John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think it was Baxter who said that as far as the witnesses go, if there's a discrepancy of about 15 minutes, it doesn't really matter.
It's not like we've got a bus to catch, the difference is only minutes not hours, so the witnesses are more accurate than Phillips's initial estimate.

But it does matter.

For it not to matter, the clocks have to be wrong by just the right number of minutes, and if it means a later time of death than Cadoche's evidence suggests, which is what the coroner suggested, then that means that Phillips would have had to have seen the body less than an hour after the murder.

That is farfetched.

And we are asked to believe that in this one case, the murderer chose to commit a murder as it was getting light even though he was in a location where he would be unable to sense anyone's approach, that the victim's body cooled unusually quickly, that rigor mortis set in unusually quickly, and that the murderer chose not to wash his bloodstained hands with the water from an easily visible tap.

I am surprised you cannot see how unlikely that is.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Three witnesses, however imperfect, trump a Doctors unreliable estimation.

That is obviously wrong.

There is no proof that Chapman was alive when Long thought she saw her, Cadoche saw neither the victim nor murderer, and the reliability of Richardson's testimony is debatable.

Phillips did see Chapman.

The fact that his estimate conflicts with the witness testimony does not render it unreliable.

[Wickerman]

Cadoche places the murder between 5:20 and 5:32, I can't see why it matters to pin it down any tighter than that.
I can see it will matter to those who want to pin the murder on Richardson, but his testimony is sound to the unbiased ear, in my view.

[A P Tomlinson]

Thanks, APT.

I thought you might try to answer my question, though.

You mean the pointless question about whether the police should have tried to track down and find a potential witness/potential killer?
Well, of course they should.
They either eliminate him from the enquiry or possibly find the killer?
But, as you probably know, that description covered a lot of men in the East End at that time, so it wouldn;t have been hard to find one... but walking around telling people they were looking for a dark foreigner in his 40s in regard to the recnet spate of murders would have probably stoked a race riot, so it would have been pretty bloody stupid to make a major point of it, but rather keep it on the down low.

Now, again, are you going to answer the one question Ive asked you?
What evidence supports Philips estimate?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You mean the pointless question about whether the police should have tried to track down and find a potential witness/potential killer?
Well, of course they should.
They either eliminate him from the enquiry or possibly find the killer?
But, as you probably know, that description covered a lot of men in the East End at that time, so it wouldn;t have been hard to find one... but walking around telling people they were looking for a dark foreigner in his 40s in regard to the recnet spate of murders would have probably stoked a race riot, so it would have been pretty bloody stupid to make a major point of it, but rather keep it on the down low.

I can't believe you wrote that about a possible race riot.

You cannot be serious.

Piser was subjected to an identification procedure and it was reported in the press.

Don't tell me the police were worried about a race riot.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Cadoche places the murder between 5:20 and 5:32

Your statement is incorrect.

Cadoche saw neither the victim nor the murderer.

[Wickerman]

Your statement is incorrect.

Cadoche saw neither the victim nor the murderer.

I know, but you have to consider the alternatives.
Most murder cases are solved based on circumstantial evidence - very few people actually watch one person murder someone else.
The perp. is mostly tied to the murder by circumstances that preclude someone else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But opinion is, and always has been, divided on the question of whether Chapman was alive at the time that Long thought she saw her.

We know that Eddowes was still alive.

Perfectly true but that can’t eliminate the possibility that Long was correct. Eyewitnesses are sometime right.

I agree that the woman that Lawende and co saw was almost certainly Eddowes and that it’s likely that she was with her killer but it’s not a certainty. She could have talked to a man (perhaps she knew him or perhaps she was trying to persuade him into sex but he couldn’t be persuaded or he hadn’t any money but she suspected that he had) and Lawende and co saw them as they were talking. They passed by (and admitted that they didn’t look back) and the pair went their separate ways. Eddowes heads through Mitre Square on her way to who-knows-where (perhaps she knew someone that she might have thought would lend her some money?) On her way through she bumps into the ripper coming from the Mitre Street side.

