John Richardson

[GBinOz]

Think of it like this, George:

Were I to estimate there were at least 40 cars there and probably more, you'd know I was talking about more cars.

Were I to estimate there were at least 300 people there and probably more, you'd know I was talking about more people.

Were Dr Phillips to say, at least two hours and probably more, you'd know he was talking about more hour/s.

Cars, people, hours is the operative word in each sentence.

Hi FM,

I appreciate the meaning of what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree. Were I expressing your point of view I would say there were more than 30 cars, or more than 300 people. To me, "at least" indicates the lower boundary of his estimate without defining it as the only possibility.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

To me, "at least" indicates the lower boundary of his estimate without defining it as the only possibility.

Agreed there, George.

'At least' meaning the minimum time possible.

But, his belief in terms of TOD was not the 'at least part' but rather the 'probably more' part.

'Probably' means only one thing in the English language.

Which is what I said initially: at a push 4.30am but in his opinion poor Annie was dead by 3.30am.

I agree in that 4.30am was the latest he conceived, but when he said: 'probably more', it means that in his opinion the lower boundary was a conservative and unlikely time.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

Were I expressing your point of view I would say there were more than 30 cars, or more than 300 people.

Cheers, George

Then what you're suggesting, George, is that Dr Phillips meant: "at least two hours and probably more time". It's a statement that doesn't follow in the English language.

Hours is the measure in which he's assessing time and giving his opinion.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I always enjoy our little exchanges, and this one is no exception.

I'm glad you mention "coin toss" with regard to the medical evidence, as I also see it applying to the witnesses. Many moons ago when I studied statistics and probabilities, the coin toss example was raised, and it was noted that while statistically a series of coin tosses will yield a 50/50 result, this applies only for an infinite sample. Each individual toss has a 50/50 result, regardless of the previous results. If we apply this to the witnesses, we would, IMO, have to consider a far larger sample than just three to statistically discount the "all are wrong" combination, which you have also acknowledged later in your post.

One important consideration that I didn't include in my original post because I perceive it as more of an opinion than a fact, is the daylight factor. I considered the likelihood of Jack exposing himself to detection with a murder in daylight in an amphitheatre of potential witnesses, and added to this the probability of him persevering in his task when a witness had already passed within feet of his activities. He couldn't have known how much Cadosch heard, or anticipated how he would react. Would he have continued after Cadosch's second pass, knowing that Cadosch must have heard him bump the fence? Given that in the outdoor murders before and after this one he chose to leave at first sign of interruption, I put these factors in a highly unlikely basket to be added to the earlier ToD side of the scales.

Just a few more pieces to add to your jigsaw puzzle of my thinking and deduction processes. You are not the only one that is in possession of that puzzle.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I enjoy them as well. And you are correct, I do not discount the "all wrong" possibility, otherwise my position would be that it must have been a later ToD, and I believe I've made it clear that I think that to make such a strong claim is to make an error - the information is simply not sufficient to draw such a conclusion. Your posts argue that nicely, and show that we have to keep on the table the possibility of "all wrong". My argument is similar, but focuses on the the other combinations, such as the single witness correct as in Richardson "correct" with Long and Cadosche "wrong", or two of the three correct, like Richardson "Correct", Long "wrong", Cadosche "Correct", etc, and of course the "all three correct", as the opposite to the "all wrong" possibility.

While I think the medical testimony alone leaves us with roughly 50/50 (it fits both equally in my view, and that's independent of the witnesses), trying to work out the likelihoods for the witnesses is more difficult, and contentious, as previous discussions show.

Personally, if Long's identification was simply to show her Annie in the morgue, then I think this is a similar situation to when an eye witness is shown a single suspect for identification (a "confrontation identification", rather than using a "classic line up", or a "sequence line up"; the last being where a series of people come out and the eye witness makes a "yes/no" call on each person, and doesn't know how many people will eventually be shown. The last protocol tends to produce the least misidentifications while retaining a high rate of correct identifications, with the middle tending to produce slightly more correct identifications but a lot more misidentifications, and the first is, as I vaguely recall, around a 50/50 - meaning half the positive identifications are correct, and half are misidentifications - there's not much work on this as confrontations are simply not supposed to be used anymore because they are known to be highly prone to misidentifications).

