanbury Street. She needs money just as she would have done earlier in the day and just as she would again later in the day. She was permanently dirt poor. She meets a potential client. So what does she do? Does she waste time by taking him walking the streets to find a spot, at a time when there are more people moving around, or does she want somewhere closer like the yard of number 29 to get it over with quickly?

Wherever they would have transacted their business there would have been a chance of them being interrupted but she would hardly have had time to stand around weighing up odds. She may have been known to some residents at number 29 but how long would she have expected to have been there? A couple of minutes or so? Also, would she have been known to all residents given the nature of the items that she hawked? Or just the female occupants? And would there have been someone in and out of that yard every two minutes; or every five; or every ten or fifteen or twenty? So what were the odds of someone interrupting them? The chance would certainly have existed, but if Annie had taken someone to that yard a hundred times for two or three minutes at the same time of day how many times would she have been interrupted? I’d suggest not many. After Richardson left and before Davies arrived for example….how many went into the yard? None.

So how worried would she have been about the possibility of being ‘interrupted?’ Women of her class didn’t have much opportunity for pride or delicacy when earning a pittance and we have to wonder how often in the past she’d been ‘interrupted,’ at various locations…ditto all prostitutes? It was a hazard of the ‘job.’ Would the fact that she might have been known by Mrs Richardson have affected her decision to use the yard? If she had been ‘interrupted’ what would have been the chances of it being by Mrs Richardson herself? If it was by someone else what would the chances of Annie being identified and her identity being reported back to Mrs R? And even if the outside chance occurred that Mrs Richardson found out would she have been particularly surprised? A poor women in Whitechapel, hawking from door to door….it was common knowledge that at least some of these women resorted to prostitution? And even if she’d been told not to come back it would hardly have been the collapse of a business.

Would the killer have been put off by the location? Maybe, at first. But this man was a serial killer with an urge to kill being presented with a perfect victim; a victim who was desperate for money. Would she have had any qualms about telling the killer a lie? Any pangs of conscience? I tend to doubt it. She would probably have assured him that they would be unlikely to be disturbed and that she had used the yard many times without a problem. The killer also would have known that they wouldn’t have been there long and if he was unlucky and someone had shown up he had a knife that he could use. Risk was par for the course.

At the end of the day we can’t second guess how a desperately poor and physically ill prostitute and a murderous maniac with the urge to murder and mutilate would think or act but it doesn’t stop some people assuming that they can in their ever more elaborate attempts to discredit and dismiss inconvenient witnesses in favour of a Doctor whose level of knowledge, according to them, was nothing short of miraculous.