John Richardson

[GBinOz]

Compelling isn't it George. ?

Yet this is some call waffle . Ahh the mind boggles at such ignorance of the possibility of an earlier t.o.d

Hi Fishy,

I found it persuasive, but that is probably because he concurs with most of my opinions. There is another dissertation which more closely looks at the evolution of Cadosch's story from one trip to the Loo to two trips, and incidents mentioned in interviews that were denied at the inquest. It is here:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-cadosch.html

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Lewis C,

The police thought it plausible.
Echo 19 Sep 1888:
Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.

IMO, for the police to have made this deduction they would likely have asked Richardson to show them the position in which he sat on the step, which would have removed all doubt.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

This is not a police statement, it is merely a newspaper report alleging the police believed Dr Phillips' original ToD, and that Richardson didn't see the body, despite it being there. This is not backed up by the police themselves.

Swanson wrote on 19th October that if Dr Phillips was correct it is difficult to believe that Richardson could not have seen the body. Note both "if Dr Phillips was correct" and also the difficulty in believing Richardson could not have seen the body. They had not accepted that Phillips' original ToD was definitely accurate, nor that the body was there and Richardson didn't see it. He also reported that they checked Richardson's story thoroughly and were unable to disprove any of it. That clearly contradicts the newspaper report, and is official, and not journalistic speculation. The police it seems, were keeping an open mind - along the lines of Phillips' caveat perhaps, that he might be right, he might be wrong.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I found it persuasive, but that is probably because he concurs with most of my opinions. There is another dissertation which more closely looks at the evolution of Cadosch's story from one trip to the Loo to two trips, and incidents mentioned in interviews that were denied at the inquest. It is here:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-cadosch.html

Cheers, George

Thanks George , Yes ive read that also ,many times i might add .Ive referenced many point of that Bromley piece when discussing an earlier time of death on this thread . Putting the two articles together [Wolf and Bromley ] and again , the mind boggles at such ignorance of the possibility of an earlier t.o.d comes straight to mind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was uncertain about the ''No'', thats just a fact why do you dispute this ? and how could you not except it ? .The fact his wasnt uncertain about the ''noise'' has nothing to do with his previous comment about the no .

We dont know what the noise was ,it certainly hasnt been proven it was a body, so the two comments cant be reconciled that Chapman was in the yard being murdered at 5.30am .On that we can only speculate that given all the evidence at hand , your analogy is completley bogus and transparent . The fact you do this a lot shows you need to grow up indeed .

;

You either misunderstand or you’re deliberately ignoring the point that I was making. I can never tell which is true with you.

I’ve never denied the fact that there is some doubt in the part of his statement where he talks about hearing the “no.” Not once. Ever. Ok? So can we ditch that false point to begin with?

I’ve made one new suggestion and I’m repeating two old ones. Ok?

First - Cadosch said this: “It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.”

So he doesn’t just say “I heard the word ‘no’ but I cannot say which side it came from,” He begins by saying that he thinks that it came from number 29. He doesn’t say “I think it came from number 25” He doesn’t say “It could have come from number 25 or number 29.” So it really can’t be disputed that, at the very least, he favoured number 29. This is a given in my opinion. Ok?

Then after saying that he thinks that the ‘no’ came from number 29 he adds the “I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.” But he’s just said where he thinks that it came from so why does he then say that he can’t say? It has always been assumed that this clumsy way of putting it was his way of expressing doubt. But that’s what it is…an assumption which might or might not have been the case. We can’t know for certain. So it might have meant that he was using clumsy language to express his doubt, but reading it as it’s written, I believe that my suggestion fits the actual wording better. After all, he was talking about an event (Chapman’s murder) that occurred on his side of the yard of number 29. So which side of the yard any sound came from was important. This much is obvious. So what I favour that Cadosch meant was:

’It was not in our yard, but I’m fairly sure that it came from number 29 although I can’t be certain which side of number 29 it came from..’

