John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I appreciate that you are convinced of your opinions, but I am not persuaded. We've been over this many times, but if I may be permitted a brief summary of my viewpoint.

Long waited 3 days to decide that she had seen Annie, whom she had never seen before, in a market day street. Not lying, just caught up in the excitement.

Cadosche testified that he didn't see anything, and didn't hear anything unusual. "Things that go bump in the night" are more frequent around day break.

Richardson related to Chandler what was testified by him and his mother to be his normal routine. It was 2 days after the Chandler interview that he started mentioning the boot repair to the press. He had already attempted the repair in better conditions and failed. Was he silly enough to think that he could succeed sitting on a step in the dark with a knife that he must have known wasn't up to the task? Even if we accept the boot repair story, it was afterwards reported in the press that the police considered that his view would have been blocked by the door.

Chapman was well known in this district, but was not seen four 4 hours prior to the discovery of her body. I am not in anyway convinced that Jack would have risked an outdoor daylight murder in an amphitheatre of potential witnesses. Nor do I believe that he would have persisted when a witness appeared only feet away from him, in the form of Cadosche.

As for the ToD, I am unconvinced that, comparing the medical state of Chapman and Eddowes, that Annie had been dead only one hour.

As I've discussed with Jeff, I only lean towards these opinions. I don't believe it is possible to be 100% certain of anything in this case. As always, JMO and subject to change at any time. Sorry that my summary didn't turn out to be all that brief.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

No problem, we disagree and you’re probably as bored as I am with the topic? And I know that, unlike some, you aren’t going for an earlier ToD just to bolster a theory or suspect.

My opinion is still that the chances of all three witnesses being wrong are close to non-existent. Three witnesses beats a 19th century doctors estimation every day of the week imo.

So I’m at….

Earlier ToD - 1 or 2%
Later ToD - 98-99%.

[FISHY1118]

How about this?

Long hears the clock at 5:15
She sees the man and woman at 5:16.
The man and woman enter the yard at 5:18.
Cadosch enters his yard at 5:20.
Cadosch hears "no" as he's leaving his yard.

Just one problem with that ,

She didn't hear the 5.15 chime . She heard the 5.30

If we use that excuse then we can manipulate every witness testimony to suit any argument . Where would it end?

The original point being made is, there is a conflict of testimony with long and Cadosch , its right their in the evidence ,I don't see how it can be ignored

[Lewis C]

Just one problem with that ,

She didn't hear the 5.15 chime . She heard the 5.30

If we use that excuse then we can manipulate every witness testimony to suit any argument . Where would it end?

The original point being made is, there is a conflict of testimony with long and Cadosch , its right their in the evidence ,I don't see how it can be ignored

The post that I was responding to was one in which you said to reconcile when Casosch heard the "no" with Long hearing the bell at 5:15, so I was showing that those two things could be reconciled. The fact that she said 5:30 isn't relevant to this particular question.

She said that she heard the bell sat 5:30, but she also said that she left her house at about 5:00, and it's a 15 minute walk, so that needs to be accounted for in some way.

[FISHY1118]

The post that I was responding to was one in which you said to reconcile when Casosch heard the "no" with Long hearing the bell at 5:15, so I was showing that those two things could be reconciled. The fact that she said 5:30 isn't relevant to this particular question.

She said that she heard the bell sat 5:30, but she also said that she left her house at about 5:00, and it's a 15 minute walk, so that needs to be accounted for in some way.

That still leaves a conflict either way,
based solely in inquest testimony.

In the end people will believe one possibility over another to suit an earlier or later t.o.d .
personally I don't buy into the clock debate as I've yet to hear a clock chime at 5.22 .

Either long heard the 5.15 chime by mistake or she was right at hearing the 5.30

Given this Lady probably went to the market on many days im betting she knew which one it was.

Like I said ,conflict with Cadosch .

[FISHY1118]

Then you haven’t read the evidence that has been posted about the accuracy of clocks Fishy. Jeff has posted stuff on the subject and George posted this on the ‘If Schwartz Lied’ thread:

“Chris McKay, who is considered an authority on clocks of that era said: "Overall I think that if you found a clock in the East End that was telling time to within 10 mins of GMT you were doing well."

Just because something seems unlikely in 2023 it’s not necessarily that case in 1888. So the above quote comes from a genuine authority on clocks. And Long’s and Cadosch’s times didn’t even need to be a full ten minutes out.

So Long’s timing is clearly not an issue if we listen to an authority and apply common sense. Yes, she could still have been mistaken but we have to ask ourselves - what are the chances of a woman with zero connection to those involved, seeing a woman that looked exactly like Chapman, talking to a man, next to the spot where she was found dead 30 minutes later within 5 minutes or so of Cadosch hearing someone in that very yard….and her being wrong? How unlikely is that? Not impossible but unlikely. Add a man hearing noises from number 29. Add a man who saw all over the yard and saw no corpse with entrails around it and how can it be 50-50?

