John Richardson

[New Waterloo]

There seems to be a leaning towards Chapman frequenting Hanbury street for whatever reason on previous occasions. Pethaps she knew an occupant or two. It would be nice if we were to firmly establish this. If we have somebody saying this in press or statement then look plausible. A couple of people saying this and we are starting to tie locations together. Remember the letter received by Mrs Hardiman at number 29 about the Bucks Row murder. If we can get Pearly Poll linked. There is a suggestion she knew Chapman and well we are starting to get some merging together. Will keep reading.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI, help me out. Fiver said this:

“All trace of Chapman was lost for several hours regardless of when she was killed.”

This is absolutely correct. She was last scene at around 1.45 (as you say) and we have no other recorded sighting until John Davies saw her at around 6.00. Therefore she was killed sometime between 1.45 and lets say 5.45.

This is 4 hours. Fiver said she was lost for several hours.

Back to the dictionary: “more than two but not many.”

So 4 qualifies as several.

So Fiver was perfectly correct. This is exactly what I mean when I say that points are disputed just for the sake of it.

Please don’t respond to this because I’m losing the will to live.

I made it perfectly clear in the first place that I was referring to sightings of the victim while she was still alive.

I did not include sightings of dead victims, e.g. Mary Kelly being 'sighted' about 7 hours after she had been murdered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that is wrong.

Some of the Jews in the East End were actually British-born.

Somehow, Kosminski could speak English at his 'trial' and, according to Herlock, could even have authored the graffito himself, and yet none of the Jews living inside that building could have read the message?

Lawende, remember, although Polish-born, spoke with Henry Smith in English.

If you think the murderer did not write the message and it was just any old anti-Semite who did, then why did he take the trouble to write the message on a building inhabited almost entirely by Jewish people?

Or do you think that that is a coincidence too?

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

I have b]never mentioned anything about Kosminski writing the grafitto.

I said…….we don’t know who the killer was or wasn’t……fact.

I said…….we don’t know if the killer wrote the grafitto or not……fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The Graffiti, yes, agreed, probably already there.
It was a Jewish residence, how many could actually read English?, probably not many. No-one realized it was there until the piece of apron was dropped nearby.

I think that is wrong.

Some of the Jews in the East End were actually British-born.

Some of the probably not many who could read English could have realised that it was about the Jews and, unlike some of the posters here, would certainly not have taken the view that it might be Philo-Semitic.

Your statement

No-one realized it was there until the piece of apron was dropped nearby

is unfounded.

Somehow, Kosminski could speak English at his 'trial' and, according to Herlock, could even have authored the graffito himself, and yet none of the Jews living inside that building could have read the message?

Lawende, remember, although Polish-born, spoke with Henry Smith in English.

If you think the murderer did not write the message and it was just any old anti-Semite who did, and that no Jews living in the building would pay it any attention, then why did he take the trouble to write the message on a building inhabited almost entirely by Jewish people?

Or do you think that that is a coincidence too?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I did not say that all of them have been selected for anti-Semitic reasons.

I would say, however, that Sagar's was and did not even exist.

Even if Hutchinson's did exist, he may have been put to good use specially for Hutchinson's news story.

Anderson's interest in a Polish Jewish suspect is obviously based on antisemitism, because he decided the murderer had to be Jewish before he even had a suspect.

I have never suggested that Cohen or Kaminsky became 'suspects' because of anti-Semitism, but for the reasons I gave they are not credible suspects.

Whichever Jewish suspect you look at, there is simply no case.

Reid and Warren made it clear that they were convinced that the murderer was a Gentile; Abberline and Macnaghten each had a favourite suspect, each of whom was a Gentile; Smith made it clear that he believed the murderer was a Gentile.

There is no evidence that Anderson thought at the time that the murderer was Jewish.

There is evidence that Anderson thought at the time that the murderer was a Gentile.

It is not true, as some commentators claim, that the police at the time thought that the murderer was a Jew.

They did not.

Anderson rewrote the thinking of the police at that time, more than two decades later.

I’m not interested in any of that PI. It’s a tangent. Please read what I’m about to say….