Im not say that’s what happened PI but something like that might have happened. I can see nothing far-fetched about a prostitute talking to a man, parting company, and then meeting another one.

[JeffHamm]

Those who seem to think, judging by remarks made in this thread, that those who are sceptical about the value of assertions made here that Chapman must have been murdered at about 5.30 a.m. must be suffering from some mental defect, which prevents the truth - which it is claimed has been established beyond any reasonable doubt - from sinking in, are expecting readers to believe that the murderer was prepared to go into a back yard as it was starting to get light, knowing he could easily be seen by a third party and that it was a potential trap.

How do you know what JtR thought, or how he made decisions? All we have that might provide any clues to such things are his actions. And if JtR committed murder in the morning light in a backyard, that set of choices could potentially tell us something about JtR. It would fit, for example, theories that suggest JtR was psychotic, and so his decision making will be unlike most people. Although, it would also fit with JtR being psychopathic, as they often make risky decisions just like this due to a sense of superiority in their own abilities.

Further, that he just got lucky and was not there when Richardson called, nor when Davies entered the yard about an hour later.

JtR got lucky at almost every crime. He appears to have gotten lucky that Cross/Lechmere and Paul showed up in time to shoo him from Nichols only moments before PC Neil arrived. Had they not come down Buck's Row, he may have gotten caught (obviously there are some unconfirmed assumptions in that example). Moreover, the time between Richardson and Davies is, as you point out, over an hour. A veritable eternity compared to the 14 minutes between PC Watkins patrol of Mitre Square.

Further, although in Dutfield's Yard he was able to see anyone entering the yard, and in Mitre Square he could sense anyone entering from Mitre Street or Church Passage, in this case he could not see whether anyone was entering the house from the street, nor even whether someone was coming down the stairs with the intention of entering the yard to go to the lavatory.

Serial killers do learn and adapt from their experiences. In Nichols murder, there is a very good chance he was scared off by Cross/Lechmere and Paul, and later learns through the news that only just behind them was PC Neil. Realising how lucky he was, it may be that, being only his 2nd murder, a backyard might seem better. His experience with Cadosche to'ing and fro'ing next door, however, puts him off that idea. Dutsfield yard doesn't feel right either, perhaps the noise in the club just made it too much like Hanbury Street - someone could come out any minute. Mitre Square seems a better choice, open, multiple escape routes - notice, as the sequence goes his decisions may be getting "better" due to previous events. Obviously with Kelly having her own room, that to him would be the ideal situation.

In such circumstances, why would someone who committed all the other outdoor murders in the series in dark places where he could sense any stranger's approach, commit the murder in Hanbury Street in a potential trap when it was starting to get light?

But when he committed the murder in Hanbury Street, he hadn't committed most of those outdoor murders, only Nichols. As such, what he does following Hanbury Street may reflect what he learned from that experience. All he had prior to Hanbury Street was the Nichols murder (or Nichols and Tabram, if you include her I suppose), so it's not like he's established a pattern by that point.

Anyway, I do see what you're getting at, and others have wondered the same. The thing is, one doesn't start from "JtR would have to be mad to kill in the backyard of #29 in the morning, so he couldn't have killed her in the morning" - because maybe JtR was mad!? We need to work out what happened, when it happened, and only then might we get some idea as to JtR's decision making and thinking (although I am always wary of those sorts of inferences). It doesn't matter if we realise that he took a great risk because we have the benefit of hindsight - we know, for example, that Cadosche comes out next door, not just once but twice! Therefore, if JtR did kill in the morning light (and after Cadosche's first visit but before the 2nd), it is clear that JtR must have thought that after having gone to the loo Cadosche must surely be heading to work and therefore the "coast was clear". The return of Cadosche may have greatly surprised him, so he starts gathering his things and trophies, wipes down his hands, and Cadosche's 2nd loo visit was very short (let's say, I have no idea how long it was obviously, but for the sake of the story bear with me) so just as he's planning on dashing with his stuff, he has to duck down again because Cadosche is now on his way back, in his haste to duck he bumps the fence, luckily Cadosche leaves and heads to work. By this point, JtR has had enough, and flees, leaving the front door open as later found by Davies.