Anyway, given Long produced a "yes" response, I tend to view her identification of Annie as roughly 50/50 based upon the idea that the ratio of correct and misidentifications for bodies in the morgue will be similar to the ratio found for suspect identifications, and based upon the hope that 50/50 ratio that I recall from somewhere is not simply my brain making something up. It does that at times.

With regards to Richardson, we differ with regards to the reliability of his testimony, particularly with regards to his boot repair portion. Without getting sidetracked on that issue, my personal view is that his testimony accurately describes what he did, and given that, I find the only way he could be wrong is if he couldn't see the area where the body was while sitting on the steps fixing his boot. And that, to me, seems very improbable, but people have made arguments and there's some indications that maybe the police found it was indeed possible, at least under some very specific circumstances. So I would rate the probability of Richardson being correct when he indicates he could see the area (his conviction that Annie wasn't there is basically him saying he could see the area; but if he's wrong, and he couldn't actually see the area then he might be convinced she wasn't there despite the fact she was).

I think it is fair to say that you hold quite a different view, that Richardson's testimony is more likely to be misleading, that he didn't fix his boot while sitting on the steps, and so the probability that Annie was there could be much higher.

Just for arguments sake, we could combine our views, and suggest that Richardson's testimony also has a 50/50 probability.

There are two bits to Cadosche's testimony that are critical. Did the "no" he hear come from the backyard of #29, and was the noise against the fence due to a person or was it something else? Either of these being "yes", I think, indicates JtR in the back yard (I rate the possibility that Annie was there and some other people were conversing in the backyard, such that their voices raised no concern in Cadosche as untenable). Sound localization is fairly accurate, but not infallible. How accurate it is, though, depends upon the specific conditions, such as where exactly was Cadosche when he heard the voices, what are the acoustic properties of the area, and so forth. Depending upon those unknowns, his localization (meaning from the yard of #29, not specifically the point in the yard), could be considered very reliable or it could be quite error prone. As a compromise, 50/50 again is probably the best we can do.

The source of the fence noise, I think, is almost impossible to put a reasonable value to, even a compromise value of 50/50 could be highly contentious, particularly as the probability of the fence noise being JtR related would be conditional on whether or not the "no" was from the back yard (if it was, then the probability it is JtR goes way up, if it wasn't, then we have to work out what it is - meaning, even if Cadosche mislocated the "no", that doesn't mean the fence noise wasn't JtR, but of course, the probability it was would be much lower if the "no" came from elsewhere). Given I'm not comfortable putting a value to the fence noise, I think for present purposes it is best to leave it out. We can return to this later, though.

There is one last thing to keep in mind. If any of the witnesses are "correct", then the probability of the medical evidence indicating an earlier ToD drops to 0, and the medical evidence indicates a later ToD (we cannot, for example, say the medical evidence allows for the possibility of an earlier ToD if Long actually saw Annie alive, or Richardson could see the area where the body was and it wasn't there, or if the "No" Cadoshe heard did come from #29! The 50/50 only applies in the case when all 3 of the witnesses are "wrong").

So, if any of the witnesses are "correct", then the early ToD must be wrong.

However, if all of the witnesses are "wrong", then the ToD could still be either early or late (Richardson could have incorrectly assumed he would have seen the body whether or no the body was there; Long could have misidentified Annie as the woman she saw, and Cadosche may have heard voices from elsewhere; and all of those could have happened even if Annie was, in fact, killed at the later ToD, say after Richardson's visit but before Cadoshe's trips to the loo type thing).

Given the 50/50 estimates above, the probability of a) earlier ToD combined with all 3 being wrong becomes:
0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.0625 (6.25%).

And given that if even one of the witnesses is correct leads to the later ToD, that means the probability of the later ToD would be 1-0.0625, or 0.9375 (93.75%).

