John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I'm sorry.

I wrote:

Nichols was sighted four times during the five and a half hours preceding her death

I would like to amend that to:

Nichols was sighted five times during the four and a half hours preceding her death

She was reported to be seen walking down Whitechapel Rd at 11:00 PM, leaving the Frying Pan Public House at 12:30 AM, being back at her lodging house at 1:20 AM, seen by the housekeeper at 2:10 AM, and seen in Osborn St at 2:30 AM.

Although I do not believe that Long saw Chapman, I did not omit her from my calculations.

Three and three-quarter hours is roughly the time from her confirmed last sighting until the time she was allegedly sighted by Long.

Of course, it is possible that someone saw Chapman and did not come forward.

But they did come forward in the other cases!

How many exceptions have to be made in the case of the Chapman murder?

Hi PI,

Ah, ok. Thanks for those (sightings). I suspect with the other victims, the sightings are greater due to the time of day, more around midnight to pre-2 am type thing, when there's activity in the doss houses as people turn in, there's activity as the pubs close, and so forth. As the night goes on, approaching the morning hours, the probability of being spotted would presumably lower. There will be a few hours where activity is simply reduced, which are the hours Annie may have been wondering the streets. The information we do have about her tends to be around similar time of day as for the other victims (up to 1:45, our last definite sighting), after which she goes out and apparently isn't spotted by anyone who knows her. The lack of reports from 1:45 until possibly again seen by Long may reflect the reduced probability of being spotted given the hours being considered.

Cases can be hard to compare, for some crimes, there seems to be lots of sightings of people (not just in the JtR series, but crimes in general), while other cases the victim just seems to vanish. I think we sort of see that over the JtR cases. Stride, for example, has numerous sightings, but that in part reflects that she was in pubs and so forth, where lots of people would spot her. Eddowes was in custody. Kelly was around her room so a larger chance she would be spotted by people who knew her personally. Annie couldn't do that as when she left the doss house, the pubs were already closed, and the customers would already have cleared out and gone home. Basically, Annie was turned out at a bad time to find a punter. Nichols, once she leaves the pub, would also have a black hole while on the street had she not bumped into someone who knew her.

Basically, Annie's lack of sightings may be nothing more than those hours are when one is likely not to be spotted. In the end, we simply have to deal with the fact that we're missing information and simply do not know what she did or where she was.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Back to English language lessons:


"I never said this" is in the simple past and implies that in one particular instance that is understood by the context you did not say what you're being accused of saying. "Did you tell Dale that you were going to wait for me on Tuesday?", "No, I never said that".

So clearly the above is an example of someone talking about the present sentence. Exactly as I was.

Are you trying to set some kind of world record for getting things wrong PI?

Unfortunately, you are the one once again getting things wrong.

The examples you gave above are irrelevant and do not even use the perfect tense.


You wrote:

I have never mentioned anything ...


I proved that you had.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You seem not to understand fully the meaning of the word never.

Back to English language lessons:


"I never said this" is in the simple past and implies that in one particular instance that is understood by the context you did not say what you're being accused of saying. "Did you tell Dale that you were going to wait for me on Tuesday?", "No, I never said that".

So clearly the above is an example of someone talking about the present sentence. Exactly as I was.

Are you trying to set some kind of world record for getting things wrong PI?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I was talking about in the current conversation. Why would I be talking about a conversation months ago? I didn’t even recall writing that. Do you keep a record of everything you’ve ever posted?

Grow up.

You seem not to understand fully the meaning of the word never.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'd say the evidence suggests Mary was murdered much earlier, say half one.

Here again, we have too much emphasis placed upon witnesses. We know that witness testimony should be treated with caution. We know this as a result of studies of witness testimony.

Do you suspect Blotchy?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is quite simple.

You wrote:


I have never mentioned anything about Kosminski writing the grafitto.


I proved that you had.

You then claimed that you had meant something other than never.

You are as usual unwilling to admit an error when you have made one, and you then try to make me look ridiculous, when it is actually you who are making yourself look ridiculous.

I was talking about in the current conversation. Why would I be talking about a conversation months ago? I didn’t even recall writing that. Do you keep a record of everything you’ve ever posted?

Grow up.

[Fleetwood Mac]

but now you seem to be suggesting it was written by a Jewish person.

'Seems clear to me that it wasn't written by someone who was Jewish.

If you're from a working class background in England, that sentence will make a lot more sense than to someone not from that background. It's the sort of thing that I hear today, still.

A Jewish person was clearly the target of that writing.

Having said that, I reckon the writing had nothing to do with the murders and the target was more 'the Jews' in general.

And, I agree in that I don't think the murderer was Jewish.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Insanity is a valid option after exchanging posts with you.

And all of this because you made some baseless generalisation that the ripper couldn’t have been Jewish.

It is quite simple.