So he could have still be expressing doubt but his doubt could have been that ‘no’ might have come from the number 31 side of number 29’s yard.

If you showed Cadosch’s quote to someone without the baggage that we carry (years of assuming) and with no knowledge of the background, I am convinced that they would tell us that my interpretation is at least as likely as the traditional. I’ve already shown this to three people who know nothing about the case, giving them the statement and a brief rundown of the circumstances. Two thought my suggestion the likelier, one wasn’t sure. I’m happy enough that my suggestion is at least equally possible.


Second - and more importantly in my opinion, your refusal to deal with my point by moving off at a tangent. Even if we accept that Cadosch wasn’t certain where the ‘no’ came from we cannot suggest that he was uncertain about the noise against the fence. He clearly wasn’t. The ‘no’ was a disembodied voice in the air which can often be difficult to locate (although his position so close would have made it easier) The noise had a physical element however. A fence that he was a very few feet from. And Fishy……just because a person is uncertain about one thing it’s not being honest to suggest uncertainty about other things when we have no evidence that uncertainty existed…..which is exactly what you repeatedly claim in your effort to falsely label him as ‘unreliable.’ If you can’t understand this very obvious point then that not my fault. You complain of my level of irritation and exasperation but I think that I’m fully entitled to feel that when faced with such obvious nonsense.

Third - if the noise wasn’t connected to the murder, and Annie’s mutilated corpse had been lying there since 4.30 as some believe - like Fisherman who doesn’t want a murder occurring while Cross was at work, or you, who would prefer a murder in the dark allowing the body to be transported from the Royal coach under cover of darkness, then we are entitled to ask “well what could it have been?” To which there has been no sensible, plausible answer in however many years of Ripperology. People have had to resort to demonising Cadosch as either a liar or an idiot. So what could it have been? I can’t recall any suggestion from you? It can’t have been an innocent person unless he/she was blind. A dog? How did it get there with the high fences? How did it escape? Why would it have bumped into a fence? Why would a dog have even approached the body? What about a cat…they can get anywhere but they’re hardly clumsy or bulky animals are they? The noise was loud enough for Cadosch to hear from a few feet away. So unless a blind person threw a cat against the fence or there was a Bengal Tiger roaming around Whitechapel I’d say that the animal suggestion can be dumped (maybe the aardvark re-appeared?). So what else? A passing albatross accidentally dropped a lump of wood which hit the fence and then vanished by the time that the Police arrived. We know that corpses do strange things so perhaps, an hour after her death, Annie sat up and hit the fence? I’m struggling here Fishy. The police didn’t mention seeing anything in that yard which might have caused the noise.

The fact is Fishy that evidence tells us clearly and quite above all other suggestions, that Albert Cadosch heard a noise, and very likely a ‘no’ that could only have come from Annie Chapman and/or her killer. We keep hearing increasingly desperate attempts to invent problems. There’s not a single, solitary fact which even hints that Cadosch was an unreliable witness. And repeated the general point that witnesses can be unreliable serves no purpose except to reiterate the desperation. It doesn’t mean that all witnesses are unreliable…..and it speaks volumes that I feel the necessity to repeat this obvious fact.

I don’t expect you to deal with these points specifically Fishy because you almost never do. You either repeat generalities or claim that it’s already been decided or and that it’s just a case of 50-50 when it’s clearly not. There is no issue with Cadosch. Being cautious isn’t a sign of untrustworthiness. And being uncertain on one issue certainly doesn’t mean that we should then assume uncertainty on others.

Albert Cadosch was a good witness. Not a perfect one. But a good one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks George , Yes ive read that also ,many times i might add .Ive referenced many point of that Bromley piece when discussing an earlier time of death on this thread . Putting the two articles together [Wolf and Bromley ] and again , the mind boggles at such ignorance of the possibility of an earlier t.o.d comes straight to mind.