That makes the odds of late:early 0.9375/0.0625, or 15:1.

However, I think the 50/50 for Long is a fair estimate if I recall the literature properly. So, let's leave that one.

I accept you feel Richardson is more likely to have overstated things, making it more probable that he was "wrong" than right. So let's set him to a probability of "wrong" of 90%.

We would still have to get all 3 witnesses wrong for the earlier ToD to be viable, so:
0.5 x 0.9 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.1125 (11.25%)
Which works out to an odds ratio of 7.89:1 in favour of the later ToD.

Ok, what we also set Cadosche to be more likely to be wrong than not, around 90% likely to be "wrong" as well?
0.5 x 0.9 x 0.5 x 0.9 = 0.2025 (20.25%)
Which means we're still dealing with an odds ratio of about 3.94:1 in favour of the later ToD.

This is why I lean towards the later ToD as the more supported outcome. Even if we consider the witnesses to individually have a high probability of being "wrong", in order for the earlier ToD to even get considered requires that all 3 of them be wrong despite the fact that any one of them could be "right" (and if so, rules out the earlier ToD).

Individually we might believe they all have a high probability of being wrong. For example, let's say one wants to argue that my estimate of 50/50 for Long is way too generous, and in fact, there's a 90% chance of her being wrong too. In fact, all 3 witnesses have, individually, a 90% chance of being wrong.
So we get the probability of the earlier ToD as per before:
0.5 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.3645 (36.45%)
For an odds ratio of 1.74:1 in favour of the later ToD (not strong odds, but still in favour of the later ToD).

In fact, if I set the probablity of all 3 witnesses to be 99% likely to be wrong, we get:
0.5 x 0.99 x 0.99 x 0.99 = 0.4852 (48.52%)
for an odds ratio of 1.06:1 in favour of the later ToD

so even though this is pretty much equally likely, it still ever so slightly favours the later ToD.

Basically, unless one argues that all 3 witnesses must have a 0% chance of being "correct", the odds will always be in favour of the later ToD. And even under the conditions where one argues that none of the witnesses could possibly be correct (so they are all 0% chance of being correct), only then do we get to the point where the earlier ToD is as likely as the later ToD because all we have is the medical information which favours neither.

Anyway, I've ended up going into this more deeply than I initially intended. But, the odds of that happening are always very high!

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Anyway, I've ended up going into this more deeply than I initially intended. But, the odds of that happening are always very high!

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I've refrained from repeating you entire post, as it's just above for reference. I must say that your comments and calculations are very persuasive, as always, and I am attempting to restrain myself from recalling that I have collected on horses that were running at longer odds. If you're ever taking bets on your last sentence, I'd like to get in on that action.

My probability pointer is still central, but wavering. Can you offer some comments on my daylight/witness proximity considerations please?

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I've refrained from repeating you entire post, as it's just above for reference. I must say that your comments and calculations are very persuasive, as always, and I am attempting to restrain myself from recalling that I have collected on horses that were running at longer odds. If you're ever taking bets on your last sentence, I'd like to get in on that action.

My probability pointer is still central, but wavering. Can you offer some comments on my daylight/witness proximity considerations please?

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yes, the long odds do sometimes win, and under the "all 50/50" calculations, there is still just over 6% chance that the ToD is early. While that may seem small, in terms of an investigation it is not so small that one should view it as ruled out. Investigations have to remain open to rare events happening, otherwise tunnel vision sets in and viable options get overlooked. That's why I try to emphasize, perhaps overly so, that while I feel the information greatly favours the later ToD as the most supported theory, we do not have enough information to conclude that as a certainty. The above calculations, I think, show that numerically - the odds are greatly in favour of the later ToD, but not to such an extent that we should exclude the possibility that this is an example of one of those rare cases - around 6% of cases would be expected to show this very pattern - 3 witnesses who happen to be "all wrong". That's much too high to dismiss, but at the same time, much too low to view it as the "current best working model". So it is wrong to say the earlier ToD is as well supported, or equally likely, but at the same time it is also wrong to say it couldn't still be the case. Going with the earlier ToD is, as I think I've even said before, to bet on the long odds horse.

