John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

If you were to select your own place to murder a woman, would you have picked an alley beside an active club where people are coming and going?

The equivalent of saying: if you were going to buy a house would you buy a terraced house in a crime ridden area? Not if you have other options afforded by money.

But, if that's the only option open to you, then that's the option you'll take.

You can only assess an option in relation to the other options at your disposal.

And Jack didn't have meaningfully better options. Hanbury Street, the subject of this thread, was hardly a place where somebody would choose to commit a murder in an ideal scenario.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And the opinions of the world’s authorities on forensic medicine are of more value than ours and yet you appear to think that you know something that they’ve missed.

I've no idea what you're talking about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've no idea what you're talking about.

And that’s your problem.

[Wickerman]

The equivalent of saying: if you were going to buy a house would you buy a terraced house in a crime ridden area? Not if you have other options afforded by money.

But, if that's the only option open to you, then that's the option you'll take.

It was his choice though, he could have passed on it and escorted her to another location better suited, or just drop the idea for tonight.
He did have choices, didn't he?

You can only assess an option in relation to the other options at your disposal.

And Jack didn't have meaningfully better options. Hanbury Street, the subject of this thread, was hardly a place where somebody would choose to commit a murder in an ideal scenario.

There were plenty of vacant houses, dark passages.
You will agree, whether he was brought to No.29 or he brought her there, he was not coerced into killing her.
He did have a choice.

With Eddowes, there were empty houses right beside where he left her body, so he had choices again.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Swanson chose to believe that Lawende was far more reliable a witness than Long.

And he was undoubtedly right, in my opinion.

Swanson was not at all impressed by Lawende in his report to The Home Office on 6th November. He said that Lawende could not identify the man, and could not identify the woman, "but to the best of his belief, the clothing of the deceased, which was black, was similar to that worn by the woman whom he had seen, and that was the full extent of his identity."

That was not an impressive endorsement of Lawende as a useful witness.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he [Lawende] saw was the murderer

(SWANSON)

[Fleetwood Mac]

It was his choice though, he could have passed on it and escorted her to another location better suited, or just drop the idea for tonight.
He did have choices, didn't he?

In the event you assume he was able to waltz those women around to wherever he wanted, then he had those choices.

But, it's a big assumption. I would say an unlikely one.

[Paul Sutton]

If you were to select your own place to murder a woman, would you have picked an alley beside an active club where people are coming and going?

All of the locations seem nuts. But the activity itself is none too sane, either. To me, the locations are the most underdiscussed - or certainly underexplained - aspect of the whole thing. That's why I keep boring on about there being some other factor which both makes them less nuts than they ostensibly seem, and that even perhaps explains them: were they chosen or opportunistic?

Waterloo made a good suggestion, on categorising them, on the thread which specifically addresses the riskiness of the sites.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have been accused of insulting other posters in this thread, which is untrue.

The person making the allegation has denied insulting me.

Now he accuses me and others of dishonesty.

I suppose that doesn't count as an insult!

[Doctored Whatsit]

'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman
By Wolf Vanderlinden

Chandler's report, dated on the day of the murder, said, "The Doctor pronounced life extinct and stated the woman had been dead at least two hours." Ref. MEPO 3/140, ff. 9-11

Thanks George,

I was certain I had seen it somewhere, but thought it was at the inquest! This therefore re-opens my question. Chandler had two conflicting reports by 7 am at the site. How could the police have failed to advise Phillips of this major issue before the inquest? It needed to be resolved as quickly as possible. I feel certain that they must have done so.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Would anyone care to hazard a guess at how often Dr. Phillips would have been called to estimate the ToD of a person that had been ripped to shreds as Annie had been? What was his level of experience for this kind of estimate?

I don’t know about anyone else but I’d say zero. He’d have usually dealt with natural causes, or beatings, or stabbing or the occasional throat cutting.

And the medical text books wouldn't have illustrations and advice about cases such as this. This was almost certainly something far worse than anything in his experience, and none of the reference works would have been of any real help. He was on his own in uncharted medical forensic territory.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks George,

I was certain I had seen it somewhere, but thought it was at the inquest! This therefore re-opens my question. Chandler had two conflicting reports by 7 am at the site. How could the police have failed to advise Phillips of this major issue before the inquest? It needed to be resolved as quickly as possible. I feel certain that they must have done so.

But, whatever was said to Phillips, it did not change his mind.

He maintained his opinion that death had occured at least two hours before he examined the body.

The qualification was a concession to the witness evidence, but did not reflect a change of opinion.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It is therefore reasonable to believe that the man he [Lawende] saw was the murderer

(SWANSON)

Hi PI,

Can you source your quote please? It would be interesting to know what could have happened to change Swanson's mind to the point where identification rose to "reasonable".

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have been accused of insulting other posters in this thread, which is untrue.

The person making the allegation has denied insulting me.

Now he accuses me and others of dishonesty.

I suppose that doesn't count as an insult!

Isn’t it a little childish to start talking about ‘the person?’

Let me explain, not that it will make any difference of course, but I’ll try one last time. None of us on here are experts in forensic medicine, not me, not you, not anyone. Ok? But there are people in the world that are experts and they have written widely on the subject and produced masses of literature based on their knowledge and experience which is based on experimentation and the knowledge that comes from other experts. Ok? Their work is available for us to read and to compare with other experts to see if they all agree with each other or whether there are ‘dissenting’ voices or ‘schools of thought.’ Ok? When we read what these authorities/experts tell us about the use of rigor and algor mortis to estimate ToD there are no ‘dissenting voices’ or ‘schools of thought.’ Ok? Opinion is unanimous in that these methods are unreliable even today and so in 1888 would have been much more unreliable due to the far less advanced knowledge. Ok? Due to some criteria being known today which can affect both which weren’t known then. Ok?

None of the above is my own ‘opinion.’ It’s not how I’ve ‘interpreted’ what’s been written. And I haven’t invented it. And I haven’t tried to claim it as my own knowledge based on personal expertise. Ok?

So, when posters on here who, again, have no expertise on the subject, constantly and repeatedly try and cast an element of doubt in the above or to try and add their ‘opinion’ or their own ‘take’ in it whilst trying to favour an earlier ToD, what would you call that? Honesty? Misspeaking? I’m sorry but I call it dishonesty. It’s not taking an honest approach because there’s only one honest approach in these circumstances and that is to agree 100% with the only people that know what they are talking about. The experts in Forensics. Those same experts that tell us, without exception, that Dr. Phillips was using unreliable methods of estimating the ToD. Not that he couldn’t have gotten it right PI because no one can claim that, but that we simply cannot rely on 4.30 or before.

So, again as we’re talking of honesty, why is it still happening PI. Why are people still questioning these authorities? Something else is obvious PI. The only people that think that they know better; or that they are in a position to second guess the experts, are from the side that favours an earlier ToD. Coincidence?

By the way, I don’t include George in the above because although he favours an earlier ToD he doesn’t suggest that the experts might be wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But, whatever was said to Phillips, it did not change his mind.

He maintained his opinion that death had occured at least two hours before he examined the body.

The qualification was a concession to the witness evidence, but did not reflect a change of opinion.

That is untrue. You just can’t help yourself can you PI. What evidence do you have that Phillips made his caveat in light of witnesses? And even if he had done why would he have unless he’d felt that the witnesses might have been correct? Think it through PI and stop digging holes for yourself.