When Mrs long heard the brewers clock chime at 5.30, according to that particular time piece it was 5.30 right?

So let's say, and God's knows how anyone would be able to say it wasn't 5.30 according to their knowledge of what time it actually was by their own admission.

Then your using Cadoschs evidence of his time being the correct time .

I'm just not sure that applies when comparing one testimony against the other to suggest an accurate t.o.d. !

Which ever way to look at it there is a conflict between long and Cadosch testimony that can't be ignored .

[Lewis C]

That still leaves a conflict either way,
based solely in inquest testimony.

In the end people will believe one possibility over another to suit an earlier or later t.o.d .
personally I don't buy into the clock debate as I've yet to hear a clock chime at 5.22 .

Either long heard the 5.15 chime by mistake or she was right at hearing the 5.30

Given this Lady probably went to the market on many days im betting she knew which one it was.

Like I said ,conflict with Cadosch .

What you said before was that there is conflict with Cadosch if the time that she heard the chime was 5:15. I think that I've shown that that's not the case.

My belief is that Long was wrong about what time she heard the chime, but if that's the case, everything else fits. If you think that she's right about what time she heard the chime, then she's probably wrong about what time she left home, and apparently also wrong about having seen Chapman. According to this theory, Richardson must also be wrong about there being no body in the yard when he sat right next to where it would have been. And then Cadosch has to be accounted for too somehow.

[FISHY1118]

What you said before was that there is conflict with Cadosch if the time that she heard the chime was 5:15. I think that I've shown that that's not the case.

My belief is that Long was wrong about what time she heard the chime, but if that's the case, everything else fits. If you think that she's right about what time she heard the chime, then she's probably wrong about what time she left home, and apparently also wrong about having seen Chapman. According to this theory, Richardson must also be wrong about there being no body in the yard when he sat right next to where it would have been. And then Cadosch has to be accounted for too somehow.

Were still left with the confliting testimony between long and Cadosch

Like I said if one witness is wrong as to use that for a particular theory then every theory is open for possibilities for the same reason .

[JeffHamm]

In the end, Long could very easily be wrong, and nothing changes. We seem focused on her testimony of the time, and insist that because she said it was the 5:30 chime it must have been the 5:30 chime. That is, of course, not true, witnesses do make errors in the details far worse than that.

But that line of discussion aside, if we are going to hold Long to her word, then why are we overlooking the fact she testified that Annie (whom she viewed at the morgue) was the woman she saw; not only that, she testified she was sure of that. So, no matter what the time, 5:15 or 5:30, if she saw Annie, as she said she she was sure she did, than Annie was not dead prior to that sighting.

If one is going to insist she must have the time correct, then it seems a bit odd to side-step the fact she identified Annie as the woman she saw, and she was sure her identification was correct.

Personally, I think there are arguments against the above, but if one takes the firm stance that what was said must be true, so Long must have seen Annie at 5:30, then one is also beholden to argue that Long must have seen Annie because she said she was sure she saw Annie.

Then we just need to reconcile Long's 5:30 with Cadosche's pre-5:30 testimony, which is easy enough because Long and Cadosche used different clocks.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

In the end, Long could very easily be wrong, and nothing changes. We seem focused on her testimony of the time, and insist that because she said it was the 5:30 chime it must have been the 5:30 chime. That is, of course, not true, witnesses do make errors in the details far worse than that.

But that line of discussion aside, if we are going to hold Long to her word, then why are we overlooking the fact she testified that Annie (whom she viewed at the morgue) was the woman she saw; not only that, she testified she was sure of that. So, no matter what the time, 5:15 or 5:30, if she saw Annie, as she said she she was sure she did, than Annie was not dead prior to that sighting.

If one is going to insist she must have the time correct, then it seems a bit odd to side-step the fact she identified Annie as the woman she saw, and she was sure her identification was correct.

Personally, I think there are arguments against the above, but if one takes the firm stance that what was said must be true, so Long must have seen Annie at 5:30, then one is also beholden to argue that Long must have seen Annie because she said she was sure she saw Annie.

Then we just need to reconcile Long's 5:30 with Cadosche's pre-5:30 testimony, which is easy enough because Long and Cadosche used different clocks.

- Jeff

Identification is and has always been a contentious issue, and the ID at the morgue clearly is a contentious issue and I would suggest not one to be totally relied on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Identification is and has always been a contentious issue, and the ID at the morgue clearly is a contentious issue and I would suggest not one to be totally relied on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree Trevor, as I've said before. The point I was making, however, is that there are those arguing that since Long said 5:30 we cannot question her and suggest that perhaps she got the time wrong. And yet, if we cannot examine the testimony for errors, then by that argument they must argue that Long did see Annie, because that is what Long said.

