John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

Which is one of the reason's the 'risk' factor could very well have been important to him.
Back in '72, or thereabouts, I was in Mitre Square as 1:30 in the morning. I've said before it looks like you are on a stage, if full view of anyone coming at you from three corners, and your back is to the wall. You have no escape.
I see the same risk in Hanbury Street, Dutfields Yards, and Bucks Row, and how could he know no-one would come knocking at Mary Kelly's door?

We mostly overlook these factors because most of us don't see the crime from the killer's point of view. There were lots of places in the East End to kill someone and get away, dark alley's where you can just stab & run, but he did much more than that. For various psychological reason's he chose open spaces, or risky locations, he chose to spend time with them, both before the murder and after. He had a need to mutilate, which takes time, although it wasn't necessary - at least not to our way of thinking.
When we add all these points together we can see, or at least I can see, he was not overly concerned about being caught, so there had to be a reason for him to take his time like he did.

He's probably the kind of person who could stand in front of a train, right until the last second before jumping aside, as it blows by, he gets a rush out of it. It's the adrenaline factor.
And of course, if he did ever get caught, he had a mean weapon in his hand that very likely no-one else would have, to enable his escape.

This is classic theorising based on some preconceived idea, just running it through your mind divorced from that which actually happens, rather than look at what human beings actually do; in this instance serial killers.

It is highly unusual for a serial killer to murder at a location such as 29 Hanbury Street in daylight.

Whatever you have come up with in your mind, completely divorced from experience, it is unlikely that Jack murdered at that time of the morning in that location.

The reason being, serial killers very rarely do that. You can theorise until the cows come home but that is the reality of the situation. And, human experience counts for far more than a few people on a message board attempting to conjure up the unlikely.

To be frank, in this post you say a lot that is no more than pie in the sky with no substance behind it.

I think you're more of a speculator than I am, Jon, which is fine; but it is undoubtedly the case that your speculation does not compete with the experience of serial killers such as Jack.

[Fiver]

No, experience in actual crime detection cannot be equated with the work of armchair detectives. Which isn't to decry the work done by the latter. But experience covers so much - gut feeling, intuition, all that.

I don't doubt many armchair jockeys are cleverer then policemen. But intelligence isn't the only factor.

A police officer who was forced out at age 34 for failing to do his job and couldn't even manage a bicycle lost and found properly does not inspire confidence. Then we add in his claim of being "a murder squad detective with Bedfordshire police for 28 years", which is only possible if he was promoted to detective at age 6.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Does the article offer any justification for using eye witnesses at all?

It's not 'the article', Jon.

There are a whole raft of studies out there that by virtue of analysis of witness statements, have concluded that those statements are often unreliable.

Let's have it right, lots of studies, lots of empirical data.

But, the articles are concerned with recollection of events and unreliability due to the mechanism of the human mind, as opposed to those times when the witnesses got it right.

We know that two women attacked by Peter Sutcliffe gave outstanding photofits and so nobody is suggesting witness statements are worthless.

Albert in particular, however, was susceptible to an erroneous recollection because he had no reason to analyse what was going on around him.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The reason being, serial killers very rarely do that. You can theorise until the cows come home but that is the reality of the situation. And, human experience counts for far more than a few people on a message board attempting to conjure up the unlikely.

I do not want to be misunderstood when I write this as having a go at Wickerman, which is not my intention.

The 'unlikely' does, unfortunately, tend to dominate discussion here, especially when made in response to comments made by me!

Such comments have included the following: Jewish sailors, a Polish Jew who dressed as a sailor so that he would not appear to be a Polish Jew, a Jewish suspect in a case in which the suspect was not known by the witness to be Jewish, wearing religious fringes and head covering at a police identification and then speaking with the witness in Yiddish, the same Jewish suspect shouting what was a well-known anti-Jewish insult as a person of pronouncedly Jewish appearance passed by, and the Jewish witness recognising a suspect as a relative, and yet having to be reminded that the relative was Jewish.