Anyway, I see your concern with regards to daylight and witness proximity. My view on such things would be as follows. Those are factors that JtR would have to consider, and so reflect something about him specifically. While it is obvious to you and I that those factors make it foolish for him to proceed, if he did proceed that tells us he doesn't evaluate the risks the same way you and I do. We can't factor in "rational probabilities" because by their very nature serial killers do not make rational choices. They are influenced by things that make no sense to us, either delusional thinking patterns if they are psychotic or some overwhelming urge (the "addiction" idea for serial murder) or just poor risk evaluation related to psychopathy.

In other words, I tend to think that using arguments along the line of "it is unlikely JtR would do x ..." are best avoided. Rather, we focus on what the information seems to tell us what JtR did (i.e. the information seems to point towards a later ToD, and if that's correct, then JtR took those risks whether we think those risks make sense or not - and if he took those risks, what might that indicate about JtR as an individual? Does it point towards a delusional and psychotic individual? Or does it point towards someone with such a strong addiction they over ride caution? Or does it mean he's a psychopath who, due to his narcissism over-estimates his ability to mitigate those risks?)

That sort of thing is starting to venture into "behavioral profiling", which in my view is highly suspect and certainly no where near as well founded as shows like Mind Hunter imply (on the other hand, it does make for great TV and Movies).

But, that aside, I suppose one could look at the above 3 ideas (and I'm sure there's more), and then see if one or the other might work better as an explanation for things like Q: Why does JtR not mutilate Stride? Q: Why does JtR go onto commit a 2nd murder on the night of the double event? Q: Could such a person convince Mary Kelly to take him into her room? and so forth (obviously my 1st two sample questions are assuming Stride was killed by JtR, which itself is not clear).

Anyway, I guess the short version is that such things are not something I tend to think we should use to evaluate the "theory of event sequences", but rather are the sorts of things we might want to consider when going from "if this happened, what sort of person would make such decisions"?

Again, I'm only stating how I approach things, and trying to clarify why I approach it this way. You need not adopt the same things, in which case many of our differences in conclusions will probably get traced back to our different methods or approaches.

Cheers.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

[QUOTE

In other words, I tend to think that using arguments along the line of "it is unlikely JtR would do x ..." are best avoided. Rather, we focus on what the information seems to tell us what JtR did (i.e. the information seems to point towards a later ToD, and if that's correct, then JtR took those risks whether we think those risks make sense or not - and if he took those risks, what might that indicate about JtR as an individual? Does it point towards a delusional and psychotic individual? Or does it point towards someone with such a strong addiction they over ride caution? Or does it mean he's a psychopath who, due to his narcissism over-estimates his ability to mitigate those risks?)

- Jeff[/QUOTE]

Hi Jeff,

I have no argument with what you are saying here, but I was thinking in observational mode, rather than predictive mode in observing the level of risk that Jack was willing to accept in the three other outdoor murders, which were all under the cover of darkness.

It is thought that he was interrupted in Buck's Row. If one considers that Lechmere was the perpetrator then his risk level in staying after he detected the presence of Paul, I would rate as high. If Lechmere was an innocent bystander then Jack took the low risk option and scarpered as soon as he detected Lechmere. Both Lechmere and Paul testified that they didn't see or hear anyone leaving the scene, and no-one living in the houses saw or heard anything unusual.

It is thought that he was interrupted in Berner St. His risk level was higher here because of the proximity to the club and the number of members therein, using the facilities etc. This level of risk is one of the reasons put forward for this not being a JtR murder. The neighbours that were interviewed marvelled at the fact that none of them saw or heard anything unusual. I would still rate this as a lower risk than a late ToD at Hanbury St.

In Mitre Sq we don't know whether Jack scarpered due to Harvey or to the return of Watkins. If the former, low risk. If the later, higher risk by staying while Harvey was close by in the passage. Again, the night watchman, and the police constable living in the square, saw and heard nothing.