I personally agree with you, and it is quite possible her identification was in error, although it is also quite possible she was correct in her identification. To accept it unconditionally would be unwise, but so to would be to dismiss it entirely.

In the end, it is my opinion that focusing on Long is a bit of a distraction as the story as derived from combining the information we have from Dr. Phillips, Richardson, and Cadoshe all converge on a ToD of around 5:20. Adding Long doesn't change that. One has to dismiss both Cadoche and Richardson as well before we end up with information that expands the possible window that allows for the ToD to be prior to 4:50 (when Richardson did his inspection), although even then it doesn't rule out 5:20 (basically, as I've said before, Dr. Phillips just let's us say she was killed after she left the doss house and before she was found dead by Davies - but we don't need a doctor to have come to that conclusion).

Anyway, to be clear, I wasn't advocating that I believe Long's identification must be viewed as true (I don't), only that to be logically consistent those who argue that we must accept her stated testimony of the time must also argue that we must accept her identification of Annie as the woman she saw as being true.

Otherwise, one could be seen as applying different inclusion/exclusion criterion to the testimony in order to ensure a particular and desired outcome, and that would be a no-no.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

When Mrs long heard the brewers clock chime at 5.30, according to that particular time piece it was 5.30 right?

So let's say, and God's knows how anyone would be able to say it wasn't 5.30 according to their knowledge of what time it actually was by their own admission.

Then your using Cadoschs evidence of his time being the correct time .

I'm just not sure that applies when comparing one testimony against the other to suggest an accurate t.o.d. !

Which ever way to look at it there is a conflict between long and Cadosch testimony that can't be ignored .

You aren’t understanding the point.

The possibility is that when Long heard the 5.30 chimes that particular clock was around 5 minutes fast - so in reality it was around 5.25 when she saw Chapman. Cadosch reckoned that it was about 5.20 when he first went into his backyard. So, for a start he was simply estimating based on an estimated time of 5.15 when he got up. So we can’t take his 5.20 as being exactly correct, especially as we have no way of corroborating the accuracy of his ‘about 5.15’ when he got up (what if it was actually 5.20 when he got up?)

So, without taking any liberties by suggesting huge or unrealistic margins for error, we arrive at an entirely plausible, realistic possibility that Chapman and the man entered the yard at the same time that Cadosch heard the No. There’s nothing unreasonable about this Fishy. Far, far more unreasonable is when we hear people telling us that we should take every time given as spot on and perfectly synchronised with other clocks and watches. That’s not even acceptable with todays technology, never mind in the 19th century. Even when witnesses use ‘about,’ clearly telling us that they were estimating we are constantly being asked to accept that estimations must have been accurate. That is unreasonable.

So, allowing for a minimal and entirely reasonable (I would say ‘compulsory’) margin for error of around 5 minutes we have Long and Cadosch aligning perfectly. So if that’s a very reasonable possibility, and it clearly is, then we have to ask ourselves three questions. First, as Jeff asked, if we are claiming that she couldn’t have been wrong about the time why do we have to assume that she was wrong about her identification? Yes of course witnesses can be wrong but they can also be right. Second we have to ask if she had reason to lie? Obviously not, apart from the almost obligatory and always exaggerated imo ‘15 minutes of fame’ point. Third, what are the chances of her seeing a different woman who so closely resembled Chapman, talking to a man, at just the right time and at just the right spot?

Its become almost a casual thing to dismiss Long but we have no reason for doing so (caution of course) Long is corroborated by Cadosch (who also had no reason to lie.)

There is no topic in this case where so much ‘heavy lifting’ is done in order to denigrate witnesses. Three entirely normal people with no reason to lie, all going about their normal business, all provide strong evidence that Chapman met her death close to 5.30. All conveniently mistaken or lying. I don’t buy it for a second. Against this we have a doctor estimating ToD using the provably unreliable methods of the time (after we ignore the fact that he himself accepted that his lower estimate could have differed due to circumstances!) Or the fact that we might think that the killer wouldn’t have killed at this time. The three witnesses are just far stronger and less likely to have been wrong,

[Doctored Whatsit]

Richardson related to Chandler what was testified by him and his mother to be his normal routine. It was 2 days after the Chandler interview that he started mentioning the boot repair to the press. He had already attempted the repair in better conditions and failed. Was he silly enough to think that he could succeed sitting on a step in the dark with a knife that he must have known wasn't up to the task? Even if we accept the boot repair story, it was afterwards reported in the press that the police considered that his view would have been blocked by the door.


Cheers, George

I think that it is unwise to assume that Richardson changed his story because the press got hold of some news that they hadn't printed previously. It is also unwise to refer to the conversation between Chandler and Richardson as an interview. The probability is that Richardson merely told Chandler that he had been present earlier and the body was not there then. There is absolutely no reason whatever to believe that Richardson at this point accounted for every single thing that he did that morning. He made a detailed statement afterwards, and we do not know what he said, so we cannot assume anything.