The only ignorance we see is the arrogance of people claiming to know more about the estimation of ToD than the worlds authorities on the subject.

Which part of this article puts doubt on Cadosch’s testimony by the way? I must have missed it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s an excellent, well written article clearly written with no attempt to skew the evidence one way or another. But we do see the word ‘about’ being slightly ignored in that we see no acceptance of the possibility that Cadosch might have been knocked up or that he might not have owned a clock. If he did own a clock it could have been slow of course.

Scenario time:

On the day of the murder Cadosch actually got up at 5.20 - either he was usually knocked up at 5.15 but for whatever reason the knocker up was a bit late that day (maybe a Constable had an incident to deal with putting him behind time?) Or the clock that he used (if he had one) was 5 minutes slow? All entirely plausible.

The clock that Long took her timing from was 5 minutes or so fast - again entirely possible (as per the Chris McKay article)

So…..

5.20 - Cadosch gets up. (Then he estimates the time before he went outside at around 5 minutes.)

5.25/5.26 - Cadosch goes to the outside loo (giving no indication of how long he was in there and remembering that he was visiting the loo more often than usual because he was Ill. So is it so unlikely that he wouldn’t want to mention it if he’d been in there for longer than would have seemed usual)

5.25/5.26 - the actual time that Long passes. She sees the couple. As soon as she passes they enter the yard. So.

5.26 - Chapman and Jack enter the yard.

5.27 - Cadosch returns from the loo and hears the word ‘no’ which was part of a conversation between the two. The ‘no’ stood out because it was either spoken with emphasis and so slightly louder or it was spoken after a gap of a second or so and Cadosch was at the door and so near when he heard it.

5.27/5.28 - Chapman is killed.

5.30 - Cadosch goes to the loo.

5.31 - Cadosch returns from the loo and hears the noise. It’s the sound of the killer moving around brushing against the fence (for any number of reasons)

5.31/ 5.32 - Cadosch leaves the house, after a walk of around 2 minutes he sees the clock saying 5.32

The clock is actually 2 minutes slow. Nothing unbelievable about that (ref Chris McKay again)


Absolutely nothing about the realities of timing present us with a single issue between Long and Cadosch. So that three witnesses who all, very firmly and very positively support a ToD at around 5.25/5.30.

Versus a Doctor using unreliable methods who, in his Inquest testimony very clearly tells us that due to the condition of the body a more rapid cooling could have occurred than he’d taken into account in his estimate which could have resulted in a later ToD. The Coroner, who was in that room at the time and heard a fuller and more detailed account interpreted Phillips caveat in exactly that way and in black and white and at no time anywhere (and despite having ample opportunity) did Phillips ever attempt to correct Baxter. So if Baxter had misinterpreted him Phillips was for some reason quite happy to allow this misinterpretation to stand.

When will this nonsense end???

The evidence massively favours a later ToD. It really couldn’t be more obvious.

[The Rookie Detective]

I've just found a newspaper report which states that Cadosch heard the noise against the fence at 5.35am.

You've got to admire the inconsistency.


For me, the most logical explanation is that Cadosch heard JTR strangling Chapman and lowering her down to the floor as she tried to fight back. The sound was her body hitting the fence.

This happened at 5.35am (while it was STILL dark

The killer waited to Long to pass around the corner and then went in the back of 29 with Chapman. They went down the steps and within seconds he asks her something she doesn't want to do and in contrast to what they had agreed prior when Long heard them.

He then attacks her as Cadosch is on the other side of the fence and by 5.40am the killer had left the scene undetected...but not by going BACK through to Hanbury Street the way he came...he escaped another way.


That's just the most obvious answer and the simplest one.

Long saw the killer and hear him
Cadosch heard the killer strangling Chapman as she tried to fight back
And the time of death initially given was a clinical error...because clinicians make mistakes all the time regarding TOD's


That's the murder in a nutshell

The killer was a little taller than Chapman who was around 5ft 2"..meaning he was around 5ft 5"..an inch shorter than the fence.