In contrast at Hanbury St, for a late ToD, Jack had to expose himself to the risk of daylight observation by a great many potential witnesses, and would have been aware that Cadosch would have heard the noises, if he were the source of those sounds.

My reasoning is that Jack has shown us that his acceptable risk level involved darkness and silence, and there is no consistency with those requirements if we accept that the sounds at #29 were made by him in close proximity, twice, to a witness, in broad daylight.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

In other words, I tend to think that using arguments along the line of "it is unlikely JtR would do x ..." are best avoided. Rather, we focus on what the information seems to tell us what JtR did (i.e. the information seems to point towards a later ToD, and if that's correct, then JtR took those risks whether we think those risks make sense or not - and if he took those risks, what might that indicate about JtR as an individual? Does it point towards a delusional and psychotic individual? Or does it point towards someone with such a strong addiction they over ride caution? Or does it mean he's a psychopath who, due to his narcissism over-estimates his ability to mitigate those risks?)

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I have no argument with what you are saying here, but I was thinking in observational mode, rather than predictive mode in observing the level of risk that Jack was willing to accept in the three other outdoor murders, which were all under the cover of darkness.

It is thought that he was interrupted in Buck's Row. If one considers that Lechmere was the perpetrator then his risk level in staying after he detected the presence of Paul, I would rate as high. If Lechmere was an innocent bystander then Jack took the low risk option and scarpered as soon as he detected Lechmere. Both Lechmere and Paul testified that they didn't see or hear anyone leaving the scene, and no-one living in the houses saw or heard anything unusual.

It is thought that he was interrupted in Berner St. His risk level was higher here because of the proximity to the club and the number of members therein, using the facilities etc. This level of risk is one of the reasons put forward for this not being a JtR murder. The neighbours that were interviewed marvelled at the fact that none of them saw or heard anything unusual. I would still rate this as a lower risk than a late ToD at Hanbury St.

In Mitre Sq we don't know whether Jack scarpered due to Harvey or to the return of Watkins. Again, the night watchman, and the police constable living in the square, saw and heard nothing.

In contrast at Hanbury St, for a late ToD, Jack had to expose himself to the risk of daylight observation, and would have been aware that Cadosch would have heard the noises, if he were the source of those sounds.

My reasoning is that Jack has shown us that his acceptable risk level involved darkness and silence, and there is no consistency with those requirements if we accept that the sounds at #29 were made by him in close proximity, twice, to a witness, in broad daylight.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Those are good points, as always. On the other hand, a major difference between Hanbury Street and the other locations was the complete lack of an escape route once Cadosche is in the yard next door. If the "no", heard by Cadosche, occurs prior to the beginning of the attack (which I believe is the case as if he was attacking Annie at that time I think the tone of voice of the "no" would have aroused his suspicions - it didn't, so it seems to me there's no attack at that point in time).

Another difference, of course, is that apart from Nichols' murder, is that JtR is less experienced, and so the later murders could reflect things he's learned from the Chapman murder.

If my suggestion above is correct, then the attack begins after Cadosche has gone back into the house, and either something sets JtR off (meaning, he wasn't thinking of attacking her until this new set off point in time), or he then decides that the coast is now clear (it is, after all, only his 2nd murder in all likelihood). And then suddenly Cadosche returns, he's got nowhere to run as he's trapped in the backyard, so he does the best he can and shifts towards the fence, bumping it, and gets lucky that Cadosche doesn't check things out.

And now, from that point on, he realizes that he needs locations he can escape from.

At Berner Street, perhaps he realizes that he's getting into a "Hanbury Street" situation again, the only escape route is out into the road, so once he's killed her he realises this is just a bad spot, and with the people inside the club, it could be Cadosche all over again but now there isn't even a fence! Mitre Square, though, has 3 possible exits, so a better location and the mutilations proceed.

Kelly, of course, provides him with privacy, and we know how that goes.

