John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

Hi George

You have confirmed a point I made in a previous post where I stated Chapman knew this location as she he had been there selling items previously so she would probably have known that 17 people were residents at that address. So it would also be fair to say that Chapman took the killer to this secluded location long before the later TOD. I doubt she would have taken anyone to that location at the later time of the morning for fear of being caught.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hmmm, I've always enjoyed a bit of creative writing too Trevor. But, if we're going to pretend to know what Annie is thinking and what choices she would make, why bother working that out from the evidence of her being found in the back yard, rather, let's create a character who was too shy to go in, or who was afraid of getting caught, so we can make the plot go where we want it to. But why not create a character in our little made up stories that has a bit more gusto.

How about, instead, we make up this story. After a long night walking the streets, with no luck, she went to #29 knowing that people in the house started their day around 5:45 to 6:00, which was just over an hour away. (That's when Davies gets up). She figures she might get lucky and sell something to them as she had done before so she can finally go get a bed and some sleep. That's when she's approached by JtR, and knowing she's still got over 30 minutes before the house starts rising, figures this is a quicker and more sure source of income. And she figures she can deal with the people in the house. She's had a fist fight over less after all.

I'm sure others can make up their stories too, but perhaps these sorts of things are best left for the creative writing section of the boards?

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

The police saw them and made the connection.

They did not know that 135 years later, someone might come out with a piece of nonsense such as

The killer writer could have been Jewish ...

The writing was at shoulder height, was it not?

Why should it not have been?

And it was written on the inside of a jamb of the arch inside of which the bloody clothing was lying, practically pointing to the clothing.

Then why make it so small?

[JeffHamm]

Allow me to rephrase the point I made:

we do not know that we would not have had more sightings of Stride and Eddowes that night had they met a murderer as late as about 5.30 a.m., as Chapman is supposed to have done.

Well, that's true. We do not know what might have happened in situations that didn't. But we're now talking fantasy situations, where we pretend things that didn't happen did happen, and free up our creativity to make that story what ever we want it to have been to make whatever point we wish we could make but the actual events don't allow for. Those aren't often very useful lines of thought, in my view, although I suppose there are some situations where they could be. For this sort of thing, though, not really. We could either say "If either of them had not been killed when they were, and were out until 5:30, then ..." and one person says they would have been sighted many times and the other just says they too would have a period of no sightings. Since we're talking about something that didn't happen, neither can really say they are wrong, but neither can we say we are right. What we do know, however, is that we have no definite confirmed sightings of Annie given Long's identification probably followed a procedure that we have to recognize as potentially providing a false positive. That doesn't mean we should discount Long altogether, of course, but at the same time we should not assert with absolute confidence that the woman she saw was Annie. There's a good chance it was, but also a good chance it wasn't. I personally do not feel confident in saying which situation is the true one. There's nothing that really precludes Long's sighting from being valid, although if it is I would suggest Long's got her time out by 15 minutes, which is easy enough for her to do. On the other hand, if she didn't see Annie, then she didn't notice Cadosche exit from next door, and he didn't see her (we can be pretty sure he left at the half hour as he specifically checked the Spitalfield's clock and it read 5:32, and it's a 2 minute walk from his house). So if Long did hear the half hour chime, then she should have been seeing Cadosche exit and Cadosche should have seen Long and should have seen a man and woman next door, which he denies. As such, either the clocks are out by a few minutes, or the chimes Long recalls hearing were the quarter past not the half hour chimes. (Which fits with our best idea as to where she left home from, as it looks to be about a 15 minute walk to Hanbury Street from the locations people think Long lived, and she says she left at 5:00 - but again, there are ways to explain why it might have taken her 30 minutes too, so it's not definitive of course).

Personally, out of the 3 witnesses, while I think Long may have seen Annie (but then she may not too), her information doesn't greatly add much beyond what can be inferred from both Richardson and Cadoshe, so whether we include or exclude her in error, the other two witnesses still remain and point towards a later ToD, and one that is entirely consistent with the medical estimated ToD. It's only in the situation where we consider all 3 witnesses to be in error that the earlier ToD becomes possible, and even then, it's not really more probable than the later one (because the medical estimate has such a wide margin of error, all missing time for Annie is potentially when she was killed, which isn't much help in narrowing things down).

It's an interesting puzzle though, and there are a lot of pieces, none of which by themselves contain the whole picture, but when they are combined, they act as constraints on each other and sharpen the view.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Is there anything, absolutely anything that you can look at without turning it into a point in favour of an earlier ToD?

Its not me personally it's what the evidence tells us I am merely presenting those facts and interpreting the evidence in an unbiased fashion

A woman who could barely look at the victims face is reliable, but Long isn’t.

You are right Long is not reliable

Chapman had possibly been there before and took a bit of a census to find out how many people lived there.

It would seem that she had been to No29 several times so it would be foolish to dismiss her knowledge of who resided there

The fact that she might have been there before so you think it unlikely that she would have gone there at that time is considered a good point? Why didn’t she just go somewhere that she wasn’t known?

Because at 4am or before she would know the likelihood of being disturbed was very slim.

And this weak point is stronger than a man, with eyes that worked, telling us categorically that Chapman wasn’t there at 4.45.