We can and should accept the known facts, however. After he had made his statement, the police were suspicious, almost certainly because his story contradicted the estimated ToD. Swanson makes it crystal clear that the police investigated his story thoroughly, as they thought he could have been the killer. They were unable to find any fault in his evidence. This totally contradicts the suggestion that he kept changing his story. If the police made any investigation whatsoever, they must have found the knife he used on his person, otherwise his story collapses. Similarly, they must have checked that he borrowed a knife when he arrived at work in order to complete the boot repair. If they didn't do these two things, they couldn't claim to have investigated his story at all, let alone thoroughly.

Forget press reports, Chandler makes it clear at the inquest that when sitting on the step that Richardson must have been able to see the body were it there.

[FISHY1118]

You aren’t understanding the point.

The possibility is that when Long heard the 5.30 chimes that particular clock was around 5 minutes fast - so in reality it was around 5.25 when she saw Chapman. Cadosch reckoned that it was about 5.20 when he first went into his backyard. So, for a start he was simply estimating based on an estimated time of 5.15 when he got up. So we can’t take his 5.20 as being exactly correct, especially as we have no way of corroborating the accuracy of his ‘about 5.15’ when he got up (what if it was actually 5.20 when he got up?)

So, without taking any liberties by suggesting huge or unrealistic margins for error, we arrive at an entirely plausible, realistic possibility that Chapman and the man entered the yard at the same time that Cadosch heard the No. There’s nothing unreasonable about this Fishy. Far, far more unreasonable is when we hear people telling us that we should take every time given as spot on and perfectly synchronised with other clocks and watches. That’s not even acceptable with todays technology, never mind in the 19th century. Even when witnesses use ‘about,’ clearly telling us that they were estimating we are constantly being asked to accept that estimations must have been accurate. That is unreasonable.

So, allowing for a minimal and entirely reasonable (I would say ‘compulsory’) margin for error of around 5 minutes we have Long and Cadosch aligning perfectly. So if that’s a very reasonable possibility, and it clearly is, then we have to ask ourselves three questions. First, as Jeff asked, if we are claiming that she couldn’t have been wrong about the time why do we have to assume that she was wrong about her identification? Yes of course witnesses can be wrong but they can also be right. Second we have to ask if she had reason to lie? Obviously not, apart from the almost obligatory and always exaggerated imo ‘15 minutes of fame’ point. Third, what are the chances of her seeing a different woman who so closely resembled Chapman, talking to a man, at just the right time and at just the right spot?

Its become almost a casual thing to dismiss Long but we have no reason for doing so (caution of course) Long is corroborated by Cadosch (who also had no reason to lie.)

There is no topic in this case where so much ‘heavy lifting’ is done in order to denigrate witnesses. Three entirely normal people with no reason to lie, all going about their normal business, all provide strong evidence that Chapman met her death close to 5.30. All conveniently mistaken or lying. I don’t buy it for a second. Against this we have a doctor estimating ToD using the provably unreliable methods of the time (after we ignore the fact that he himself accepted that his lower estimate could have differed due to circumstances!) Or the fact that we might think that the killer wouldn’t have killed at this time. The three witnesses are just far stronger and less likely to have been wrong,

I don't think so

As the same can be said of Cadosch and his times, and all the witnesses in the Chapman murder.

We just don't know who's times are accurate and who's not .

Thus one can not determine t.o.d with any great accuracy.

So it could just as easily been an earlier t.o.d due to the ambiguous nature of all the inquest testimony .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think so

As the same can be said of Cadosch and his times, and all the witnesses in the Chapman murder.

We just don't know who's times are accurate and who's not .

Thus one can not determine t.o.d with any great accuracy.

So it could just as easily been an earlier t.o.d due to the ambiguous nature of all the inquest testimony .

There’s nothing ambiguous. The times match up when we apply a very necessary margin for error. Three witness over a Doctor’s unreliable estimate.

I wonder how many cases we can name where three entirely unconnected witnesses, with no reason for lying, pointed to x and they were all wrong or lying?

[FISHY1118]

There’s nothing ambiguous. The times match up when we apply a very necessary margin for error. Three witness over a Doctor’s unreliable estimate.

I wonder how many cases we can name where three entirely unconnected witnesses, with no reason for lying, pointed to x and they were all wrong or lying?

Well that your opinion and your entitled to interpret the inquest testimony any which way you like .

I happen to have evaluated the same evidence differently which i believe could well mean an much earlier t.o.d

Which btw has already been demonstrated over the course of this thread .

I seem to recall the same argument about all witnesses who must have lied or were wrong or mistaken somewhere else ,but I can't put my finger on it . Aww well never mind.