John Richardson

[GBinOz]

As i tend to do also George, however

How do we know the Brewers clock was out by 5,10 15 mins, if it chimed at exactly 5.30am as it is designed to do ? by what comparison to another clock or any clock at the time and location would anyone be able to say it wasnt ? unless we are assuming that at 5.25am the chimes went off instead of 5.30am. Surley not.

Hi Fishy,

The clock would chime or strike as designed, but the Brewer's clock could have showed a time of 5:25 (but still chimed 5 minutes later) while the clock at the Whitechapel church showed 5:30. Have a look at Post #2 here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/8950-a-matter-of-timing-berner-street-witness-time#post120389

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I think you can take it that there was a lot of activity in the street. 'Not necessarily to the level in the photograph, but still a decent amount of activity.

Hi FM,

If there was market activity in Brick Lane and at Spitalfields Market, only a block and a half away, I would think that there is a likelihood of such activity also in Hanbury St. But according to our resident linguistics expert, because Long didn't specifically say there were other people around, the street must have been nearly deserted. Amelia Richardson must have been referring to a market elsewhere:
Amelia Richardson at the Inquest:
"But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle."

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

It would certainly be much easier to debate this topic if this simple rule of thumb was followed.

It would Fishy, but that wouldn't enable the linguistics expert and the repository of all sense to dazzle we lesser mortals with their brilliance.

[DJA]

Westminster Chimes Westminster Quarters Big Ben - YouTube

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

The clock would chime or strike as designed, but the Brewer's clock could have showed a time of 5:25 (but still chimed 5 minutes later) while the clock at the Whitechapel church showed 5:30. Have a look at Post #2 here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/8950-a-matter-of-timing-berner-street-witness-time#post120389

Cheers, George

Thanks George

[FISHY1118]

It would Fishy, but that wouldn't enable the linguistics expert and the repository of all sense to dazzle we lesser mortals with their brilliance.

[FISHY1118]

Hi FM,

If there was market activity in Brick Lane and at Spitalfields Market, only a block and a half away, I would think that there is a likelihood of such activity also in Hanbury St. But according to our resident linguistics expert, because Long didn't specifically say there were other people around, the street must have been nearly deserted. Amelia Richardson must have been referring to a market elsewhere:
Amelia Richardson at the Inquest:
"But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle."

Cheers, George

[DJA]

It would Fishy, but that wouldn't enable the linguistics expert and the repository of all sense to dazzle we lesser mortals with their brilliance.

Would his name be Enguistic Lixpert

[GBinOz]

just can't let people have their own opinion can you ,

Therefor, we also know for a fact that you have exaggerated your estimate by a mile .
The evidence does not favour one way or the other. That's also a fact .

Fishy, this case has always been contentious, and without additional research is likely to remain so. The following may assist you in understanding those who believe their opinions are 100% correct in all aspects, and their chorus of acolytes.

Confirmation Bias
A confirmation bias is cognitive bias that favours information that confirms your previously existing beliefs or biases

Confirmation biases impact how we gather information but also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, but they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas. They will also remember details in a way that reinforces these attitudes.

When it comes to confirmation bias, there are often signs that a person is inadvertently or consciously falling victim to it. Unfortunately, it can also be very subtle and difficult to spot. Some of these signs that might help you identify when you or someone else is experiencing this bias include:

• Only seeking out information that confirms your beliefs and ignoring or discrediting information that doesn't support them.
• Looking for evidence that confirms what you already think is true, rather than considering all of the evidence available.
• Relying on stereotypes or personal biases when assessing information.
• Selectively remembering information that supports your views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.
• Having a strong emotional reaction to information (positive or negative) that confirms your beliefs, while remaining relatively unaffected by information that doesn't.