Chapman was still alive at 4.45. Three witnesses trump silly points.

You need to rethink the unsafe testimony of those witnesses you hold in such high esteem take the blinkers off

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But, it's only an assumption that they are connected. A thrown rag had to fall somewhere, and it was written about 4 feet up the wall, not just above the piece of apron.

The police saw them and made the connection.

They did not know that 135 years later, someone might come out with a piece of nonsense such as

The killer writer could have been Jewish ...

The writing was at shoulder height, was it not?

Why should it not have been?

And it was written on the inside of a jamb of the arch inside of which the bloody clothing was lying, practically pointing to the clothing.

[Wickerman]

Except that you don't see a piece of bloodstained clothing smeared with faeces from a woman who had recently had her throat cut lying next to it.

But, it's only an assumption that they are connected. A thrown rag had to fall somewhere, and it was written about 4 feet up the wall, not just above the piece of apron.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Visualize some little kid who tells you a secret, he cups his hand up to your ear and whispers "I wrote a naughty word in the bathroom", and he giggles. You go and see a little word scribbled on the bathroom wall, and you smile, you can barely read it.

Except that you don't see a piece of bloodstained clothing smeared with faeces from a woman who had recently had her throat cut lying next to it.

[Wickerman]

I think the meaning is more: 'I'm targeting 'the Jews' because they deserve to be targeted'. In parts of the country more isolated from language change, I'm thinking of the North East here, you will still hear: "you're not getting wrong for nothing". Which means: you're being blamed for something you have done/you deserve it.

Ok, but that sounds like the writer is making a threat. So, why write it so small?
A threat is meant to be seen, others are supposed to see it, but this was less than an inch tall.

To me it's more like the writer is saying something cheeky, they think because it was small they will get away with it.
Visualize some little kid who tells you a secret, he cups his hand up to your ear and whispers "I wrote a naughty word in the bathroom", and he giggles. You go and see a little word scribbled on the bathroom wall, and you smile, you can barely read it.

Thats how I see this little graffiti, it was less than an inch tall. A lot of people think it was big letters written across a wall for the whole community to see, it wasn't. It's like the scribble of a schoolkid.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The killer writer could have been Jewish ...

That is farfetched.

The police did not even consider the idea and it is not worthy of consideration.

And they knew full well that the accusations that a Jew committed the murders were inextricably linked to local antisemitism.

I have been reading that Jews are to blame for the fact that about a thousand of their civilians were butchered two weeks ago by Islamic terrorists, and that Jews are to blame for an explosion at a hospital in Gaza which was actually caused by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Even Anderson accepted that the writer was a Gentile.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Is there anything, absolutely anything that you can look at without turning it into a point in favour of an earlier ToD?

He doesn't need to turn it into a point in favour of an earlier ToD.

It clearly is.

Chapman had visited the house before and had acquired some familiarity with the occupants and their habits.

She is hardly likely then to have visited the back yard with a customer at a time when there was a chance of any of them being up and about.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Chapman was still alive at 4.45.

Opinion presented as fact

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the murderer had been a Jew who wrote the graffito to deflect attention away from himself and toward a gentile killer, then why did he not write instead:

The Gentiles are the men that will not be blamed for nothing ?

Or why didn’t he write…

Those bloody murdering gentiles are at it again. Don’t try blaming the Jews for this.

Again you’re trying to second guess what someone would or wouldn’t have said or thought. The killer writer could have been Jewish or he might not have been. We just don’t know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George

You have confirmed a point I made in a previous post where I stated Chapman knew this location as she he had been there selling items previously so she would probably have known that 17 people were residents at that address. So it would also be fair to say that Chapman took the killer to this secluded location long before the later TOD. I doubt she would have taken anyone to that location at the later time of the morning for fear of being caught.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Is there anything, absolutely anything that you can look at without turning it into a point in favour of an earlier ToD?

A woman who could barely look at the victims face is reliable, but Long isn’t.
Chapman had possibly been there before and took a bit of a census to find out how many people lived there.
The fact that she might have been there before so you think it unlikely that she would have gone there at that time is considered a good point? Why didn’t she just go somewhere that she wasn’t known?
And this weak point is stronger than a man, with eyes that worked, telling us categorically that Chapman wasn’t there at 4.45.

Chapman was still alive at 4.45. Three witnesses trump silly points.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi George

You have confirmed a point I made in a previous post where I stated Chapman knew this location as she he had been there selling items previously so she would probably have known that 17 people were residents at that address. So it would also be fair to say that Chapman took the killer to this secluded location long before the later TOD. I doubt she would have taken anyone to that location at the later time of the morning for fear of being caught.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.... knowing that around that time, up to 17 people might be queuing up to visit the lavatory?

Or perhaps knowing from Mrs Richardson that her son was in the habit of visiting the back yard at roughly that time?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because the killer could have been a Jew who wrote the graffito to deflect attention away from himself and toward a gentile killer the spelling means little. Anyone could have written it.

If the murderer had been a Jew who wrote the graffito to deflect attention away from himself and toward a gentile killer, then why did he not write instead:

The Gentiles are the men that will not be blamed for nothing ?