John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

On the other hand, if she didn't see Annie, then she didn't notice Cadosche exit from next door, and he didn't see her (we can be pretty sure he left at the half hour as he specifically checked the Spitalfield's clock and it read 5:32, and it's a 2 minute walk from his house). So if Long did hear the half hour chime, then she should have been seeing Cadosche exit and Cadosche should have seen Long and should have seen a man and woman next door, which he denies.

Which suggests to me that Long mis-remembered the day on which she saw the couple.

I do not believe that the clocks were all wrong in just such a way as to enable the man seen by Long to murder Chapman and be heard by Cadoche.

Nor do I believe that the dark 'foreigner' in his forties was the Whitechapel Murderer.

Nor am I convinced that the woman he was seen talking with was a lady of the night.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Then why make it so small?

Because there was insufficient room to make it big.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hmmm, I've always enjoyed a bit of creative writing too Trevor. But, if we're going to pretend to know what Annie is thinking and what choices she would make, why bother working that out from the evidence of her being found in the back yard, rather, let's create a character who was too shy to go in, or who was afraid of getting caught, so we can make the plot go where we want it to. But why not create a character in our little made up stories that has a bit more gusto.

How about, instead, we make up this story. After a long night walking the streets, with no luck, she went to #29 knowing that people in the house started their day around 5:45 to 6:00, which was just over an hour away. (That's when Davies gets up). She figures she might get lucky and sell something to them as she had done before so she can finally go get a bed and some sleep. That's when she's approached by JtR, and knowing she's still got over 30 minutes before the house starts rising, figures this is a quicker and more sure source of income. And she figures she can deal with the people in the house. She's had a fist fight over less after all.

I'm sure others can make up their stories too, but perhaps these sorts of things are best left for the creative writing section of the boards?

- Jeff

The murderer has to be out and about looking for a victim at a much later hour than in any other murder in the series, he has to be prepared to commit a murder at a much later hour than in any other murder in the series, he has to be prepared to commit mutilations as it is starting to get light, and he has to forgo the opportunity to wash his hands with the water available.

Chapman has to have been wandering about for about 3 3/4 hours without being seen by anyone, to choose to go into the back yard of a house, the habits of whose occupants she was presumably familiar with, at about the time people started to get up, and still to have food in her stomach 3 3/4 hours after eating nothing more than potato.

Upon being murdered, her body has to cool unusually quickly and rigor mortis has to set in unusually quickly.

It is farfetched.

[Wickerman]

Because there was insufficient room to make it big.

What was wrong with all the other bricks?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What was wrong with all the other bricks?

I once read that the way the bricks of that jamb were arranged, it would not have been possible to write large letters on them.

I'm not sure which other bricks you mean.

[Lewis C]

Hi George

You have confirmed a point I made in a previous post where I stated Chapman knew this location as she he had been there selling items previously so she would probably have known that 17 people were residents at that address. So it would also be fair to say that Chapman took the killer to this secluded location long before the later TOD. I doubt she would have taken anyone to that location at the later time of the morning for fear of being caught.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You said this a couple days ago, and I replied to you, and A P Tomlinson replied to me. Here's what we said:

Me: My question here is, did outdoor prostitution sometimes occur in Whitechapel and Spitalfields between dawn and dusk? If so, I don't know what would have been a better place for it than Dutfield Yard. It did provide some measure of privacy, more than most outdoor locations. It was also a place that the police didn't patrol, so if they were seen there, they at least wouldn't be seen by someone who would arrest them.
(6106)

A P: We sort of have an idea that they did.

[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.

But... DOCTOR SAID FOUR THIRTY!!!!!!!!!
6132


If you're sticking with your original position, what do you have to say in response to our comments?

[Lewis C]

Chapman has to have been wandering about for about 3 3/4 hours without being seen by anyone, to choose to go into the back yard of a house, the habits of whose occupants she was presumably familiar with, at about the time people started to get up, and still to have food in her stomach 3 3/4 hours after eating nothing more than potato.

There's no way of knowing whether she ate anything after leaving the house at 1:50. I'm sure that she was seen by people, we just don't have a record of it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There's no way of knowing whether she ate anything after leaving the house at 1:50. I'm sure that she was seen by people, we just don't have a record of it.

She had no money, which makes it unlikely that she could have obtained any more food.

As for the person who, it has been suggested, kindly gave her some food for free, why did he not come forward?

How can we be sure that she was seen by people, when we don't even know how much longer she was alive?

[Wickerman]

I once read that the way the bricks of that jamb were arranged, it would not have been possible to write large letters on them.

I'm not sure which other bricks you mean.

The jamb was about 1.5 to 2 bricks wide, there was plenty of space to write one word on each brick to make it large enough to attract attention.
It's just an unusual spot to place a message if the writer left the apron inside where it's dark.

Some argue the apron was left there to draw attention to the message, yet Warren describes where the message was - on the jamb as you enter the building.
PC Long says he found the apron in the passage, that is not below the graffiti, but well away from it.
The entry must be dark at 2:00 so the rag can't be seen from the street.

PC Long has to enter the building, which is part of his duty, so he walks past the graffiti in the doorway, and with his lamp noticed a rag on the floor that wasn't there previously.
Even Halse said it couldn't be seen from the street, it was inside the building.

So, the apron was nowhere near the graffiti.