Right.. what's next?


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

I've just found a newspaper report which states that Cadosch heard the noise against the fence at 5.35am.

The newspapers were businesses, often parroting second hand stories and not worrying about the exact details, with the aim being to sell newspapers as opposed to being an investigative organisation. I wouldn't place too much stock in what newspapers stated.

This happened at 5.35am (while it was STILL dark)

According to John Richardson he could see all over the yard at ten to five.

It would really depend on where the nearest light source was. Let me tell you that I live in the country and round the back of my house where there are no street lights, you cannot see farther than 5 yards at say half 8 at at night this time of year, and you wouldn't see a body lying there.

For John Richardson, it all depends on the nearest light source.

By half 5 however, you're in the period of civil twilight and it would not have been dark on the 8th September.

[JeffHamm]

The newspapers were businesses, often parroting second hand stories and not worrying about the exact details, with the aim being to sell newspapers as opposed to being an investigative organisation. I wouldn't place too much stock in what newspapers stated.


According to John Richardson he could see all over the yard at ten to five.

It would really depend on where the nearest light source was. Let me tell you that I live in the country and round the back of my house where there are no street lights, you cannot see farther than 5 yards at say half 8 at at night this time of year, and you wouldn't see a body lying there.

While how far one can see at 8:30 pm in a rural setting seems irrelevant to the crime, given even under these conditions you say one can see around 5 yards, why wouldn't Richardson see a body only inches from his foot?

For John Richardson, it all depends on the nearest light source.

By half 5 however, you're in the period of civil twilight and it would not have been dark on the 8th September.

If you are trying to imply that it was too dark for Richardson to see the body from the steps at 4:50, then wouldn't that mean he had to go down to check the lock (given it is located down in a recess, where it would be even darker than the yard in general), at which point he could not fail to miss the body given he would almost step on it? If he could see the lock from the steps, then it must have been more than light enough for him to see into the yard and spot a body.

In the end, Richardson testifies that he could see into the yard fine at the time he visited. Nobody at the time expressed any indication that this was surprising; not the police, not the coroner, not the jury. The idea that Richardson was lying about how much light there was has no support from any of the information we have, and such a proposal predicts certain information should be available (indications that his testimony was considered suspect at the time - and nothing of that sort occurred despite there being many opportunities for it to arise in the sources we do have available).

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

Yes they have . Its only speculation that it was the killer that brushed up against the fence,but there is no evidence of that..

,"Something" not someone as per Cadoschs testimony.

Again this has been discussed at length previously .

If anyone has said that the noise against the fence was definitely Chapman's body and definitely not the killer bumping the fence, I missed it. I've been following thread recently, and I think I would have remembered that, so if anyone said that, it must have been a while ago. Anyway, my position is that it could have been either Chapman's body or the killer's body bumping the fence, so since it could have been either, it can't be proven which it was. And we don't know with absolute certainty that it was one or the other, but when one also considers Richardson's testimony, all other possibilities are rather remote.

[Lewis C]

Compelling isn't it George. ?

Yet this is some call waffle . Ahh the mind boggles at such ignorance of the possibility of an earlier t.o.d

I found it compelling when I first read it, but I now find more compelling the rebuttal of his key points in this thread. Note that Richardson having lied is an essential part of Wolf's argument.

[A P Tomlinson]

It’s an excellent, well written article clearly written with no attempt to skew the evidence one way or another. But we do see the word ‘about’ being slightly ignored in that we see no acceptance of the possibility that Cadosch might have been knocked up or that he might not have owned a clock. If he did own a clock it could have been slow of course.

Scenario time:

On the day of the murder Cadosch actually got up at 5.20 - either he was usually knocked up at 5.15 but for whatever reason the knocker up was a bit late that day (maybe a Constable had an incident to deal with putting him behind time?) Or the clock that he used (if he had one) was 5 minutes slow? All entirely plausible.