Again, all I'm trying to do here is show how easy it is to put in JtR's head the necessary thoughts and ideas that "work". And because we have no way of knowing what he actually thought, or what his ideas were, there is no way to evaluate our explanations. This is why I have concerns about behavioural profiling, we often only hear of the cases where the guesses, like mine above, turn out to be spot on or where they are nothing like the offender, depending upon whether we are hearing from them from a person who is promoting the method or from a person who has a visceral dislike of it. To really get an idea as to its effectiveness requires a very large analysis of all the profiles produced, to work out whether or not the inferences made about the offender match up with the actual offender.

So, do I think the above is how JtR thought? In the end I have to say No because really I have no idea how he thought. If he thought as per the above, it would show he's learning as he goes, and he's factoring in things as the series progresses to reduce his risk. That might work for either the "addicted" and/or psychopathic JtR.

But what if JtR is psychotic, then that too could explain things because his thinking will be erratic and bizarre, and will vary from day to day depending upon how severe his symptoms are at that particular time. If he's psychotic, and delusional, then it is unlikely we could ever make sense of his decisions without having some idea what his particular set of delusions were. All we know is he did what he did - presuming we can even agree on what he did!

Anyway, I do understand your concerns and I think the points you raise make sense. For me, though, I'm not sure JtR has to "make sense", and also, even if his thinking follows some sensible principles, in the end he's making decisions that tell us he thinks very differently than we probably can understand. I mean really, he's not just angry-at and killing woman, he's disembowling women in the open. None of the locations are at all safe by any rational evaluation. One could even argue that Kelly's location is still sufficiently risky that it doesn't make sense to commit a murder there.

And with that in mind, I'm just not comfortable using my idea of what "makes sense" to evaluate what made sense to JtR.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

Those are good points, as always. On the other hand, a major difference between Hanbury Street and the other locations was the complete lack of an escape route once Cadosche is in the yard next door. If the "no", heard by Cadosche, occurs prior to the beginning of the attack (which I believe is the case as if he was attacking Annie at that time I think the tone of voice of the "no" would have aroused his suspicions - it didn't, so it seems to me there's no attack at that point in time).- Jeff

Do you not think that if Chapman was being attacked in that rear yard at that later time Casdoshe would have heard something more than a "No" and heard signs of a struggle taking place, even if you cut someone's throat they don't die immediately and are still make sounds other than "No"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

You must see the difference.

You're making an assumption on what the caveat meant, whereas I'm saying Dr Phillips clearly stated 'two hours and probably more'. You see the difference? That which he actually stated as opposed to your interpretation of 'the caveat' 150 years later.

Your interpretation of the caveat is that Dr Phillips didn't actually mean 'at least two hours and probably more', which, to be quite frank, is nonsensical.

On the contrary, my interpretation of the caveat is that Dr Phillips did mean "at least two hours and probably more" when he said it at the murder site, of course he did. But that he changed his mind as time went by, very possibly because of what he saw at the post mortem. He then had to give the inquest his revised opinion.

Dr Phillips was giving evidence to the inquest, and therefore was obliged to report what actually happened. He therefore had to say that he estimated that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours and probably more "when he first saw her". He said that at the murder site and at that moment he believed it, therefore he had to tell the inquest that this was so. However, he chose of his own volition to add the very clear caveat, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

I, and the very experienced Coroner too, take that to mean that he had second thoughts, and had reservations about his original estimate which he felt that the inquest needed to know. His caveat indicated that a later ToD was quite possible.

So I am suggesting that he first stated his original estimated ToD, which he believed at the time, and which he was obliged to report, and then clearly said that he could be wrong, and why this was so.

How do you interpret his caveat, and why he said it if he didn't mean it?

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Those are good points, as always. On the other hand, a major difference between Hanbury Street and the other locations was the complete lack of an escape route once Cadosche is in the yard next door. If the "no", heard by Cadosche, occurs prior to the beginning of the attack (which I believe is the case as if he was attacking Annie at that time I think the tone of voice of the "no" would have aroused his suspicions - it didn't, so it seems to me there's no attack at that point in time).
Of course it could also have been Mrs Resident's reply to Mr Resident's enquiry as to whether his breakfast was ready yet, although the tone of that reply might not have been all that amicable.

