John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

But we have to ask ourselves an obvious question when considering which is the more accurate version of the fence in the sketches. Is it at all likely that the police, when questioning Cadosch about what he’d heard from the other side of that fence, wouldn’t have noticed this fence and asked the obvious question: “how come you didn’t see anything through these large gaps in the fence when you were standing right next to it?” Why would they have asked him why he hadn’t looked over the fence if it was obvious that he would have been able to have seen through it?

We’re on very solid ground to say that there couldn’t have been gaps as shown in the sketch.

Just because the police didnt ask[ and we dont have an evidence that they did or didnt ask the question and any response from any witness ] it doesnt detract from the fact we have to sketchers with gaps in them . Drawn at the time i might add .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just because the police didnt ask[ and we dont have an evidence that they did or didnt ask the question and any response from any witness ] it doesnt detract from the fact we have to sketchers with gaps in them . Drawn at the time i might add .

But the point is that it would have been impossible for them not to have noticed huge gaps if they had been there. They wouldn’t have bothered asking why he hadn’t looked over the fence if he could have sen through it.

[FISHY1118]

But the point is that it would have been impossible for them not to have noticed huge gaps if they had been there. They wouldn’t have bothered asking why he hadn’t looked over the fence if he could have sen through it.

Why ? they could have asked simply for the sake of getting a response, they might have found it strange that he didnt for whatever reason looked through the gaps. It doesnt make any difference or deter from the fact we have two contemporary drawing done at the time of the murders showing a gap.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why ? they could have asked simply for the sake of getting a response, they might have found it strange that he didnt for whatever reason looked through the gaps. It doesnt make any difference or deter from the fact we have two contemporary drawing done at the time of the murders showing a gap.

You can defend you point all you like; it’s your prerogative. The fact remains that there couldn’t have been gaps in that fence as in the drawing. It’s impossible. No need for further discussion as far as I’m concerned. The evidence stands.

[FISHY1118]

You can defend you point all you like; it’s your prerogative. The fact remains that there couldn’t have been gaps in that fence as in the drawing. It’s impossible. No need for further discussion as far as I’m concerned. The evidence stands.

The evidence suggest otherwise . And it too also stands

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What evidence could exist? If the killer strangled Chapman can we assume that she conveniently fell in the exact position and location that she was found in? If she had landed in a position that wasn’t ideal for carrying out the rest of his work then he could have moved her leaving no trace. Without evidence we can’t assume or dismiss this.

If I remember correctly, it was C Lewis who pointed out that discussion about the possible moving of the bodies has always been about whether they were moved some considerable distance and not just a matter of a few inches.

[JeffHamm]

While I tend to think the gaps shown in the sketches done for the newspapers were included as they aided the depiction of a wooden fence, in some ways it is neither here nor there. Cadoche did not report seeing people, so whether or not there were gaps doesn't matter. His testimony indicates he didn't have any interest in the next door backyard, rather he was focused on getting to the loo or getting off to work. That, to me, also suggests that the "No" he heard wasn't the start of the attack, otherwise one would expect it to have been said in a way that would arouse alarm in Cadoshe. Rather, he presents it as if it were part of some ongoing conversation. He also never says if the "No" was said by a male or female, so we don't even know if it was uttered by Annie or JtR.

Gaps, if they were even present, simply would mean he could have seen into the backyard had he bothered to look, but given he seemed to be uninterested in the goings on, then there is no reason to presume he did look. Moreover, if he did look, and Annie was already dead on the ground, why didn't the alleged gaps reveal that to him? One would have to say "he didn't look", in which case, the same explanation is offered under all circumstances.

In the end, he heard activity and speaking coming from the backyard. While he wasn't sure which side of the yard the "No" came from, he was sure he heard a noise against the fence, placing someone there at that time. And if Annie was long dead at that time, then where's the hue and cry from whomever is up against the fence and why aren't they enlisting Cadosche's aid given their discovery? And if someone has found Annie, what are they doing coming down the steps in the first place, and getting low down behind the fence and bumping it?