The clock that Long took her timing from was 5 minutes or so fast - again entirely possible (as per the Chris McKay article)

More than plausible. Highly likely that precision in the field of knocking up was not a strong point in its application. Simply "getting them up on time to get to work" was the goal.

Let's not forget that knocking up was not a precise form of timekeeping.
Aside from the obvious human element and his or her accuracy, there might be half a dozen houses on the same street who required knocking up at "around" quarter past.
In this case they would not be relying on the knocker up hitting the window at precisely x:15am.
Those people would in almost every conceivable instance, need to be "Up by half past" and fully apreciating that the knocker up would be hitting their door/window between maybe ten past and twenty past.
And that is for a PRECISE requirement of "around quarter past".

Consequently they would know they had been knocked up "around" quarter past and that they needed to start moving. They would have a better idea of the exact time when the half bells ring out from the church and municipal clock towers. And those would be their markers. (Roughly half those expecting a x:15 knock would probably hear the first quarter bell AFTER being knocked up...)

In many (if not most) cases, a knocker up might wake someone well before they needed to be up, in order to complete a round without having to dash from street to street.
They would have a list of the shift details of their clients and rather than knock them up at some specific time, would wake them up "In good time to get to work." rather than a specific minute or even quarter.

If that knocker up is a good reliable time keeper, then the customers don't NEED to know the exact time, they know how long it takes to get ready, they know how long it takes to walk to work, they rely on the knock, and they act accordingly.

As you say, any number of events could slow them down. For a start some "knocker upperers" would wait to receive a signal that their client was roused before going to the next house, while others would consider the job done by completing the action and moving on.
There is absolutely no reason to accept or even believe that anyone was knocked up at precisely a given time every day.
Such asssumptions made with reference to the Victorian man's time keeping seem generally to be made when trying to catch them in a form of lie or mistake. When the truth is that they had no idea, for the most part, what time it was when they awoken, and subsequently measured events by their proximity to the quarter bells being chimed by the clocks.

All of this contributes to WHY these people used to say "AROUND" or "ABOUT" the quarters, when talking about the time. And why, as we have seen on other dicussions, insisting on a time being EXACTLY as quoted does not help one get to the facts of the situation.
It leads to people thinking that, for example, if someone giving a general overview of a situation said "less than an hour and a quarter" they will declare that he meant EXACTLY 75 minutes.
Utter hokum!

[FISHY1118]

The only ignorance we see is the arrogance of people claiming to know more about the estimation of ToD than the worlds authorities on the subject.

Which part of this article puts doubt on Cadosch’s testimony by the way? I must have missed it.

The Experts also have express caution regarding witnesses and their fallibilities when it comes to testimony , but i guess arrogant people also claim to know more .

No , you didnt miss it you just ignored it . Cadosch = Uncertainty, ive showed you that already remember.

So now you move to another game by using the word ''Doubt'' as an attempt to argue for arguement sake . Round and Round you go .

[FISHY1118]

You either misunderstand or you’re deliberately ignoring the point that I was making. I can never tell which is true with you.

I’ve never denied the fact that there is some doubt in the part of his statement where he talks about hearing the “no.” Not once. Ever. Ok? So can we ditch that false point to begin with?

I’ve made one new suggestion and I’m repeating two old ones. Ok?

First - Cadosch said this: “It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.”

So he doesn’t just say “I heard the word ‘no’ but I cannot say which side it came from,” He begins by saying that he thinks that it came from number 29. He doesn’t say “I think it came from number 25” He doesn’t say “It could have come from number 25 or number 29.” So it really can’t be disputed that, at the very least, he favoured number 29. This is a given in my opinion. Ok?