Ok, I fully acknowledge the above "Just So" story is not exactly uncontestable, but the point is that if we can determine the events and the time, then we have to explain them. We don't use "an explanation" to decide what the events and time were (and deciding "JtR wouldn't do that" is to use an explanation to decide the events and time).

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I know, but you have to consider the alternatives.
Most murder cases are solved based on circumstantial evidence - very few people actually watch one person murder someone else.
The perp. is mostly tied to the murder by circumstances that preclude someone else.

Which circumstances in this case preclude someone else?

There is no proof that anyone was in the back yard of number 29 at that time.

Cadoche was not even sure that the 'no' he heard came from number 29.

And, unlike Phillips, he had not even come under any pressure to change or qualify his evidence.

[Wickerman]

I can't believe you wrote that about a possible race riot.

You cannot be serious.

Piser was subjected to an identification procedure and it was reported in the press.

Don't tell me the police were worried about a race riot.

What would have been the point of looking for a foreigner in his 40's, in a part of London full of foreigners, half of the men looking middle-aged?

The actual time of death would have been extremely important if we had some named suspects, and this was a trial.
This was only a coroner's inquest - to the coroner the precise time was not so important.
If Long had seen a named suspect, and Cadoche, as he left for work, had seen a named suspect, then yes the precise ToD would have been very important. In fact it couldn't have been defined to a 15 minute window in the late 19th century.
It's not C.S.I.

[A P Tomlinson]

Which circumstances in this case preclude someone else?

There is no proof that anyone was in the back yard of number 29 at that time.

Cadoche was not even sure that the 'no' he heard came from number 29.

And, unlike Phillips, he had not even come under any pressure to change or qualify his evidence.

On the subject of qualifyiing Philips' evidence... got anything to do that?
Anything that supports his estimate?

[Wickerman]

Which circumstances in this case preclude someone else?

There is no proof that anyone was in the back yard of number 29 at that time.

Cadoche was not even sure that the 'no' he heard came from number 29.

And, unlike Phillips, he had not even come under any pressure to change or qualify his evidence.

If it's dark and you hear voices, and a bump against a fence.
When looking over both fences (No.29 & No.25), and find a dead body beside the fence of No.29 - that is circumstantial evidence.
It is sufficient to ascribe the bump & voices to No.29.

[A P Tomlinson]

I can't believe you wrote that about a possible race riot.

You cannot be serious.

Piser was subjected to an identification procedure and it was reported in the press.

Don't tell me the police were worried about a race riot.

If you don't understand the difference between a man being brought in after being idenitfied as Leather Apron, a man who had feared for his life because of mob justice... and the Police exonerating him publicly, and the Police saying "we are looking for a dark foreigner in relation to the murders..." then. well... it explains a lot actually.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course, he did not work to a timetable.

But we are asked to believe that in this one case, the murderer chose to commit a murder as it was getting light even though he was in a location where he would be unable to sense anyone's approach, that the victim's body cooled unusually quickly, that rigor mortis set in unusually quickly, and that the murderer chose not to wash his bloodstained hands with the water from an easily visible tap.

It is unlikely.

But it’s not unlikely because we can’t know the killers circumstances. We can’t know that they were same on the day of the Chapman murder than they were on the day of the other murders. We might ask why he killed Nichols at 3.40 and yet he killed Stride before 1.00 (if he did kill Stride of course)

Please PI, will you stop saying that Rigor set in unusually quickly. All the experts tell us that rigor can start in under an hour and rigor hadn’t ‘set in.’ Phillips just said that the stiffening was commencing so she was in the very early stages. Perhaps he didn’t want to stand around washing his hands if he’d been spooked by a noise. Perhaps after being ‘in the zone’ killing Chapman he started to panic a little, thinking “I need to get out of here now!” And perhaps he was confident that whatever blood he might have had on him could be concealed by his outer clothing?

On the subject of Phillips. He was competent and he was experienced but….how many times would he have had experience of a body so badly mutilated as Annie Chapman? I think that it would be reasonable to suggest none.