John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Hi Jeff
My original post was aimed at the mortuary identification of Chapmans body by Mrs Long and how she was certain that the body in the morgue was that of the woman she describes, can her ID of the body in the morgue be relied upon I would suggest not

"Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased", In my opinion, that's not a positive ID

How could she be sure, in her testimony, she gave no details about the clothing Chapman was wearing and only got a fleeting glimpse of the couple and from her testimony, it is unclear how far away she was from the couple she describes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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 .

Indeed. I do wish people would stop using small differences in reported times as being significant.
In my work, that Inside Bucks Row, various podcasts, I believe I demonstrate how NONE of the times quoted in any of the murders can be taken as being accurate and synchronised.
Even the two individuals who use the same time source at the same time, (Lawende and Levy, quote the clock at the imperial club. ) give different times for seeing the couple at the entrance to Mitre Square. They give times that are a couple of minutes different. That's the ONLY witnesses who are syncronizied, and they still disagree.
On top of which, while they are in theory syncronizied to each other, we have no way of knowing how the clock in the club compares to the time given for Kate's release, for Watkins timings, for Harvey's timings or anybody else .

In short, I am of the opinion that ANY time given can easily vary by at least 5 minutes either way, possibly more.


I have not even touched on the issue of people rounding up or down.

Steve

[FISHY1118]

Indeed. I do wish people would stop using small differences in reported times as being significant.
In my work, that Inside Bucks Row, various podcasts, I believe I demonstrate how NONE of the times quoted in any of the murders can be taken as being accurate and synchronised.
Even the two individuals who use the same time source at the same time, (Lawende and Levy, quote the clock at the imperial club. ) give different times for seeing the couple at the entrance to Mitre Square. They give times that are a couple of minutes different. That's the ONLY witnesses who are syncronizied, and they still disagree.
On top of which, while they are in theory syncronizied to each other, we have no way of knowing how the clock in the club compares to the time given for Kate's release, for Watkins timings, for Harvey's timings or anybody else .

In short, I am of the opinion that ANY time given can easily vary by at least 5 minutes either way, possibly more.


I have not even touched on the issue of people rounding up or down.

Steve

In short then Steve, we can't pin down any single theory as more credible than another due to timing inconsistencies?

Example T.O.D.

[Elamarna]

In short then Steve, we can't pin down any single theory as more credible than another due to timing inconsistencies?

Example T.O.D.

What an odd interpretation of my post.

My argument is that we cannot fix any time to the absolute times used in so many "Theories".

The theory may well still stand up to scrutiny, just the exact times used are pointless.
So if a theory requires an event to occur at shall we say pricisely 01.15, or it fails, then it will fail.
If a time between 01.10 and 01.20 is all that's needed it will not fail.

While Long and Cadosch may be out by a few minutes on the time quoted, such in No way devalues the rest of the content of their statements.
We know the rough time frames both are talking about, between roughly 3.15 and 3.30.
With Richardson, we know he checks before leaving the house. So again while the pricise time he gives may be inaccurate, we have a rough window, say 4.45-05.00
He says there was no body.

Against this we have the fantasy, and that is the correct word, that 19th century Doctors had a magical ability to fix TOD, without the methods used today.

The 3 C5 TODs that are basically accepted, Nichols, Stride and Eddowes, are I submit , in part due to the witness statements of the police on the beat and the times they mention.
In all 3 cases the police say the body was not there on the last beat.

In Nichols and Stride that gives aapprox a 30 minute window that is used by the doctors.
With Eddowes, that window is even tighter, 15 minutes at most.

There was/is no way, one could fix a TOD to within 30-40 minutes otherwise.

Steve

[FISHY1118]

What an odd interpretation of my post.

My argument is that we cannot fix any time to the absolute times used in so many "Theories".

The theory may well still stand up to scrutiny, just the exact times used are pointless.
So if a theory requires an event to occur at shall we say pricisely 01.15, or it fails, then it will fail.
If a time between 01.10 and 01.20 is all that's needed it will not fail.

While Long and Cadosch may be out by a few minutes on the time quoted, such in No way devalues the rest of the content of their statements.
We know the rough time frames both are talking about, between roughly 3.15 and 3.30.
With Richardson, we know he checks before leaving the house. So again while the pricise time he gives may be inaccurate, we have a rough window, say 4.45-05.00
He says there was no body.

Against this we have the fantasy, and that is the correct word, that 19th century Doctors had a magical ability to fix TOD, without the methods used today.

The 3 C5 TODs that are basically accepted, Nichols, Stride and Eddowes, are I submit , in part due to the witness statements of the police on the beat and the times they mention.
In all 3 cases the police say the body was not there on the last beat.

In Nichols and Stride that gives aapprox a 30 minute window that is used by the doctors.
With Eddowes, that window is even tighter, 15 minutes at most.

There was/is no way, one could fix a TOD to within 30-40 minutes otherwise.

Steve

Whats so odd about it ,pretty straight forward .

Not sure you're answered my question tho ,I simply yes would have done given what we know and the evidence of long Cadosch and Richardson ,Dr Phillips, and inspector Chandler. I think you've over complicated the time issue .

I'll disagree with your Eddowes regarding the doctors t.o.d .I don't think he based his decision on officer beat times

[Elamarna]

Whats so odd about it ,pretty straight forward .

Not sure you're answered my question tho ,I simply yes would have done given what we know and the evidence of long Cadosch and Richardson ,Dr Phillips, and inspector Chandler. I think you've over complicated the time issue .

