John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

True... it may have been a cricket ball...

Id say that it would have had to have been one of those very bouncy rubber balls AP which bounced against the fence and then bounced back out of the yard.

[FISHY1118]

Then what ‘could’ it have been?

Any number of things that have been mentioned previously that fit into your self proclaimed catagories of possibility , maybe , could be , might have been probably etc etc.

[FISHY1118]

But the person insult came from you, not me. As long as we’re clear on that.

Yer, regrettably were at 1x twat each, as long as your aware of that

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any number of things that have been mentioned previously that fit into your self proclaimed catagories of possibility , maybe , could be , might have been probably etc etc.

I’ve heard no such previous suggestions. So yet again your playing the old “it’s been answered card.”

Change the record Fishy. In the time that it took you to type this you could have typed a suggestion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yer, regrettably were at 1x twat each, as long as your aware of that

Then perhaps you could point out the personal insult that I used?

[FISHY1118]

I’ve heard no such previous suggestions. So yet again your playing the old “it’s been answered card.”

Change the record Fishy. In the time that it took you to type this you could have typed a suggestion.

Rubbish ,you have so .

[FISHY1118]

Then perhaps you could point out the personal insult that I used?

I take that back, you havent posted personal insult.

[Trevor Marriott]

One Doctor using unreliable methods who admits in black and white the possibility of a later ToD even though he clearly favours an earlier one versus three witnesses, none connected to each other, none with any reason to lie, none of whom were blind or subject to hallucinations who all point solidly to a later ToD.

No competition.

But those 3 witnesses have been shown time and time again to be unsafe to rely on, when are you going to accept that, because all your posts indicate one of the reasons you rely on a later time of death is those 3 witnesses.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

If there was no earlier estimation from Phillips not one of you would be questioning Richardson or Cadosch.

But we would still be questioning the witness testimony and the conflicts that are clearly shown.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

Or it may have been something else , but ill tell what you and anyone else cant prove ...... That was it was Annie Chapman or her killer , nice try at the sarcasm tho .

True, but we can show that it was very probably Annie Chapman or her killer based on witness testimony and the location of the body in relation to the area the sound came from.

If you went to the coroner and said "It might not have been..." he would have politely, (or maybe not in Baxters case...) said something like "Would you care to elaborate?"
Feel free.

[The Rookie Detective]

Periodically I check back in on this thread. I recall that a lot of the debate is centered around how the three witnesses, Richardson, Cadoche and Long compliment each other in helping to establish the time of the murder. This is put forth as a reason to rank the later time of death as a greater probability than the earlier. Kind of a three against one countering Dr. Philips. The testimonies of Cadoche and Long also combine to exonerate Richardson of any involvement in the actual murder because they recall events after John Richardson left the yard.

There is one interesting side effect of this strength in numbers approach, and that is in Long's description of the man seen with Chapman. She describes a man in his forties. If you trust Long as a witness you have to be prepared to downgrade other witness accounts that describe a much younger man sighted before the other murders. Does it also follow then that Lechmere and Tumblety are elevated somewhat in that they more closely match the age of Long's man. I do recall that Long also described a foreigner. So even if this does not apply to Lechmere or Tumblety do you focus in on middle aged foreigners above younger men like the sailor or clerk types reported by other witnesses?

Or... do we acknowledge that the strength in numbers argument isn't as strong as first thought once you step outside the specifics of the Chapman murder and look at the evidence from the series as a whole?

That's an extremely interesting and well thought out post.


I believe that then when looking at all the possible ripper sightings combined across the series of murders, it actually indicates that there were 2 men involved.

An older man aged 35 to 45

And a younger man aged 25 - 30


One has a darker appearance, perhaps that of a "foreigner" and the other man a "fair Complexion."

If we consider that 2 men may have been involved, then it actually encompasses virtually all of the sightings made by witnesses across the series.


It would be interesting to list all of the sightings relating to all of the men seen with each of the victims and then see how they can be separated into 2 different men.


A Killer and Accomplice

A Master and an Apprentice


It may go some way to explain HOW the "ripper" managed to evade capture and seem to escape the scenes of the crimes with relative ease.


There's been lots of discussion as to whether certain victims were killed as part of a gang murder

And of course the idea of an accomplice has been floating around for decades.


But what if there were 2 "Rippers".. and at some point, the Apprentice became the master?


The sighting made by Long is very important; because I believe that rather than eradicate other potential sightings, it actually helps to strengthen the case for there having been 2 killers.


RD

[A P Tomlinson]

That's an extremely interesting and well thought out post.


I believe that then when looking at all the possible ripper sightings combined across the series of murders, it actually indicates that there were 2 men involved.

An older man aged 35 to 45

And a younger man aged 25 - 30


One has a darker appearance, perhaps that of a "foreigner" and the other man a "fair Complexion."

If we consider that 2 men may have been involved, then it actually encompasses virtually all of the sightings made by witnesses across the series.


It would be interesting to list all of the sightings relating to all of the men seen with each of the victims and then see how they can be separated into 2 different men.


A Killer and Accomplice

A Master and an Apprentice


It may go some way to explain HOW the "ripper" managed to evade capture and seem to escape the scenes of the crimes with relative ease.


There's been lots of discussion as to whether certain victims were killed as part of a gang murder

And of course the idea of an accomplice has been floating around for decades.


But what if there were 2 "Rippers".. and at some point, the Apprentice became the master?


The sighting made by Long is very important; because I believe that rather than eradicate other potential sightings, it actually helps to strengthen the case for there having been 2 killers.