Anyway, gaps or no gaps, beyond interest in Victorian Fence designs, is a bit of a side issue. Cadosche doesn't testify to seeing people whether or not there were gaps there, but what he does hear places people in the backyard at that time. In my opinion it is very hard to imagine any reasonable scenario where those people are not Annie and her murderer.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

While I tend to think the gaps shown in the sketches done for the newspapers were included as they aided the depiction of a wooden fence, in some ways it is neither here nor there. Cadoche did not report seeing people, so whether or not there were gaps doesn't matter. His testimony indicates he didn't have any interest in the next door backyard, rather he was focused on getting to the loo or getting off to work. That, to me, also suggests that the "No" he heard wasn't the start of the attack, otherwise one would expect it to have been said in a way that would arouse alarm in Cadoshe. Rather, he presents it as if it were part of some ongoing conversation. He also never says if the "No" was said by a male or female, so we don't even know if it was uttered by Annie or JtR.

Gaps, if they were even present, simply would mean he could have seen into the backyard had he bothered to look, but given he seemed to be uninterested in the goings on, then there is no reason to presume he did look. Moreover, if he did look, and Annie was already dead on the ground, why didn't the alleged gaps reveal that to him? One would have to say "he didn't look", in which case, the same explanation is offered under all circumstances.

In the end, he heard activity and speaking coming from the backyard. While he wasn't sure which side of the yard the "No" came from, he was sure he heard a noise against the fence, placing someone there at that time. And if Annie was long dead at that time, then where's the hue and cry from whomever is up against the fence and why aren't they enlisting Cadosche's aid given their discovery? And if someone has found Annie, what are they doing coming down the steps in the first place, and getting low down behind the fence and bumping it?

Anyway, gaps or no gaps, beyond interest in Victorian Fence designs, is a bit of a side issue. Cadosche doesn't testify to seeing people whether or not there were gaps there, but what he does hear places people in the backyard at that time. In my opinion it is very hard to imagine any reasonable scenario where those people are not Annie and her murderer.

- Jeff

The evidence remains just that tho jeff. Note the slightly more open gap in the paling in the sketch where chapmans body lies , just as it is described by the detective .


A further consultation of the detectives engaged in the case was held this morning, and an officer again visited the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, and made a careful inspection of the palings leading from that house to No. 27, where resides the young man Cadosh, who stated at the inquest that he heard sounds proceed from the spot where the body lay at a quarter-past five on the morning of the murder. An examination of the fence shows that ''immediately over the place in the yard there is an aperture in the palings by which the dead body could have been plainly visible'', while anyone moving in the yard might easily have been seen.14 Echo Sept 20th 1888.





''refer #post 12 in this thread for a bigger picture


Two pieces of evidence both claiming the same thing , one a sketch from an artist from the murder scene , one from a detective who physically visited the murder scene.



One would have to say "he didn't look", in which case, the same explanation is offered under all circumstances.'' [jeff]


I think this was just the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The evidence remains just that tho jeff. Note the slightly more open gap in the paling in the sketch where chapmans body lies , just as it is described by the detective .


A further consultation of the detectives engaged in the case was held this morning, and an officer again visited the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, and made a careful inspection of the palings leading from that house to No. 27, where resides the young man Cadosh, who stated at the inquest that he heard sounds proceed from the spot where the body lay at a quarter-past five on the morning of the murder. An examination of the fence shows that ''immediately over the place in the yard there is an aperture in the palings by which the dead body could have been plainly visible'', while anyone moving in the yard might easily have been seen.14 Echo Sept 20th 1888.





''refer #post 12 in this thread for a bigger picture


Two pieces of evidence both claiming the same thing , one a sketch from an artist from the murder scene , one from a detective who physically visited the murder scene.



One would have to say "he didn't look", in which case, the same explanation is offered under all circumstances.'' [jeff]


I think this was just the case.

The quote conclusively contradicts your suggestion that the fence might have been as it appears in the sketch. Why would they mention one single aperture (gap) if the fence had apertures all along? They wouldn’t because the body would have been visible through several apertures. And the single aperture must have been low down to have made a body lying on the ground partially visible which would have required Cadosch to stoop down to look through. As he clearly had no sense of alarm at the time he was hardly likely to have done that. This is another non-issue.

[FISHY1118]

The quote conclusively contradicts your suggestion that the fence might have been as it appears in the sketch. Why would they mention one single aperture (gap) if the fence had apertures all along? They wouldn’t because the body would have been visible through several apertures. And the single aperture must have been low down to have made a body lying on the ground partially visible which would have required Cadosch to stoop down to look through. As he clearly had no sense of alarm at the time he was hardly likely to have done that. This is another non-issue.