I'll disagree with your Eddowes regarding the doctors t.o.d .I don't think he based his decision on officer beat times

No I clearly answered the question, timing issues do not mean no one theory is anymore credible than another.
They do mean that theories that rely on pricise timings are more likely to fail, than those which allow for a wider range.
So the answer is certainly not a simple yes , more like a qualified NO.

I am not over complicating timing, i am simply presenting the actual case with timings. They are ALL only estimates, with a wide margin of error.

If you don't think the doctor incorporated the police timings in Mitre Square to arrive at a TOD, could you tell us what method you believe was used to fix the TOD as they did?

I will give you a clue, neither RM or touch could achieve this.


Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

This thread was started July 2nd last year...

And it's still up for mass debate...

Will it ever end?

It's a good job Nobody here has yet to concoct and mention a hypothesis of how they can link Richardson to Maybrick...then we really would be in for it...


Eek!

[FISHY1118]

No I clearly answered the question, timing issues do not mean no one theory is anymore credible than another.
They do mean that theories that rely on pricise timings are more likely to fail, than those which allow for a wider range.
So the answer is certainly not a simple yes , more like a qualified NO.

I am not over complicating timing, i am simply presenting the actual case with timings. They are ALL only estimates, with a wide margin of error.

If you don't think the doctor incorporated the police timings in Mitre Square to arrive at a TOD, could you tell us what method you believe was used to fix the TOD as they did?

I will give you a clue, neither RM or touch could achieve this.


Steve

Can you show me any inquest evidence where the doctor in Eddowes case actually incorporated police times to arrive at t.o.d . ?

[FISHY1118]

This thread was started July 2nd last year...

And it's still up for mass debate...

Will it ever end?

It's a good job Nobody here has yet to concoct and mention a hypothesis of how they can link Richardson to Maybrick...then we really would be in for it...


Eek!

Maybrick thread was started in 2008!!!!

So don't hold your breath.

[Wickerman]

This may come as a shock to some but this whole website, Casebook, was created by Stephen Ryder (Spry) & Johnno to discuss the Maybrick theory, way back in 1998, or thereabouts.

[Elamarna]

Can you show me any inquest evidence where the doctor in Eddowes case actually incorporated police times to arrive at t.o.d . ?

By stating that the police reports were not taken into account, surely you must have some reasoning as to which method the doctors used.
You have not answered the question I posed.

So I ask again, what method do you believe the doctors used to fix TOD.

Asking for a statement in which the doctor says, "I don't know, but the police said", is not only unrealistic, given no doctor was going to admit such; but also a clear attempt to not answer the reasonable question I asked.

If you don't know which method they used, which could scientifical fix the TOD to the range suggested at the Inquest, that's fine, just say so.

Again a clue, there was and is no method on its own, that can fix TOD to the degree suggested.

However, While the doctor does not explicitly state he used the police times, we do have the following information .

The doctors were clearly told the body was NOT in the square on Watkins last beat, approximately 15 minutes early.

Do you accept that?

The doctors were clearly of the opinion that the murder occurred where the body was found.

Do you accept that?

If so, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the doctors used the fact the body was not there when Watkins last patrolled, to help set the TOD.
In addition they probably used Harvey's comments too.


Steve

[Elamarna]

This may come as a shock to some but this whole website, Casebook, was created by Stephen Ryder (Spry) & Johnno to discuss the Maybrick theory, way back in 1998, or thereabouts.

I suspect many are not aware of that Jon.

Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

This may come as a shock to some but this whole website, Casebook, was created by Stephen Ryder (Spry) & Johnno to discuss the Maybrick theory, way back in 1998, or thereabouts.

The irony of that statement is not lost on this case.

It goes to show that Casebook has come a long way and progressed exponentially since 1998 and the founders deserve immense credit for their vision.

We are of course now at the stage where we are discussing the intricacies of how long it took Richardson to cut a piece of leather from his left, or right boot, with which hand he did it, and whether the angle he sat at to use the knife on the 2nd or 3rd step, could have possibly then have failed to deflect the light from a lamp inside the doorway, which may or not have been there, but could have then have failed to deflect the light and then illuminate the body of Chapman, who may have been laying there for 10 minutes, 25 minutes, 3 hours 20 minutes, 6 hours or 6 hours and 2 minutes and thus perfectly explain why Richardson sat next to her and didn't see her...

You get my drift.


Or, he didn't see her because she wasn't there.


I love this stuff, I really do.


RD

[Wickerman]

The irony of that statement is not lost on this case.

About a quarter of a century, and the Maybrick theory is still being debated.
Practically everything, every aspect of the case has been suggested, debated, discarded, re-proposed, thrown out, restored and recycled again.
Just for myself, I find it really fascinating why people think the way they do, and how they manage to interpret the same evidence in various different ways.

It goes to show that Casebook has come a long way and progressed exponentially since 1998 and the founders deserve immense credit for their vision.

We are of course now at the stage where we are discussing the intricacies of how long it took Richardson to cut a piece of leather from his left, or right boot, with which hand he did it, and whether the angle he sat at to use the knife on the 2nd or 3rd step, could have possibly then have failed to deflect the light from a lamp inside the doorway, which may or not have been there, but could have then have failed to deflect the light and then illuminate the body of Chapman, who may have been laying there for 10 minutes, 25 minutes, 3 hours 20 minutes, 6 hours or 6 hours and 2 minutes and thus perfectly explain why Richardson sat next to her and didn't see her...

You get my drift.

Or, he didn't see her because she wasn't there.

I love this stuff, I really do.

RD

So do I.

[Lewis C]

This may come as a shock to some but this whole website, Casebook, was created by Stephen Ryder (Spry) & Johnno to discuss the Maybrick theory, way back in 1998, or thereabouts.

I didn't know that. Interesting.