RD

This is about to swerve into heavy "Off Topic" territory, but I remember reading a post maybe here or on another forum a year or two back theorising that the gang who killed Smith may have contained one or two members who realised they had murdered a woman and not gotten caught and that was like a "Trigger" or Wake-Up moment that may have led to them going much further.
There was more psychology involved than I recall but it made interesting reading.

[Indian Harry]

That's an extremely interesting and well thought out post.


I believe that then when looking at all the possible ripper sightings combined across the series of murders, it actually indicates that there were 2 men involved.

An older man aged 35 to 45

And a younger man aged 25 - 30


One has a darker appearance, perhaps that of a "foreigner" and the other man a "fair Complexion."

If we consider that 2 men may have been involved, then it actually encompasses virtually all of the sightings made by witnesses across the series.


It would be interesting to list all of the sightings relating to all of the men seen with each of the victims and then see how they can be separated into 2 different men.


A Killer and Accomplice

A Master and an Apprentice


It may go some way to explain HOW the "ripper" managed to evade capture and seem to escape the scenes of the crimes with relative ease.


There's been lots of discussion as to whether certain victims were killed as part of a gang murder

And of course the idea of an accomplice has been floating around for decades.


But what if there were 2 "Rippers".. and at some point, the Apprentice became the master?


The sighting made by Long is very important; because I believe that rather than eradicate other potential sightings, it actually helps to strengthen the case for there having been 2 killers.


RD

I can appreciate your suggestion of two killers. It ties in with what is reported by Schwartz at the site of the Stride killing. For instance could pipeman and Long's witness be the same person?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But those 3 witnesses have been shown time and time again to be unsafe to rely on, when are you going to accept that, because all your posts indicate one of the reasons you rely on a later time of death is those 3 witnesses.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I won’t accept what isn’t true Trevor. I’ll ask you…..when are you going to stop trying to eliminate witnesses purely on the grounds of perceived minor discrepancies. You appear to require absolute perfection in a witness without the need for calm assessment. So what is there to accept…..that witnesses can be mistaken? Of course they can but this doesn’t mean that we should assume that they were?

The ‘doubt’ about Richardson usually centres on the fact that Chandler said that he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair when he spoke to him on the morning of the murder. So we have to look at the detail by assessing all possibilities. So…

1. We shouldn’t just assume that Chandler was right (especially considering that he only said that Richardson hadn’t mentioned the boot repair, not that he hadn’t mentioned sitting) The boot repair was mentioned however in the press days before the inquest.
2. It also has to be remembered that the boot repair wasn’t important. It would have been perfectly understandable if he’d just said that he’d gone to check the back door and sat on the step. There’s nothing sinister or suspicious about it. The reason that he sat on the steps was irrelevant. Far too much is made of this.
3. As Jeff has said, further information often comes out sporadically; when further questions are asked to try and gain more detailed information. This is perfectly normal and understandable.
4. And finally, why would Richardson have lied to ‘prove’ that he couldn’t have missed the body when he could have, a) accepted the possibility that he could have missed the body, b) said that he’d pushed the door all the way back to fence, c) said that actually he’d stepped into the yard, d) said that he’d used the outside loo, e) that he’d gone to check the outbuilding or f) that he’d stood in the yard having a smoke. All very, very simple, very obvious things which he apparently avoided to lie about being at the scene with a knife. How can this be said to make any sense.

Richardson cannot be dismissed. Neither can Cadosch. Proper assessment is required and not just a dogmatic attempt to exclude witnesses because it’s convenient to do it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In fairness, Albert provides the best argument for a later TOD.

It's not clear where exactly Albert was when he heard the 'sudden noise against the fence', but really he should have been able to discern the direction of a noise that came from his left given human beings are conditioned to determine a noise to our left or right by virtue of the sound hitting the left and right ear at different times, it follows thus appearing louder in the left ear on this occasion and therefore the sound originating from his left. Unlike John, there is no reason to question Albert's motive and reliability.

Were it not for Albert's second visit to the yard, I would say the later TOD is a weak argument. It's Albert that gives it validity and makes you reluctant to go too far in for the earlier TOD.

I believe the yard was reported as being small, 'about 15ft square'. That's pretty small by yard standards.

So, it's possible that the noise was from Albert's left but from the next yard given how small the yards were.

Either way, Albert's 'noise against the fence' cannot easily be dismissed.

Still, in any murder case there is competing information. I'd imagine that all of the unsolved murders discussed on this forum involve conflicting information, and so you have to make a judgement call on which particular argument has more weight behind it. For me, Albert is outweighed by everything else we know from that night, including Annie's movement and food intake, and the medical evidence.

The other possibility is this:

As I said, it is not clear where exactly Albert was when he heard the noise against the fence. This is his inquest statement:

While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29

This leaves room for Albert hearing the noise as he exits the bog. In that event, it would put a slightly different complexion on it, because the noise is more in front of him as opposed to being directly to his left, and that would make it more difficult to discern where the noise came from because the sound would have hit both ears at a similar time, unlike a sound coming directly from his left. The most difficult place from which to discern a sound, is when it is front of you for the very reason it hits both ears at almost the same time.

Very good points regarding the localisation of sound. Interaural intensity difference (IID) is important for high frequency sounds, because the head blocks these wavelengths and so the ear closest to the sound hears a louder sound. Interaural time difference (ITD) is more important for low frequency sounds. A thud against a fence would generate mostly low frequency sounds.

Had the sound come from almost directly in front of Cadosch, it's hard to see why he would necessarily have believed it to have come from over either fence, as the localisation of the sound might have suggested that it came from inside his own place. On the other hand, had he been about halfway back inside, the left or right direction of the sound would have been obvious. I'd say Albert couldn't clearly remember where the sound had come from.