John Richardson

[Paul Sutton]

There’s nothing wrong with putting the case for an earlier ToD but there is if you use certain tactics.

The first and main point is that no opinion can be taken seriously unless you accept, 100% and with no equivocations or maybe’s or what if’s that Dr Phillips was using unreliable methods to estimate the ToD. That has to be the starting position of any discussion.

This sounds like the bunker scene in Downfall...

[Ms Diddles]

And no-one could see her when she was sitting quietly?

It is not as though in all the sightings of the victims, they were always moving or noisy.

No they weren't. That is true, but they were out in public places interacting with other people.

Assuming Annie did want to take a rest, she would presumably choose somewhere where she was unlikely to be disturbed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you tried those tablets Stride used? Can't recall the name, but they are good apparently.

Strange comment in response to a perfectly reasonable post..but hey.

[Wickerman]

That is not correct.

Really?

Brown - "I saw her about a quarter to one on Sunday morning"

Schwartz - "at 12:45 Israel Schwartrz"...etc....etc.... (Swanson).

But, in any case, I did not include Brown's sighting of her in my count.

I included Pc Smith's earlier sighting instead.

I didn't say you did.
I showed you three alternate but conflicting situations that show your point of view is not correct.

Are we to assume you side with Maxwell? - you made no response over her claim.

[Paul Sutton]

Strange comment in response to a perfectly reasonable post..but hey.

Why is this issue important? Forget all the competing ideas, what would be achieved if you are right; what is at stake?

If you can't answer simply, then it's a discussion about nothing.

[Ms Diddles]

I myself am at a loss to understand what heresy I have committed by putting the case for an earlier time of death.

No heresy in my book, P.I.

It's just that having considered what we know, I respectfully disagree.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Christer's approach is exemplary?!!

It's not exemplary in the same way nobody else is exemplary.

On the other hand, he's put some very useful information on some of these threads, e.g. speaking with professionals and relaying that information. I'd have thought that should be appreciated rather than pour scorn because he has a suspect that you don't agree with.

The reality is that whether or not you agree with the Lechmere theory, and I'm confident that there is nothing of substance beyond Lechmere being there by the way: Lechmere is a better suspect than most mentioned. For the simple reason he was there and most of the other suspects have nothing to link them to the crime scenes.

In the event the answer is in the information somewhere, I'd wager that it lies with one of these witnesses mentioned in the statements who is innocuous to us because we don't know anything about him, rather than lying in some of the well known suspects who have no connection to the crime sites.

In the end though, it's a case of argue the point and not the poster.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Here we go again. Yet another person who simply thinks that he knows more than the authorities on the subject.


Yet another person who agrees with Swanson about the reliability of Long's sighting of Chapman.

But perhaps you don't include Swanson in the authorities?



His opinion isn’t being downplayed in any way. It’s being described exactly as it was. It’s irrelevant how you or I or anyone sees Phillips estimate. He could have been right; he could have been wrong. You cannot skew it one way purely because of wish-thinking.


If the accusation of wishful thinking can be made, why should it be made only against those on one side of the argument?



So you say…in light of….no one saw came forward and said that they’d seen Annie…Phillips estimate looks reasonable. Brilliant.


That's right.



What about….. in light of…..a witness who was 100% confident that she wasn’t in the yard at 4.45…..a witness. Who heard a noise and a voice coming from the yard…….a witness who said that she saw Annie at 5.30.


What about the contradictory character of that witness' testimony, the fact that the second witness could not be certain as to where the voice came from, and the police scepticism of the value of the third witness' testimony?



Three witnesses that you spend ages trying to demonise and denigrate.


That is completely untrue and, since you are often keen on challenging me to find someone who agrees with me, I challenge you to find someone who agrees with you about that.



John Richardson alone is enough to kick Phillips guess into touch.


That is ridiculous.

We know that Phillips examined the body.

We cannot know that Richardson sat on the step.



Later ToD overwhelmingly likely now, overwhelmingly likely tomorrow.


I think you are overstating your case, as always.

In spite of my being treated as if I am an heretic, I have never made similar claims of near certainty about an earlier TOD to yours about a later TOD.

I have simply made the case for it and have noticed that it causes remarkable irritation and even sometimes explosive responses, and wonder why.



Desperate attempts to prove otherwise are noticeably getting more and more embarrassing.


What is desperate about presenting a case?

Why should someone be embarrassed by obviously-exaggerated denunciations of it?

[Paul Sutton]

I fully admit I've already participated, but most Ripper debates seem to fit the description given of the British poetry scene:

'A knife fight in a phone-box.'

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is this issue important? Forget all the competing ideas, what would be achieved if you are right; what is at stake?

If you can't answer simply, then it's a discussion about nothing.

Why are there threads on any topic to do with the case on here? Why do people dispute whether the letters are genuine? Why do people dispute whether the graffito was written by the killer? Why is there an extended debate on whether Schwartz saw what he said that he saw? Every thread can’t just be about who was the ripper.

What else do you think that we should be discussing? If other topics are brought up they get discussed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not exemplary in the same way nobody else is exemplary.

On the other hand, he's put some very useful information on some of these threads, e.g. speaking with professionals and relaying that information. I'd have thought that should be appreciated rather than pour scorn because he has a suspect that you don't agree with.

The reality is that whether or not you agree with the Lechmere theory, and I'm confident that there is nothing of substance beyond Lechmere being there by the way: Lechmere is a better suspect than most mentioned. For the simple reason he was there and most of the other suspects have nothing to link them to the crime scenes.

In the event the answer is in the information somewhere, I'd wager that it lies with one of these witnesses mentioned in the statements who is innocuous to us because we don't know anything about him, rather than lying in some of the well known suspects who have no connection to the crime sites.

In the end though, it's a case of argue the point and not the poster.

And I accept that he should be considered but I think that he’s a poor suspect. And you could be right about there might be some piece of important information that we’ve missed. And you’re right in that we should argue the point not the poster but that should apply to all and not just me.

[Paul Sutton]

Why are there threads on any topic to do with the case on here? Why do people dispute whether the letters are genuine? Why do people dispute whether the graffito was written by the killer? Why is there an extended debate on whether Schwartz saw what he said that he saw? Every thread can’t just be about who was the ripper.

What else do you think that we should be discussing? If other topics are brought up they get discussed.

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?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why do people dispute whether the graffito was written by the killer?

In many cases, because their preferred suspect is Jewish.

[Wickerman]

Why is this issue important? Forget all the competing ideas, what would be achieved if you are right; what is at stake?

If you can't answer simply, then it's a discussion about nothing.

Since 1998 we've debated the in's & out's of practically everything in these cases, except perhaps the colour of Diemshutz's cart horse.
So now, we often get bogged down in the minutae of the cases. In this instance the debate (although it has not been mentioned for what seems like a Coon's age), whether Richardson could have seen the body of Chapman laying beside the house steps at 4:45 am, as he sat on the steps, or stood by the top of the cellar steps.
Not the first time this has been debated either.

However, recently, the debate has shifted to what Dr Phillips was meaning when he told the court Chapman had been dead "for at least 2 hours, probably more", then to correct his statement by calling the courts attention to the fact the morning was sufficiently cold, the body sufficiently mutilated, and blood loss sufficient to cause the body to loose it's temperature more rapidly than the accepted charts/tables/formulae's would suggest.

So, did she die at 4:30 (Phillips initial assessment), or about 5:30 (witness testimony)?

Edit: By the way, Phillips is supposed to have said "at least 2+ hours" about 6:30 am, - hence the 4:30 ToD.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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?

A dark, foreign-looking (probably Jewish) man in his forties, who probably did not write the graffito.