Then after saying that he thinks that the ‘no’ came from number 29 he adds the “I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.” But he’s just said where he thinks that it came from so why does he then say that he can’t say? It has always been assumed that this clumsy way of putting it was his way of expressing doubt. But that’s what it is…an assumption which might or might not have been the case. We can’t know for certain. So it might have meant that he was using clumsy language to express his doubt, but reading it as it’s written, I believe that my suggestion fits the actual wording better. After all, he was talking about an event (Chapman’s murder) that occurred on his side of the yard of number 29. So which side of the yard any sound came from was important. This much is obvious. So what I favour that Cadosch meant was:

’It was not in our yard, but I’m fairly sure that it came from number 29 although I can’t be certain which side of number 29 it came from..’

So he could have still be expressing doubt but his doubt could have been that ‘no’ might have come from the number 31 side of number 29’s yard.

If you showed Cadosch’s quote to someone without the baggage that we carry (years of assuming) and with no knowledge of the background, I am convinced that they would tell us that my interpretation is at least as likely as the traditional. I’ve already shown this to three people who know nothing about the case, giving them the statement and a brief rundown of the circumstances. Two thought my suggestion the likelier, one wasn’t sure. I’m happy enough that my suggestion is at least equally possible.


Second - and more importantly in my opinion, your refusal to deal with my point by moving off at a tangent. Even if we accept that Cadosch wasn’t certain where the ‘no’ came from we cannot suggest that he was uncertain about the noise against the fence. He clearly wasn’t. The ‘no’ was a disembodied voice in the air which can often be difficult to locate (although his position so close would have made it easier) The noise had a physical element however. A fence that he was a very few feet from. And Fishy……just because a person is uncertain about one thing it’s not being honest to suggest uncertainty about other things when we have no evidence that uncertainty existed…..which is exactly what you repeatedly claim in your effort to falsely label him as ‘unreliable.’ If you can’t understand this very obvious point then that not my fault. You complain of my level of irritation and exasperation but I think that I’m fully entitled to feel that when faced with such obvious nonsense.

Third - if the noise wasn’t connected to the murder, and Annie’s mutilated corpse had been lying there since 4.30 as some believe - like Fisherman who doesn’t want a murder occurring while Cross was at work, or you, who would prefer a murder in the dark allowing the body to be transported from the Royal coach under cover of darkness, then we are entitled to ask “well what could it have been?” To which there has been no sensible, plausible answer in however many years of Ripperology. People have had to resort to demonising Cadosch as either a liar or an idiot. So what could it have been? I can’t recall any suggestion from you? It can’t have been an innocent person unless he/she was blind. A dog? How did it get there with the high fences? How did it escape? Why would it have bumped into a fence? Why would a dog have even approached the body? What about a cat…they can get anywhere but they’re hardly clumsy or bulky animals are they? The noise was loud enough for Cadosch to hear from a few feet away. So unless a blind person threw a cat against the fence or there was a Bengal Tiger roaming around Whitechapel I’d say that the animal suggestion can be dumped (maybe the aardvark re-appeared?). So what else? A passing albatross accidentally dropped a lump of wood which hit the fence and then vanished by the time that the Police arrived. We know that corpses do strange things so perhaps, an hour after her death, Annie sat up and hit the fence? I’m struggling here Fishy. The police didn’t mention seeing anything in that yard which might have caused the noise.

The fact is Fishy that evidence tells us clearly and quite above all other suggestions, that Albert Cadosch heard a noise, and very likely a ‘no’ that could only have come from Annie Chapman and/or her killer. We keep hearing increasingly desperate attempts to invent problems. There’s not a single, solitary fact which even hints that Cadosch was an unreliable witness. And repeated the general point that witnesses can be unreliable serves no purpose except to reiterate the desperation. It doesn’t mean that all witnesses are unreliable…..and it speaks volumes that I feel the necessity to repeat this obvious fact.