There are a few different types of confirmation bias that can occur. Some of the most common include the following:

• Biased attention: This is when we selectively focus on information that confirms our views while ignoring or discounting data that doesn't.
• Biased interpretation: This is when we consciously interpret information in a way that confirms our beliefs.
• Biased memory: This is when we selectively remember information that supports our views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

If there was market activity in Brick Lane and at Spitalfields Market, only a block and a half away, I would think that there is a likelihood of such activity also in Hanbury St. But according to our resident linguistics expert, because Long didn't specifically say there were other people around, the street must have been nearly deserted. Amelia Richardson must have been referring to a market elsewhere:
Amelia Richardson at the Inquest:
"But it is evident two people went through on Saturday morning?-Yes; but that being market morning there is such a bustle."

Cheers, George

Fair enough, George.

To support your point, the GSG was erased at 5.30am. This is what Warren had to say in a report to the Home Office, 6th November:

it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded by Jewish vendors and Christian Purchasers from all parts of London

It seems that around half 5 in the morning is when the East End streets came alive, and I think it's fair to say the area around Hanbury Street would have been busy between half 5 and 6 in the morning on a market day. It would have been busy on any given day I think, due to Victorian age sleeping and working habits.

I think I remember you mentioning that he may have jumped fences. I don't think that is supported by the blood stains found at 29 Hanbury Street. The WM must surely have had blood on his hands given he didn't use the pan of water in the yard, I'd have thought there would have been blood smear on one of the fences at number 29 in the event he jumped a fence. I'd imagine the WM simply walked out the way he came in, which would mean walking out into the streets with blood on his hands.

The WM had a means of not getting caught providing he operated when it was dark: he could hear footsteps approaching and disappear into the night when the streets were quiet. In order to believe Annie was murdered around 5.30am, then it follows the WM committed murder and mutilation when Cadosch was a few yards away, in daylight, and then walked into busy streets, in daylight, with blood on his hands. 'Not impossible but we do not see that level of risk taken at any other crime scene, and so the experience of the WM tells me it is unlikely. Another point to go alongside the medical evidence and contradictory/compromised witness statements.

[FISHY1118]

Fishy, this case has always been contentious, and without additional research is likely to remain so. The following may assist you in understanding those who believe their opinions are 100% correct in all aspects, and their chorus of acolytes.

Confirmation Bias
A confirmation bias is cognitive bias that favours information that confirms your previously existing beliefs or biases

Confirmation biases impact how we gather information but also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, but they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas. They will also remember details in a way that reinforces these attitudes.

When it comes to confirmation bias, there are often signs that a person is inadvertently or consciously falling victim to it. Unfortunately, it can also be very subtle and difficult to spot. Some of these signs that might help you identify when you or someone else is experiencing this bias include:

• Only seeking out information that confirms your beliefs and ignoring or discrediting information that doesn't support them.
• Looking for evidence that confirms what you already think is true, rather than considering all of the evidence available.
• Relying on stereotypes or personal biases when assessing information.
• Selectively remembering information that supports your views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.
• Having a strong emotional reaction to information (positive or negative) that confirms your beliefs, while remaining relatively unaffected by information that doesn't.

There are a few different types of confirmation bias that can occur. Some of the most common include the following:

• Biased attention: This is when we selectively focus on information that confirms our views while ignoring or discounting data that doesn't.
• Biased interpretation: This is when we consciously interpret information in a way that confirms our beliefs.
• Biased memory: This is when we selectively remember information that supports our views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.

Cheers, George

Thanks George , but one doesn't need such detailed explanation as you've posted to see whats going on , but thanks anyway ,

You or anyone for that matter can plainly see over the history of this thread what others have posted that shows more than favorable conclusions based on all the evidence provided that could explain an earlier t.od . To coin a phase " its all there in black and white "

My response to Et shows that I'm perfectly willing to accept both sides of this debate.

,However when it becomes personal and in my opinion offensive as to how I and other interpret the evidence, then I'm afraid it just shows a lack of respect to which belongs on other such social media platforms, I would like to think this site is better than that ,

If we are to continue with this thread I would definitely like to raise more points with you ,without the usual repeatative negative responses We've become accustomed too.

Regards. Fishy.

[FISHY1118]

Fair enough, George.

