John Richardson

[Lewis C]

There's a photograph of the fence in the 2nd post of this thread. It shows that the fence doesn't have sizable gaps.

[FISHY1118]

There's a photograph of the fence in the 2nd post of this thread. It shows that the fence doesn't have sizable gaps.

That photo was taken mid 1960s the original fence of 1888 had since way been replaced.

[Lewis C]

That photo was taken mid 1960s the original fence of 1888 had since way been replaced.

OK, thank you for clarifying that for me.

[Michael W Richards]

Had the fence pickets been widely spaced enough to allow someone to see clearly through them, it makes sense that Cadosche would have peeked through after he heard the voice. Much more discreet way of being nosy vs looking over the fence. He apparently didnt try to do that, hence, it likely wasnt an option for him. The curiosity impulse can be hard to supress.

[FISHY1118]

Yes it makes sense to us now but however it didnt to Cadosche back then on the night of the murder, as we dont have any record or evidence that he himself claimed he peeked through the gaps in the fence we just cant assume he did .

[GBinOz]

Well ,if like most people who think the ''No'' was the start of the murder i.e ''Strangulation' , then 3/4 minutes later the same people think it was Chapmans body hitting the fence as she fell . Its very unlikely[ almost impossible id say] the killer was holding a dead lifeless body upright for that period of time before letting her go or/placing her down accidently letting her brush up agaisnt the fence !

Hi Fishy,

If the "No" wasn't the start of the murder, then what was it? Just a purely speculative alternative is that as Cadosche was going through the doorway, a woman with a client opened the door at #29 and exclaimed "No" on seeing the body. Cadosch's view was obstructed by the door in his premises. The woman then decides to take the opportunity to rob the body and is in the process when startled by Cadosch on his second trip. She attempts to hid behind the fence and bumps it. As the coroner said, it is a great shame that Cadosch didn't take a look to see the source of the noise.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

If the "No" wasn't the start of the murder, then what was it? Just a purely speculative alternative is that as Cadosche was going through the doorway, a woman with a client opened the door at #29 and exclaimed "No" on seeing the body. Cadosch's view was obstructed by the door in his premises. The woman then decides to take the opportunity to rob the body and is in the process when startled by Cadosch on his second trip. She attempts to hid behind the fence and bumps it. As the coroner said, it is a great shame that Cadosch didn't take a look to see the source of the noise.

Cheers, George

Hi George , Well if as the evidence has been shown the murder indeed took place earlier than 5 30am we may never know what transpired then that led to the start or the murder .

However I see your alternative in regards to the "No", Tho I would think that whom ever saw Chapmans body for the first time , that the horrific sight would surly have warranted a more elaborate response than just a simply soft unalarming "No" . Imo.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As the coroner said, it is a great shame that Cadosch didn't take a look to see the source of the noise.

I believe it was the foreman of the jury who said that.

[FISHY1118]

I believe it was the foreman of the jury who said that.

But then we've always known what he didnt do ,.... didn't we..

Instead of the speculation, conjecture,, what ifs,
maybe he might have, etc etc .

[GBinOz]

I believe it was the foreman of the jury who said that.

I stand corrected.

Cadosch didn't see anything. He heard noises which he didn't think were in any way unusual. Those noises may have been related to the murder, or it may be an example of the Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive seen one explanation for the "no" being other than the beginning of Annie attack. and its very weak and pure fanciful speculation. The "no" was the beginning of the attack almost certainly, which means the TOD estimate that it happened 2 hours before then was wrong. Pretty simple really. Richardson didnt miss seeing a dead woman at the bottom of the stairs, she was killed between 5:15 and 5:30am. There is no evidence other than an incorrect TOD estimate to conflict with that....and the good doctor did say himself that due to the cool morning he might be have mistaken on timing.

[FISHY1118]

Ive seen one explanation for the "no" being other than the beginning of Annie attack. and its very weak and pure fanciful speculation. The "no" was the beginning of the attack almost certainly, which means the TOD estimate that it happened 2 hours before then was wrong. Pretty simple really. Richardson didnt miss seeing a dead woman at the bottom of the stairs, she was killed between 5:15 and 5:30am. There is no evidence other than an incorrect TOD estimate to conflict with that....and the good doctor did say himself that due to the cool morning he might be have mistaken on timing.

I believe all this has been covered already on this thread , there is more than enough evidence to suggest an earlier time of death, yours like everyone elses is just an opinion as to what took place at what time . In the end we cant prove one way or the other , merely which way to interpret the evidence given and make a choice.

Based on all that evidence, i believe she was killed earlier.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I believe all this has been covered already on this thread , there is more than enough evidence to suggest an earlier time of death, yours like everyone elses is just an opinion as to what took place at what time . In the end we cant prove one way or the other , merely which way to interpret the evidence given and make a choice.

Based on all that evidence, i believe she was killed earlier.

We have Richardson saying that the body was not there at about 4. 45 am, and that he closed the front door on leaving. We have Davis saying that the body was there at about 5. 45 am, and the front door was wide open. We have the evidence of Long and Cadosch indicating the activity at about 5. 30 am, and Dr Phillips ensuring that the Coroner knew that his estimated ToD could be wrong. The testimonies paint a very clear picture of someone committing the act at about 5. 30 am, and leaving in a hurry, and the evidence hangs together quite well. We may have reservations about some of it, but there is so much evidence that we cannot dismiss all of it.

On the other hand, where is "all that evidence" that she was killed earlier? I am still waiting for someone to explain how JtR could carry out his skilled eviscerations in near total darkness! Phillips said "the mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge". Could anyone have created this clear impression of near surgical skill while operating in the dark? It is surely almost impossible! "All that evidence" surely points to the later time of death.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe all this has been covered already on this thread , there is more than enough evidence to suggest an earlier time of death, yours like everyone elses is just an opinion as to what took place at what time . In the end we cant prove one way or the other , merely which way to interpret the evidence given and make a choice.

Based on all that evidence, i believe she was killed earlier.

You have Richardson and Cadosche as the framing of the cut time Fish, when you say there is more than enough evidence she was cut earlier should be phrased, there is one opinion that agrees with my point of view. The witnesses contradict that single opinion as to what time this occurred, because they were there during that critical time and you and the coroner were not. Even your single source admits he could have been off due to the cold night.

I suppose when you choose to believe something the rest of the contradictory evidence just vanishes.

[Michael W Richards]

We have Richardson saying that the body was not there at about 4. 45 am, and that he closed the front door on leaving. We have Davis saying that the body was there at about 5. 45 am, and the front door was wide open. We have the evidence of Long and Cadosch indicating the activity at about 5. 30 am, and Dr Phillips ensuring that the Coroner knew that his estimated ToD could be wrong. The testimonies paint a very clear picture of someone committing the act at about 5. 30 am, and leaving in a hurry, and the evidence hangs together quite well. We may have reservations about some of it, but there is so much evidence that we cannot dismiss all of it.

On the other hand, where is "all that evidence" that she was killed earlier? I am still waiting for someone to explain how JtR could carry out his skilled eviscerations in near total darkness! Phillips said "the mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge". Could anyone have created this clear impression of near surgical skill while operating in the dark? It is surely almost impossible! "All that evidence" surely points to the later time of death.

This is an ongoing thing with the poster, he just disregards evidence that contradicts his own opinion. Like his creation of Torso making Ripperman.