Many of these totally ludicrous suggestions have been made, not only as if they are perfectly sensible, but as if they are evidently more sensible than any made by me!

[Fleetwood Mac]

His experience is very arguable.

Bad form. Advertising something that most people on here knew nothing about and the person in question would rather wasn't posted. It's a place to discuss and argue from time to time but not to bring personal matters into it, or at least it shouldn't be.

'Says a lot about you.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Or, do we gather all the statements and work through them to see what fits, what contradicts, and what is still debatable?

Of course we look at all of the information.

We have a wealth of information that points away from Annie being alive at a quarter past five in the morning.

Then we have 2 witnesses, or possibly only one, who suggest otherwise.

So, it's a case of which is most likely. When we consider that witness testimony is often unreliable, particularly someone in Albert's situation, then the weight of evidence tips further away from a later of TOD.

But, aye, all of the information is considered and it's a case of which scenario is most likely while not been provable.

[jmenges]

Bad form. Advertising something that most people on here knew nothing about and the person in question would rather wasn't posted. It's a place to discuss and argue from time to time but not to bring personal matters into it, or at least it shouldn't be.

'Says a lot about you.

If you had bothered to read the linked thread, Fiver was reposting something I originally posted.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course we look at all of the information.

We have a wealth of information that points away from Annie being alive at a quarter past five in the morning.

Then we have 2 witnesses, or possibly only one, who suggest otherwise.

So, it's a case of which is most likely. When we consider that witness testimony is often unreliable, particularly someone in Albert's situation, then the weight of evidence tips further away from a later of TOD.

But, aye, all of the information is considered and it's a case of which scenario is most likely while not been provable.

You even manipulate the number of witnesses.

There are three witnesses who all point strongly to a later ToD and who require an embarrassing campaign of distortion, babyish logic and a deliberate distortion of the language to manufacture a false case for dismissing them.

You should try assessing witnesses before simply using the ‘witnesses can be mistaken,’ line to dismiss them.. Truisms prove nothing.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Fleetwood Mac made a factually correct statement about the relevant number of witnesses.

He is no more guilty of manipulation of evidence than I am of invention.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If you had bothered to read the linked thread, Fiver was reposting something I originally posted.

JM

A bit of back and forth is one thing; advertising an event from the past that clearly isn't going to be the liking of the subject person, in order to support a point of view on a message board, is another.

I for one didn't know anything about it and I'm sure there are more.

Is that what you want on your board? It's opinions on a case and explanations, and not a journey into someone's career; or at least it should be.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Daily News 13 Sep:
Have you seen any strangers in the passage of the house?-Yes, lots; plenty of them, at all hours.
Men and women?-Yes; and I have turned them out. I have seen them lying down on the landing.
Do they go there for an immoral purpose?-They do. I have caught them.

This has puzzled me for a while. The couples that Richardson found and turned out were in the house. They were in the passage and on the landings. Why, on a cold morning, would Annie instead take Jack into the back yard? Did proceedings commence in the house, Jack strangles her and then carries her into the yard to begin the bloodwork. This would be OK in darkness, but would not be conducive of Cadosch hearing a "No", and if the bump was Jack putting her body down then surely Cadosch must have seen him open the door and descend the steps. Even if Jack found her rough sleeping, that still would have been in the house.

Cheer, George

Hi George,

That's a good question. Obviously one we can never really know the answer to (as you know, I am reluctant to presume too much about how any of the people involved "thought" in terms of why they chose certain options). However, my reluctance aside, your point is an interesting issue. One thing is that Richardson has found people in the passage way specifically, which seems to me to suggest such activities were not all that rare during his morning visits to check the lock. In addition, finding people in the landing doesn't mean he didn't also, on occasion, find people in the back yard, though of course he doesn't say one way or the other. It may be that with a bit more questioning he would have told us that the backyard was also a location he sometimes found people for the same reason, but the question posed was about the passage and he only answered the question asked. I would think in a trial we would have had this explored more thoroughly, so we're left a bit short on the details.