I don’t expect you to deal with these points specifically Fishy because you almost never do. You either repeat generalities or claim that it’s already been decided or and that it’s just a case of 50-50 when it’s clearly not. There is no issue with Cadosch. Being cautious isn’t a sign of untrustworthiness. And being uncertain on one issue certainly doesn’t mean that we should then assume uncertainty on others.

Albert Cadosch was a good witness. Not a perfect one. But a good one.

If Cadosch thought the 'No' came from 29, what difference to him or anyone would it make as to what side of 29 left or right ? why not just finish at that ,he already stated it could have come from 29 , but no he added It was not in our yard ''but i cant be sure which side it came from''


You might think, and its only your opinion ''not a fact'' that leads to your conclusion that he meant left/right ..... i dont, yours is no more certain than mine , and yup again were left with Cadosch = uncertainty.




Theres really no point going into detail with the rest of your post, your simple making the same points as you have done from the start of this thread .Which btw myself George ,Trevor and others have discussed at lenght already. Sadisfactory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

More than plausible. Highly likely that precision in the field of knocking up was not a strong point in its application. Simply "getting them up on time to get to work" was the goal.

Let's not forget that knocking up was not a precise form of timekeeping.
Aside from the obvious human element and his or her accuracy, there might be half a dozen houses on the same street who required knocking up at "around" quarter past.
In this case they would not be relying on the knocker up hitting the window at precisely x:15am.
Those people would in almost every conceivable instance, need to be "Up by half past" and fully apreciating that the knocker up would be hitting their door/window between maybe ten past and twenty past.
And that is for a PRECISE requirement of "around quarter past".

Consequently they would know they had been knocked up "around" quarter past and that they needed to start moving. They would have a better idea of the exact time when the half bells ring out from the church and municipal clock towers. And those would be their markers. (Roughly half those expecting a x:15 knock would probably hear the first quarter bell AFTER being knocked up...)

In many (if not most) cases, a knocker up might wake someone well before they needed to be up, in order to complete a round without having to dash from street to street.
They would have a list of the shift details of their clients and rather than knock them up at some specific time, would wake them up "In good time to get to work." rather than a specific minute or even quarter.

If that knocker up is a good reliable time keeper, then the customers don't NEED to know the exact time, they know how long it takes to get ready, they know how long it takes to walk to work, they rely on the knock, and they act accordingly.

As you say, any number of events could slow them down. For a start some "knocker upperers" would wait to receive a signal that their client was roused before going to the next house, while others would consider the job done by completing the action and moving on.
There is absolutely no reason to accept or even believe that anyone was knocked up at precisely a given time every day.
Such asssumptions made with reference to the Victorian man's time keeping seem generally to be made when trying to catch them in a form of lie or mistake. When the truth is that they had no idea, for the most part, what time it was when they awoken, and subsequently measured events by their proximity to the quarter bells being chimed by the clocks.

All of this contributes to WHY these people used to say "AROUND" or "ABOUT" the quarters, when talking about the time. And why, as we have seen on other dicussions, insisting on a time being EXACTLY as quoted does not help one get to the facts of the situation.
It leads to people thinking that, for example, if someone giving a general overview of a situation said "less than an hour and a quarter" they will declare that he meant EXACTLY 75 minutes.
Utter hokum!

Good post AP.

We know that knocking up was a job done by the police and I believe that someone wanting to be knocked up would go to the local station and talk to the desk sergeant (I’ll stand correcting on this - I know that David O wrote an article on this topic but he hasn’t put it up on his new site yet) It wasn’t like asking for an alarm call in a hotel of course but the sergeant would have known the approximate times that a beat Constable would pass and the ‘client’ could request a call. So his knock up might have been 20 minutes before he actually needed to leave the house if the next pass by the Constable would be 10 minutes after his required leaving time. Then we have to factor in that Constable’s had other more important duties investigating an open window or door or dealing with some kind of incident resulting in a slightly late knock up. And if the client didn’t have a clock they wouldn’t have been aware that they’d been knocked up 5 minutes later than usual.