There is no contradiction, the evidence is there in black and white from two sourses , you can ask all the why, how comes ,hardly likelys all you want.

Your just argueing with the evidence as it is shown.

TO answer to your question tho , because thats where the body was ,he was pointing out/ making reference to the exact spot .

Regardless, the fact remains the sketchers and the detectives account of the fence in 29 handbury street match . This evidence is unquestionable .

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no contradiction, the evidence is there in black and white from two sourses , you can ask all the why, how comes ,hardly likelys all you want.

Your just argueing with the evidence as it is shown.

TO answer to your question tho , because thats where the body was ,he was pointing out/ making reference to the exact spot .

Regardless, the fact remains the sketchers and the detectives account of the fence in 29 handbury street match . This evidence is unquestionable .

Yes it is.

The quote specifically mention one gap which they wouldn’t have done if there were several.
The police wouldn’t have asked why he didn’t look over the fence if he could have seen through it.
Not one single person mentions a fence that could be seen through because it had gaps between the slats.

About as obvious as it gets. Perhaps we could go through all of the sketches made in regard to the case pointing out the numerous inaccuracies that we would undoubtedly find?

[FISHY1118]

Yes it is.

The quote specifically mention one gap which they wouldn’t have done if there were several.
The police wouldn’t have asked why he didn’t look over the fence if he could have seen through it.
Not one single person mentions a fence that could be seen through because it had gaps between the slats.

About as obvious as it gets. Perhaps we could go through all of the sketches made in regard to the case pointing out the numerous inaccuracies that we would undoubtedly find?

no its not ,

Your speaking as if you know what the detective would have done back in 1888 ? which you seem to know that about all the witnesses . Amaizing

The evidence in this case regarding the sketchers and the eyewitness account is unquestionable really .

[Herlock Sholmes]

no its not ,

Your speaking as if you know what the detective would have done back in 1888 ? which you seem to know that about all the witnesses . Amaizing

The evidence in this case regarding the sketchers and the eyewitness account is unquestionable really .

There’s no point in continuing but the fact remains that the chances of the fence having sizeable gaps between each strut are as close to non-existent as it can possible get. With have documentary proof of something it’s valid to apply common sense about what we know. So…

The police interviewed Cadosch about what he saw or heard that morning. The murder took place on the other side of the fence so clearly the police were interested only in what went on in the yard of number 29 and what he’d seen or heard in relation to it. Cadosch was asked why he hadn’t looked over the fence so they were undoubtedly trying to find out what he had or hadn’t seen. Surely you don’t dispute this Fishy?

So if there were gaps all along the fence (as per the sketch) Cadosch couldn’t have failed to have seen either Annie or her killer or both had they been there but also the police simply cannot have failed to have been aware of the gaps had they been there so it’s impossible that they wouldn’t have said “well there couldn’t have been anyone in the yard of number 29 because Cadosch would undoubtedly have seen them.”

So we’re on solid ground to state that there couldn’t have been any gaps. I really don’t understand why you don’t accept this Fishy. It seems straightforward enough.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The sketches are not accurate, we know that. Cadosch clearly stated on oath that the palings were about five foot six inches in height. The sketches show something much shorter than that.

[FISHY1118]

There’s no point in continuing but the fact remains that the chances of the fence having sizeable gaps between each strut are as close to non-existent as it can possible get. With have documentary proof of something it’s valid to apply common sense about what we know. So…

The police interviewed Cadosch about what he saw or heard that morning. The murder took place on the other side of the fence so clearly the police were interested only in what went on in the yard of number 29 and what he’d seen or heard in relation to it. Cadosch was asked why he hadn’t looked over the fence so they were undoubtedly trying to find out what he had or hadn’t seen. Surely you don’t dispute this Fishy?

So if there were gaps all along the fence (as per the sketch) Cadosch couldn’t have failed to have seen either Annie or her killer or both had they been there but also the police simply cannot have failed to have been aware of the gaps had they been there so it’s impossible that they wouldn’t have said “well there couldn’t have been anyone in the yard of number 29 because Cadosch would undoubtedly have seen them.”

So we’re on solid ground to state that there couldn’t have been any gaps. I really don’t understand why you don’t accept this Fishy. It seems straightforward enough.

I agree there is no point continuing this discussion , that fact remains we have two sources that clearly show and state gaps in the fence .

We can't ignore them just so as to accept another, .

We must accept all the evidence and make our own conclusions from that .