If my suggestion above is correct, then the attack begins after Cadosche has gone back into the house, and either something sets JtR off (meaning, he wasn't thinking of attacking her until this new set off point in time), or he then decides that the coast is now clear (it is, after all, only his 2nd murder in all likelihood). And then suddenly Cadosche returns, he's got nowhere to run as he's trapped in the backyard, so he does the best he can and shifts towards the fence, bumping it, and gets lucky that Cadosche doesn't check things out.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I think that is a pretty good scenario of what might have happened, if the murder was at that time. However, I can't help thinking that he would have scarpered after Cadosch appeared from the house the second time rather than waiting for him to complete his ablutions and then attempting to hide behind the fence when Cadosch returned.

Best regards, George

[Hair Bear]

One important consideration that I didn't include in my original post because I perceive it as more of an opinion than a fact, is the daylight factor. I considered the likelihood of Jack exposing himself to detection with a murder in daylight in an amphitheatre of potential witnesses

Best regards, George

This is a man who killed Stride not at the bottom of Dutfield but at the top, where people are coming and going from a club. This is a man who killed Nichols on a road where people walk to work rather than take her down one of the neighbouring back alleys. This is a man who killed Eddowes in a square that is regularly patrolled. Based on that, the evidence surely points to him not caring as much as one would assume about oncoming daylight.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I think that is a pretty good scenario of what might have happened, if the murder was at that time. However, I can't help thinking that he would have scarpered after Cadosch appeared from the house the second time rather than waiting for him to complete his ablutions and then attempting to hide behind the fence when Cadosch returned.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yes, I was working from the idea that was the time of the murder. And of course, I'm not pushing it as "the solution", but was just presenting an idea for mulling over. And while I get your point, why doesn't he leg it when Cadosche goes to the loo (I believe the fence noise is heard upon his return back to the house), we're again into the realm of having to speculate on JtR's thinking and decision processes. If this was the time of the murder, and we go with my suggestion as the working idea, then in the end we can't know why he didn't leave at that point, but reading the evidence as per this idea, it would appear he didn't.

I suppose we might consider things like the following:
1) JtR is so focused upon Annie at the time Cadosche returns he somehow is unaware of that Cadosche is there and only realises it as Cadosche is returning (perhaps the loo door slams, or some other sound alerts him of the return journey, and Cadoshe made less noise when he first came out, type thing). JtR, upon realizing how close he came to being caught, quickly cleans up (I believe the police looked for blood on the door and in the hall and found none, so it appears JtR cleaned his hands before leaving - no blood is reported on Annie's hands where her rings were either, so he cleaned up before removing them it seems), quickly grabs her rings and his other trophies, and then flees, leaving the front door of #29 open. Those extra actions (cleaning, trophy collecting, etc), are the sorts of things psychopaths will do - their wants are powerful and they will take extra risks to fulfill them, although they are not complete idiots and would recognize that in this type of situation getting out of there is a priority - but taking what they want is also a priority and it won't take that long, so ....

2) Maybe this works too, what if JtR has just subdued Annie and is in the process of cutting her throat when Cadosche comes back the 2nd time, so he's focused on her bleeding out and at that point almost unaware of his surroundings. When Cadosche returns, he's more aware. But this probably means after Cadosche goes inside, JtR continues with his mutilations, and post-mutilation trophy gathering (i.e. rings, uterus, piece of belly wall that was missing), after he cleans his hands. I think now, your objection would get raised again, but if he did this new option, I think that starts pointing to a very irrational JtR, of the psychotic type.