Those thoughts aside, I think the reason I'm reluctant on the issue of "why did Annie take JtR to the backyard?" is because I'm not sure it had to be Annie who was the one who chose to go to the backyard. It seems entirely possible that JtR was the one who suggested they move to the backyard, out of the passageway (he might have felt the passage was not suited for his purposes after all). We know they ended up there, and I would think Annie was probably the one to suggest entering #29, but who made the decision to move to the backyard is not so clear to me. Your question raises that question, though, and I admit I've not thought about that issue specifically, partly because I tend to focus on trying to first decide what appears to have happened and then, if possible, draw inferences about possible reasons for making such decisions, rather than start with trying to decide what decisions were available and using my impression of what decision is likely to infer what happened (iI hope that makes sense; basically, given we know they went to the backyard, I don't go "Hmm, going to the backyard is not a decision I think reasonable, so they must not have done that" - when clearly they did, so the puzzle might become more of a "Hmmm, given going to the backyard seems odd, why did they make that decision?", and that's what lead me to wonder if it was Annie or JtR who made that decision.)

Anyway, interesting issue to ponder. While I'm sure there's multiple ideas that could be generated, and no way for us to truly evaluate them, that doesn't mean exploring the possible ideas can't be a fruitful exercise, even if only so that we don't get stuck into thinking there's only one way to tell that bit of the story.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

The 'unlikely' does, unfortunately, tend to dominate discussion here

I reckon people like to theorise, PI.

It's a 'whodunnit'.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You even manipulate the number of witnesses.

I don't think I have.

Albert didn't claim to hear something suspicious. A witness to what?

So that leaves John Richardson and his boot adventures.

And Elizabeth, who in her own words didn't take much notice, and that's at half five in the morning and Annie's body was discovered at six.

And Albert's and Elizabeth's timings don't fit, which rules one of them out unless you claim: "all of the clocks were wrong, but as luck would have it they were wrong in the right way".

So, when I say: "two, possibly one", that's not plucking something out of thin air.

[JeffHamm]

I think if you read in between her lines, she was suggesting that the man was a shabby Jew, not a shabby Gentile, Jeff.

Hi PI,

Oops, that should have read "shabby-genteel", not shabby Gentile! But yes, I agree reading between the lines of her description of a "dark foreigner" implies Jewish, given her view of the man was admittedly not good, I would not place much faith in those details even if it could be proven she definitely saw JtR. From what she describes as her view of the man, noting things like relative height to the woman, and his clothing, would not be impaired regardless of the viewing angle. Details like age and ethnicity are more likely to be error prone and so should be treated with far more caution, even if the sighting itself is valid.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think I have.

Albert didn't claim to hear something suspicious. A witness to what?

So that leaves John Richardson and his boot adventures.

And Elizabeth, who in her own words didn't take much notice, and that's at half five in the morning and Annie's body was discovered at six.

And Albert's and Elizabeth's timings don't fit, which rules one of them out unless you claim: "all of the clocks were wrong, but as luck would have it they were wrong in the right way".

So, when I say: "two, possibly one", that's not plucking something out of thin air.

It’s a complete invention. It’s obviously contagious.

Richardson was clearly telling the truth and it was physically impossible for him to have missed a corpse. The idea is preposterous.

Cadosch heard a ‘no’ and a noise against the fence in a yard where you claim that there was a mutilated corpse. What else could it have been? Nothing. Your forced to stoop to silliness. That he heard a noise from a distance away but mistook it for a noise against a fence y feet away.

Long timing fits unless we stupidly claim the clocks were perfectly synchronised. Oh, you do.

But you’re certainly consistent. Not only was a Victorian Doctor more advanced in his knowledge than a modern day one, apparently Victorian clocks were better synchronised and more reliable than modern day ones.

Consistently wrong.