[Wickerman]

She had no money, which makes it unlikely that she could have obtained any more food.

As for the person who, it has been suggested, kindly gave her some food for free, why did he not come forward?
...

If you recall Kelly had ate not long before her murder, here we have Chapman in a similar state, we have someone buying grapes for Stride shortly before her murder.
I mentioned before about a woman who told a journalist that they hook up with a client and if he buys them drinks & food for the night they consider it a good night.
Their killer was dating them, in his own way. Chapman's killer bought her a baked potato, possibly?
I would say Eddowes missed out because he was so ticked-off, and worked up, at being interrupted with Stride he was anxious to get it done.

There were coffee stalls in Whitechapel High Street and fast food (baked potato?) carts until early morning.
I don't see the food issue with Chapman as such a problem, apparently neither did police.

[Fiver]

For the same reasons that the police at the time concluded that he was not.

The police did not conclude that the Ripper was not Jewish. Several supported Jewish suspects. Several supported non-Jewish suspects. Several had no suspect at all.

[Fiver]

I was referring to the fact that the police at the time were of the opinion that the writing on the wall was written by the murderer in order to pin the blame on the Jews.

The police of the time did not come to any conclusion about the graffito being written by the Ripper. Walter Dew appears to have not believed the GSG was written by the Ripper. Robert Anderson appears to have believed the GSG was the work of the Ripper, but he also said "In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact."

[Fiver]

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

My nick has to do with Watership Down.

IIRC, Trevor dismisses the eyewitness testimony as unsafe. He and other people who dismiss the eyewitnesses out of hand have given me the impression that a later time of death would contradict their theory.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Ok, but that sounds like the writer is making a threat. So, why write it so small?
A threat is meant to be seen, others are supposed to see it, but this was less than an inch tall.

It was seen.

I don't think it was a threat in the same way you could have in mind.

It's a general point as opposed to a call to action. Somebody was effectively writing: 'the Jews' are targeted because they are 'Jews' and they deserve it for being 'Jews'. Targeted in the sense of casual racism as opposed to any threat on the part of the author towards any particular 'Jew' or a group of 'Jews'.

I think the whole thing is overplayed and it has no bearing on the murders. It's most likely somebody who was writing down on a wall something which he or she heard quite often in the streets, simply casual racism in the same way you see graffiti on a wall today: somebody scrawling his or her thoughts down.

In terms of why it was so small, who knows, we can only guess; but the wider point is that whatever the reason for the writing being small, it is likely that it had no connection to the murders.

That won't be palatable for some, however, because it's a nice little bit of intrigue that people can discuss, like much of this case; when in all likelihood Jack was no different to someone like Peter Sutcliffe: not very bright, a psychopath, very lucky to not get caught, nothing 'cunning' or clever in his murder series, should have been hanged.

[A P Tomlinson]

Convenient. John disposes of his leather in a place where nobody could see it. And of course, when they searched the yard: nobody thought to look 'in the grass'.

'Probably a very tiny piece'? Is this from the same school of thought: 'sharp enough to cut some of his boot but not sharp enough to cut other parts of his boot'?



Because they searched the yard, or examined it, depending on whether or nor we're talking of Chandler or Dr Phillips, and they were looking for any possible evidence; such as an empty box they took away.

I'm going to go back to the question I asked bedfore. The answer to which so far has been "5 inches" but that's just silly and only suggests one dimension. In general leather is fairly thin but it can be fairly sizeable in terms of length and width/breadth.
Richardson had noticed previously that the leather on the inside of the boot was irritating him (probably having been repaired by a second or third rate cobbler) and cut a some of it away. He realised the next day that it was still irritating him. So he had to have cut enough of it away in the first instance to reduce the irritation to the point where it wasn't noticeable when he put the boot back on. Otherwise he would have simply taken the boot off again and finished the job.
It was only the following day that he realised it needed a bit more attention.
He tried to do that at 29, and wasn't able to cut enough of it away with the blunt knife, so went to work and used a better knife that he borrowed.

So... in your opinion how big would this piece of leather that was removed at Hanbury Street have been?

Here's mine. It was TINY. Maybe even just a few little scrapings with the blunt bladed knife.
(Maybe the knife simply wasn't good enough to cut all the way through and there was no leather left on scene at all.)

This was the yard of a semi derelict slum terrace building where they made packing cases. Many of those cases would have been finished IN the yard due to the size of the door and the cellar steps. There were probably little offfcuts of wood, splinters, bent nails, and all sorts of common detritus in the yard. It wasn't a tidily kept garden. A TINY and I'm talking nail clippping sized, piece of leather would barely have been noticed by a modern organised fingertip search on hands and knees. Victorian coppers wandering round the yard weren't looking for that sort of evidence. What would they even DO with it???
"I found a box guv!"
"No blood stained knife yet?"
"No guv..."
"OK... take the box, it won't help, but we need to show we made an effort..."
Was about as good as it got
This is NOT one of those instances where an absence of evidence IS evidence in itself.

The Police officers on scene quite possibly DID remove it!
On the bottom of one of their boots.

It might have been IN the ruddy box they took, and so small they still considered the box empty! (And that's only HALF joking...)

If you think it was big enough to notice, please... say how big you think it was and why you think it would BE that big given the previous repair, and subsequent failure to complete it in the yard.

I've shown my working out... over to you.