3) Sticking with the JtR is psychotic idea, it then makes sense that his risk assessment is poor and so perhaps that is all it is, he just doesn't react appropriately at that time, perhaps thinking himself invisible, or protected by some higher power? This line of thinking might find some support if Long had seen him with Annie (he knows he's spotted and yet still kills her), which would be similar if Schwartz did see him rough handling Stride, and also his potential sighting just prior to Eddowes' murder (by Lawende and company), or Hutchinson's sighting prior to Kelly's murder. Obviously, those examples have a lot of reason to question if those are valid sightings, but again, if some of them are, one could argue that it also makes no sense to go on to murder someone if you've just been spotted talking to them. As such, if any of those sightings are valid, perhaps his risk assessement is not all that reasonable, and this is just yet another example of that? (these "murder after potentially sighted" bits could also work for the "murder addict", or the psychopath I suppose).

4) JtR wasn't going to flee until he was sure Cadosche was in the loo, and also wanted to gather his things, and take whatever trophies he wanted (such as her rings, etc). So if he was "wrapping up" due to Cadosche's loo visit, perhaps that visit was shorter than JtR thought it would be, and got caught just before he could flee? This is similar to #1, except that in this version JtR is aware of Cadosche when he enters the yard, but just takes too long getting his stuff and cleaning up, rather than in #1 where the idea starts with JtR somehow not noticing Cadosche come out and only becomes aware of him upon his return.

Hmmm, I'm sure other ideas could come to mind, none of them are anything but speculations because of course there's no information to work with other than, in the theory under question, it appears that JtR was still there. Perhaps one of those 4 ideas is somewhat similar to the truth, but in all likelihood, if he did remain, then the truth may be something I've not conjured up (and yes, I'm just making up stuff because, in the end, without knowing who JtR is, we don't even know if he's psychotic or what? How he thinks is simply something we have to guess at, after all).

Anyway, I agree it makes no rational sense for JtR to remain until Cadosche is returning from the loo, so either he was unaware of Cadosche's return (option 1 and 2), or made an irrational choice (option 3), or thought Cadosche would be in the loo longer (option 4). But I just don't think JtR will always make rational choices every time a choice is to be made. On the other hand, I don't think we want to play that card too often, of course, otherwise we risk simply going "oh well, JtR was irrational" whenever necessary. On the other hand, if it is played sparingly, and the rest of the idea seems sound, perhaps that's not over doing it? Maybe option 4 is the best of a bad lot, where he just makes a mistake in thinking he had a bit more time, rather than the hard to swallow missed Cadoshe's return (in #1 & #2), or the "makes irrational decision" card in #3. Note, of course, the hardest to swallow idea is one that might be easier to get down if JtR is psychotic - so already away with the fairies in many ways.

Like I say, the above are pure speculation, but the point I'm trying to make is that if the evidence seems to indicate JtR did something, then whether it is a rational thing to do or not is sort of immaterial - if that's what he did, then that's what he did, and he may have done something irrational (like disembowelling a woman in the backyard as the sum comes up! that to me seems pretty irrational).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Do you not think that if Chapman was being attacked in that rear yard at that later time Casdoshe would have heard something more than a "No" and heard signs of a struggle taking place, even if you cut someone's throat they don't die immediately and are still make sounds other than "No"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

In the speculative suggestion I was making, the idea is that Annie isn't killed until after Cadosche has gone back inside after his first visit to the loo. As such, Cadosche wouldn't have heard anything. I would like to point out that nobody in #20 heard anything after all (at any hour); but then, nobody in Mitre Square heard anything; nobody appears to have heard anything in Buck's Row, although to be fair there are some press reports that could point to some sounds being heard; and nobody appears to have heard much in the Kelly murder either, apart from maybe a yell of Murder, if that was Kelly of course. So people inside not hearing the murder take place is common, so why would you expect it to be different in this case?

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

my interpretation of the caveat is that Dr Phillips did mean "at least two hours and probably more".....he then had to give the inquest his revised opinion.

That's repeating he didn't actually mean it.

Seems you believe that in the time it took him to say: "at least two hours and probably more.......cold morning", we're talking a couple of seconds here, he changed his mind.

It's just not reasonable.