From previous posts on previous threads it’s amply clear that you have been determined that the killer couldn’t have been Jewish. You have made Jews exempt. You even made a point about the difficulty of naming any Jewish serial killers. So my question again is……why do you exempt Jews when we have no idea who the killer was?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that is wrong.

She was last definitely seen alive at about 1.45 a.m.

She could, for example, have been dead by 3.30 a.m.

PI, help me out. Fiver said this:

“All trace of Chapman was lost for several hours regardless of when she was killed.”

This is absolutely correct. She was last scene at around 1.45 (as you say) and we have no other recorded sighting until John Davies saw her at around 6.00. Therefore she was killed sometime between 1.45 and lets say 5.45.

This is 4 hours. Fiver said she was lost for several hours.

Back to the dictionary: “more than two but not many.”

So 4 qualifies as several.

So Fiver was perfectly correct. This is exactly what I mean when I say that points are disputed just for the sake of it.

Please don’t respond to this because I’m losing the will to live.

[Wickerman]

IMO, the letters are all hoaxes and give us no insight about the Ripper. Dear Bpss and Saucy Jacky were sent to the Central News Agency. From Hell is clearly someone pretending to be uneducated.

If you recall, we've discussed this recently. One Frederick Best who was a journalist for the Star was fired for embarrassing the Central News Agency, "misleading" was the term used. Two researchers, McKenzie & Cook unearthed a shareholders letter where the actions of previous owners came under suspicion for creating misleading stories to help sell newspapers. The famous case of John Piser suing both the Star & Evening News was the result of one of these stories.
But the point is, it was believed Frederick Best was fired because he wrote the Dear Boss letter.
As for the others, yes likely just equally hoax letters.

IMO, the graffito was just a random bit of antisemitic scribbling with no relation to the Ripper. oir me the questions are was the apron piece dropped deliberately and did the Ripper even notice the graffito.

Timing on Chapman's death is relevant because it makes certain suspects more or less likely. The doctor argues for an earlier time, but gives qualifications to his opinion and we know period forensic knowledge could not give very accurate estimates. Against that, we have three witnesses who argue for a later time of death. There are inconsistencies in witness testimony, but the same is true for the Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes cases. Dismissing the three Chapman witnesses out of hand is usually a sign that their time estimates contradict the poster's theory.

The Graffiti, yes, agreed, probably already there.
It was a Jewish residence, how many could actually read English?, probably not many. No-one realized it was there until the piece of apron was dropped nearby.

Theorists have always been uncomfortable about the apparent late (5:30) murder of Chapman, it didn't fit the M.O., in the opinion of some. This issue about what Phillips said is not new, it was debated long before the creation of Lechmere as a suspect.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI, we’re going off topic here. I said that you appear determined that the ripper couldn’t have been Jewish. You said that because the Jewish suspects were selected for anti-Semitic reasons.

I did not say that all of them have been selected for anti-Semitic reasons.

I would say, however, that Sagar's was and did not even exist.

Even if Hutchinson's did exist, he may have been put to good use specially for Hutchinson's news story.

Anderson's interest in a Polish Jewish suspect is obviously based on antisemitism, because he decided the murderer had to be Jewish before he even had a suspect.

I have never suggested that Cohen or Kaminsky became 'suspects' because of anti-Semitism, but for the reasons I gave they are not credible suspects.

Whichever Jewish suspect you look at, there is simply no case.

Reid and Warren made it clear that they were convinced that the murderer was a Gentile; Abberline and Macnaghten each had a favourite suspect, each of whom was a Gentile; Smith made it clear that he believed the murderer was a Gentile.

There is no evidence that Anderson thought at the time that the murderer was Jewish.

There is evidence that Anderson thought at the time that the murderer was a Gentile.

It is not true, as some commentators claim, that the police at the time thought that the murderer was a Jew.

They did not.

Anderson rewrote the thinking of the police at that time, more than two decades later.

[Paul Sutton]

IMO, the letters are all hoaxes and give us no insight about the Ripper. Dear Bpss and Saucy Jacky were sent to the Central News Agency. From Hell is clearly someone pretending to be uneducated.

IMO, the graffito was just a random bit of antisemitic scribbling with no relation to the Ripper. oir me the questions are was the apron piece dropped deliberately and did the Ripper even notice the graffito.

