John Richardson

[Wickerman]

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!

I can take criticism, but are you sure it is me you are talking about?
All I recently said to you about Jews was "Andersons Bull$*t".

[Wickerman]

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.

So how much of it points to her death at 4:30 am?

[Lewis C]

I don't want to fall out with you over these potatoes, Lewis!

I re-read the evidence and we know she brought beer to the lodging house and, unless she found potato(es) there, potato(es), which she may have eaten in the kitchen.

There is no evidence that she had anything other than potatoes and beer and no reason to suppose that having obviously used her visit to the lodging house to eat and drink there, she took any food with her.

I don't want to fall out with you either.

There's no evidence either way about whether she ate after 1:50. However, It doesn't seem unlikely to me. She could have taken part of her meal with her, she could have already stored some food in her clothing, she could have been given some food by her killer.

[Wickerman]

No, but I am suggesting that the evidence suggests that she brought her potatoes to the lodging house to eat them there, ate her potatoes at the lodging house, and then went out to find a customer, minus her potatoes.

Yes, but baked potatoes were sold on hot-food carts up Whitechapel High Street through the night.

[Wickerman]

Because he was worried about possible revenge by a Jewish sailor with a fair moustache.

But seriously, why was Long not given protection from the 40 + dark foreigner, or Schwartz from the broad-shouldered ruffian, or Hutchinson from the rich Jew with the expensive watch?

I have no idea - should I know?

[Hair Bear]

But the leather was from inside the boot and so probably a very tiny piece. Richardson might have chucked it into the grass. Why would a small piece of leather have stood out? Why would a small piece of leather been of interest to the police if Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair to Chandler?

Since he put the knife in his pocket he may well have also have put the leather with it.

[Fiver]

Arguably, one of the best, or better known, witnesses was Lawende. He did not come forward to tell police what he saw. They discovered him on a house-to-house inquiry following the murder - pure chance.
He is the only witness we know of who was sequestered away in a hotel for his own protection. Possibly a reflection of his concern for his life, could be why he chose not to come forward in the first place.

That's the first I've heard of either of those points. What are the sources for Lawende not coming forward and later being sequestered in a hotel for his own protection?

[Wickerman]

That's the first I've heard of either of those points. What are the sources for Lawende not coming forward and later being sequestered in a hotel for his own protection?

Hi Fiver.

The first one must be in the press, I have not renewed my membership of B.N.A. yet so can't look it up.
The second point is to be found in the Press Reports here on Casebook.

"And on the first blush of it the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about."
Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888.

It's easy to find due to the unique word 'sequestrated', there's only one example of that. Although it is a genuine word I think the press made a spelling mistake for sequestered. Both words exist in The Dictionary of the English Language, 1881.

[A P Tomlinson]

The odd thing is, we have no surviving written opinion by Anderson throughout the duration of these murders that he suspected a Jew.
The only official memo is one he penned on 23 Oct. 1888 (Ultimate, p.134), where he writes:

"That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime."

It appears Anderson developed his incarcerated Jew theory after he retired, yet he telescopes it back as if it was applicable to the force in general during the murders.

It also kind of throws the grafitto out as a "clue" in his opinion. If they considered that the killer had effectively signed his work... surely that would fall under the heading of "...clue being supplied by the criminal..."

[Ms Diddles]

Yes, but baked potatoes were sold on hot-food carts up Whitechapel High Street through the night.

https://spitalfieldslife.com/2011/08/19/henry-mayhews-street-traders/

Nice Henry Mayhew interview with a Spitalfields baked potato seller (and other street hawkers).

[Fleetwood Mac]

Tell me, how usual is it for a killer to rip open the abdomen and pull the intestines out and throw them?
Would you call it "usual", "unusual", or "highly unusual"?
What do statistics tell you?

Actually Jon,

An investigation into the association between cannibalism and serial killers - PMC (nih.gov)

A significant number of serial killers demonstrate post-mortem manipulation, mutilation and, in some cases, cannibalism of their victims (Ressler & Shactman, 1997; Wiest, 2016).

Regardless, you're presenting a straw man argument.

You and Herlock are going right through the gears: non sequitur, bandwagon fallacy, reductio ad absurdum and now straw man.

A spot of self-reflection should tell you that between you, you cannot offer a sensible reply to two points:

1) It is highly unlikely that a serial killer would murder in that location at that time of the day.
2) Witnesses such as Albert Cadosche, are prone to recollecting events that did not actually happen that way in their entirety.

[Fleetwood Mac]

When all the studies are done, do they really tell us anything we don't already know?

'Look back through the last 10 pages on this thread, and the answer is a unanimous yes: they do tell some people here something they didn't know.

You're saying you know all about these studies, based on empirical data.

What do these studies suggest in relation to the accuracy of Albert's recollection of events?

[Fleetwood Mac]

So how much of it points to her death at 4:30 am?

Have you been reading the thread?

Various forms of information have been put forward to suggest Annie was not alive at a quarter past five in the morning.

By the way, my opinion is that poor Annie had been butchered before half four in the morning, and when Dr Phillips stated: "and probably more", he was correct.

But, we're just going to go back 'round the houses again with the same points here.

A discussion surrounding Albert's witness statement in the context of a wealth of studies, would be new and refreshing.

[New Waterloo]

I have been reading most of this. Yes my head is hurting! I do realize that people make things up and make statements to that effect but most people who give statements believe they themselves are telling the truth the best they can. Otherwise if we challenged every single point the whole justice system would collapse.

We do have valuable evidence from both Cadosche and Long and if we look at what they both said in relation to each other then we may have something. I am sure this has all been discussed before but here goes anyway.

Cadosch is not entirely sure where the noise came from BUT a terrible murder does take place in that yard. I think it is reasonable to believe he heard something hitting a fence at between 5.15 and 5.30. Perhaps we can agree on that.

Long sees a man and a woman and she says (after viewing the dead body) that it is Chapman. She says that they were standing outside no 29. She says it was 5.30. Now I think it is reasonable to suggest that Long saw a man and a woman. I think it is also reasonable to suggest that they were outside no 29

Somewhere the timing is amiss. WE ALL KNOW THAT, YOU ARE SHOUTING!

We cannot answer the timing question, but we do have their statements.

If Cadosch is correct in his timing then when he leaves through his front door at 5.32am he does not see Long or the man and woman. Where are they??? Perhaps they have disappeared into the street or they are in the back yard. They are not magic.

If Long sees the couple at 5.30am outside no 29 where is Cadosch leaving the premises. Now some of you will be very precise and say there is a 2 minute gap (Cadosch time he says he left and Long time when she saw the couple.

If we work out where she was coming from and how long she viewed them for then we can reduce this.

Now you will all say Long and Cadosch state different times. Well as I say we cant answer that and never will. But Long saw what she saw and Cadosch heard what he heard.

On the basis of these statements it seems to me Cadosch heard movement either shortly before, during or after the murder in that yard. Long saw a couple, maybe not Chapman and JTR but as I say where did they go if not them ???

Thoughts on a post card

NW

[Fleetwood Mac]

Long timing fits unless we stupidly claim the clocks were perfectly synchronised.

Argumentum ad Lapidem: dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.

Your response that 'the clocks were not perfectly synchronised' does not begin to explain the discrepancy.

You are the master of logical fallacies.