To support your point, the GSG was erased at 5.30am. This is what Warren had to say in a report to the Home Office, 6th November:

it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded by Jewish vendors and Christian Purchasers from all parts of London

It seems that around half 5 in the morning is when the East End streets came alive, and I think it's fair to say the area around Hanbury Street would have been busy between half 5 and 6 in the morning on a market day. It would have been busy on any given day I think, due to Victorian age sleeping and working habits.

I think I remember you mentioning that he may have jumped fences. I don't think that is supported by the blood stains found at 29 Hanbury Street. The WM must surely have had blood on his hands given he didn't use the pan of water in the yard, I'd have thought there would have been blood smear on one of the fences at number 29 in the event he jumped a fence. I'd imagine the WM simply walked out the way he came in, which would mean walking out into the streets with blood on his hands.

The WM had a means of not getting caught providing he operated when it was dark: he could hear footsteps approaching and disappear into the night when the streets were quiet. In order to believe Annie was murdered around 5.30am, then it follows the WM committed murder and mutilation when Cadosch was a few yards away, in daylight, and then walked into busy streets, in daylight, with blood on his hands. 'Not impossible but we do not see that level of risk taken at any other crime scene, and so the experience of the WM tells me it is unlikely. Another point to go alongside the medical evidence and contradictory/compromised witness statements.

Hi Mac, your last sentence might come under some scrutiny , perhaps I get a beak tonight.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Fishy, this case has always been contentious, and without additional research is likely to remain so. The following may assist you in understanding those who believe their opinions are 100% correct in all aspects, and their chorus of acolytes.

Confirmation Bias
A confirmation bias is cognitive bias that favours information that confirms your previously existing beliefs or biases

Confirmation biases impact how we gather information but also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, but they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas. They will also remember details in a way that reinforces these attitudes.

When it comes to confirmation bias, there are often signs that a person is inadvertently or consciously falling victim to it. Unfortunately, it can also be very subtle and difficult to spot. Some of these signs that might help you identify when you or someone else is experiencing this bias include:

• Only seeking out information that confirms your beliefs and ignoring or discrediting information that doesn't support them.
• Looking for evidence that confirms what you already think is true, rather than considering all of the evidence available.
• Relying on stereotypes or personal biases when assessing information.
• Selectively remembering information that supports your views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.
• Having a strong emotional reaction to information (positive or negative) that confirms your beliefs, while remaining relatively unaffected by information that doesn't.

There are a few different types of confirmation bias that can occur. Some of the most common include the following:

• Biased attention: This is when we selectively focus on information that confirms our views while ignoring or discounting data that doesn't.
• Biased interpretation: This is when we consciously interpret information in a way that confirms our beliefs.
• Biased memory: This is when we selectively remember information that supports our views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

It's the use of phrases like "chorus of acolytes" that contribute to the overall sense of division and do nothing to improve the overall quality of the boards. This attitude is found across many threads and theories, from many posters.

I'd like to think that I can agree or disagree with other posters without it being perceived as some partisan ulterior motive.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Mac, your last sentence might come under some scrutiny , perhaps I get a beak tonight.

Alright Fishy,

I don't mind replying to the scrutiny providing it's reasonable.

When posters claim Dr Phillips' medical observations are 'useless' then you know that replying is a pointless exercise, however.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are I see your up to your old tricks again.
just can't let people have their own opinion can you ,

Therefor, we also know for a fact that you have exaggerated your estimate by a mile .
The evidence does not favour one way or the other. That's also a fact .

And when this thread gets canned ,as it surely will now , it will because you couldn't let it be ..

And you are doing exactly the same thing that you did a couple of days ago and what you’ve done before. You start crying foul simply because I’m challenging points. Why do you never talk about details but just make very general points? Do you think that we should all just say ‘well it could have been x or it could have been y so let’s agree to disagree and move on? What would be the point of a forum?

The evidence does not favour one way or the other. That's also a fact

How is that a fact Fishy? The Doctor goes for the earlier TOD but 3 witnesses point to a later TOD. That’s 3-1.

Threads don’t get ‘canned’ because posters disagree. Are you looking for a discussion forum or a ‘safe space?’