Timing on Chapman's death is relevant because it makes certain suspects more or less likely. The doctor argues for an earlier time, but gives qualifications to his opinion and we know period forensic knowledge could not give very accurate estimates. Against that, we have three witnesses who argue for a later time of death. There are inconsistencies in witness testimony, but the same is true for the Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes cases. Dismissing the three Chapman witnesses out of hand is usually a sign that their time estimates contradict the poster's theory.

Thanks Fiver,

Apart from Lechmere, what other suspects does it affect (the timing)? I know it affects the supposed witness sighting her at - what 5.20 or 5.30 - with someone foreign looking. Who do you think that was?

By the way, are you aware fivers are being phased out? I mean besides the move to move to digital only. Random comment!

best

Paul

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Mary Jane Keely was heard alive at 1am. Seen alive at 2am, if Hutchinson is an accurate witness. Found dead at 10:45am.

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.

She was heard singing in her room at midnight and again at 1:00 AM, apparently having stayed in the room during the intervening hour or so.

We do not know where she was at 1:30 AM - whether in the room or somewhere else - only that the singing had stopped by then.

[Fiver]

1. The letters give an insight into JtR, plus details.
2. Ditto the graffito - the debate on Judaism.
3. Any witness sighting is relevant, though the endless semantical/lexical analysis soon removes that.

But this one - how would it affect who JtR is? Yes, time is relevant, but there's no path I can see between either time and that. I know about the supposed later sighting of Chapman, but with whom?

IMO, the letters are all hoaxes and give us no insight about the Ripper. Dear Bpss and Saucy Jacky were sent to the Central News Agency. From Hell is clearly someone pretending to be uneducated.

IMO, the graffito was just a random bit of antisemitic scribbling with no relation to the Ripper. oir me the questions are was the apron piece dropped deliberately and did the Ripper even notice the graffito.

Timing on Chapman's death is relevant because it makes certain suspects more or less likely. The doctor argues for an earlier time, but gives qualifications to his opinion and we know period forensic knowledge could not give very accurate estimates. Against that, we have three witnesses who argue for a later time of death. There are inconsistencies in witness testimony, but the same is true for the Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes cases. Dismissing the three Chapman witnesses out of hand is usually a sign that their time estimates contradict the poster's theory.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

All trace of Chapman was lost for several hours regardless of when she was killed.

I think that is wrong.

She was last definitely seen alive at about 1.45 a.m.

She could, for example, have been dead by 3.30 a.m.

[Fiver]

The Chapman murder case is the only one in which all trace of the victim is lost for several hours (assuming she was murdered at about 5.30 a.m.).

All trace of Chapman was lost for several hours regardless of when she was killed. She was seen at the lodging house at 1:35am. Long claims to have seen her alive around 5:30am. Her body was found at 6am.

If you think Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim, she was last seem last seen alive at 11:45 and not seen again until 3:30am, probably dead by that time.

Mary Jane Keely was heard alive at 1am. Seen alive at 2am, if Hutchinson is an accurate witness. Found dead at 10:45am.

It is the only one in which it is suggested that it took place as it was getting light.

Let me mention Weather Conditions for the Nights of the Whitechapel Murders again.

* 70% cloud cover
* Waxing crescent with 2% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.
* sunrise at 5:23am

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good point.

Or, from Richardson's point of view, not good enough

Good that you compared press versions, I had not realized the blade was broken in half. There's no wonder the thing was dismissed as a murder weapon.

Yeah, there are a few differing descriptions of the knife. One version (used by Wolf Vanderlinden in his article) describes the blade as rusty. At least one describes a white handle but I’ve seen at least one that says that it had no handle. I haven’t checked again but I don’t know if the DN is the only one that mentions the blade being broken. It’s not exactly a clear picture. Certainly not a likely weapon though.

[A P Tomlinson]

Good point.

Or, from Richardson's point of view, not good enough

Good that you compared press versions, I had not realized the blade was broken in half. There's no wonder the thing was dismissed as a murder weapon.

Mrs Richardson spoke of the tennis-shoe-makers son being a bit simple. I'm not being judgy but... I do think people in glass houses, and all that.