You wrote:


I have never mentioned anything about Kosminski writing the grafitto.


I proved that you had.

You then claimed that you had meant something other than never.

You are as usual unwilling to admit an error when you have made one, and you then try to make me look ridiculous, when it is actually you who are making yourself look ridiculous.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ok, I'll tell you why, you don't have to believe it, but I'll share my reason with you anyway.

I think it was spelt correctly, I realize that it's easy for me to say now that the original on-line post has vanished. But, back before this forum was hacked I had posted a Jewish schoolgirl's letter where she actually wrote Juwes.

It could be argued the example was a unique case, possibly the girl made a spelling mistake herself, so just a coincidence, I don't know.
I know it's a weak argument from the point of view of proof. I wasn't in a position to communicate with the girl to query her on why she spelled the word that way. It was just an on-line post where a Jewish schoolgirl happened to write the word spelled the exact same way as in the graffito.
It's something I can't un-see, it's a shame the post is lost, but I can in all good faith say I saw it spelled that way so to me it suggests that some Jewish children will spell their own ethnicity precisely that way.

Well, I suppose that could render my point about the New Testament irrelevant, since you were referring to a Jewish school, except that it still suggests that the writer was uneducated or a foreigner.

As for the schoolgirl, I wonder in what context she used the word and how you know that she actually was Jewish.

I do not know what you mean when you write that you think that the word was spelled correctly.

And I do not understand why in your previous post you suggested that it was a critical remark about Jewish people, but now you seem to be suggesting it was written by a Jewish person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, I'll tell you why, you don't have to believe it, but I'll share my reason with you anyway.

I think it was spelt correctly, I realize that it's easy for me to say now that the original on-line post has vanished. But, back before this forum was hacked I had posted a Jewish schoolgirl's letter where she actually wrote Juwes.

It could be argued the example was a unique case, possibly the girl made a spelling mistake herself, so just a coincidence, I don't know.
I know it's a weak argument from the point of view of proof. I wasn't in a position to communicate with the girl to query her on why she spelled the word that way. It was just an on-line post where a Jewish schoolgirl happened to write the word spelled the exact same way as in the graffito.
It's something I can't un-see, it's a shame the post is lost, but I can in all good faith say I saw it spelled that way so to me it suggests that some Jewish children will spell their own ethnicity precisely that way.

It’s amazing that the suggestion appears to be being made that either a Jewish person couldn’t misspell the word ‘Jews’ in English or if that had misspelt it they wouldn’t have misspelt it a particular way. This is what I mean about the rabbit-hole Wick. The lengths that some are prepared to go to to try and prove or disprove a point. It’s as if they’re trying to win a game of chess rather than getting either to the truth or the closest we can get to it.

[Lewis C]

Considering he said the knife in his pocket wasn't adequate to the job and he finished it off with a better knife at work; if the offending leaher was a bit on the inside of the boot that was rubbing his toe, just how much leather do people think he trimmed from his boot in Hanbury Street?

Considering that he had previously done the same thing due to it irritating him, and had put his boot back on and not immediately taken it back off again realising that he needed to do a bit more work on it suggests that we are talking about a pretty tiny bit of leather

Agreed. It could be that the piece of leather was so small that it went unnoticed even though it was in the yard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I'm saying is that he was a Polish Jew who could quite easily have been able to write a limited amount of English in a competent manner, like many Polish Jews could in England in the 1880s, and that, at the same time, as a foreigner, he might easily have mistakenly spelt the word "Jews" as "Juwes"

(Herlock Shomes, # 672,The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?)



Kosminski, according to Herlock, could even have authored the graffito himself ...

(PI 1, #6312)




I’m getting a little tired of these inventions. Yes inventions….live with it.

I have never mentioned anything about Kosminski writing the grafitto.

(HS, #6313)



Not only did I not invent anything, but what I wrote is perfectly true.

You did indeed write that Kosminski was capable of having written the message:...

(PI 1, # 6316)



You must consider yourself to be in a very privileged position if you think your posts are covered by a statute of limitations.

You wrote:

I have never mentioned anything ...

and then, when I refuted your statement, quoting your comment from another thread, you cited a supposed statute of limitations.

I suppose eventually we can expect you to plead insanity.

Insanity is a valid option after exchanging posts with you.

And all of this because you made some baseless generalisation that the ripper couldn’t have been Jewish.

[Lewis C]

Even if your entire visit to the premises had lasted less than two minutes?

Picking up a piece of leather only takes a few seconds.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Kelly's case is quite different from the others in that she had a room of her own and was apparently spending much of her last night in it. The evidence suggests she was murdered at about 4 a.m. - possibly 3.45 a.m.

I'd say the evidence suggests Mary was murdered much earlier, say half one.

Here again, we have too much emphasis placed upon witnesses. We know that witness testimony should be treated with caution. We know this as a result of studies of witness testimony.