John Richardson

[Wickerman]

This was a poverty stricken east end prostitute out in the early hours PI not Lady Gaga strolling around at midday. That no one saw her means nothing. Also we have to consider that many people mistrusted the police, especially fellow prostitutes, so if someone had spent time with her they might have felt reluctant to come forward.

You're right, this comment a witness "saw no-one" must always be taken with a pinch of salt.
Writers of the time tells us the streets were alive with people all night long, women passing back & forth, kids screaming, dogs running all over the place. Some loitering in doorways chatting with neighbours, and so on.
Take Cadoche for instance, three different newspapers give a different account of him after he left the house on his way to work.
In one he says he saw 'no man and woman' in Hanbury street as he left. In another it reads 'no man or woman', yet the third admits he only saw 'men on their way to work'.
Seeing "no-one" can often mean "no-one suspicious", or "no-one out of the ordinary", not that the street was empty.
In the case above that "no-one" saw her only means at the least "no-one noticed her", but then again all these women looked and dressed very similar.

[Hair Bear]

George: "once a week collected by doomed individuals"

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In the case above that "no-one" saw her only means at the least "no-one noticed her", but then again all these women looked and dressed very similar.

Nichols was sighted four times during the five and a half hours preceding her death, Eddowes was sighted about half an hour after her release from the police station, and Stride was sighted twice during the 25 minutes or so preceding her death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nichols was sighted four times during the five and a half hours preceding her death, Eddowes was sighted about half an hour after her release from the police station, and Stride was sighted twice during the 25 minutes or so preceding her death.

But they aren’t Chapman. Why are you trying to make this comparison? Just because one person was spotted it doesn’t mean another has to have been. Chapman not been seen (or noticed as Wick rightly points out) is just a non-issue. This is the kind of thing that I mean when I say that there’s a desperate attempt to try and shoehorn an earlier ToD into place despite the evidence against it.

We can’t say a ToD with total confidence but we can say with total confidence that the evidence strongly favours a later one.

[A P Tomlinson]

If Davies had felt the body when he found it and it had already been cold, would that have been enough?

I suspect not, because he would not have used a thermometer and was not even a medical man.

Is it reasonable to expect to find something of substance?

The supporting evidence is circumstantial: in none of the other murders in the series did the murderer commit the murder as it was getting light; there was no sighting of Chapman after 1.50 a.m.

Nichols was sighted four times during the five and a half hours preceding her death, Eddowes was sighted about half an hour after her release from the police station, and Stride was sighted twice during the 25 minutes or so preceding her death.

The murderer could have washed his hands with water from the tap, but seems not to have noticed it.

There was still food in Chapman's stomach, even though the last food she is known to have eaten was only potato at about 1.45 a.m.

I have seen arguments that the murderer may just this once have felt like murdering in daylight in a potential trap, it may just have happened that no-one noticed Chapman for three hours and forty minutes, the murderer may have had wet wipes with him which he preferred to tap water, and that the food found may have been hard-to-digest potato skins, or she may have been given food for free, or she may have found a client, spent her money on more food, and then looked for another customer to earn her bed money.

But is it likely that all these things happened?

"I don't believe any witness who saw her AFTER 1.50 and especially 4.30" is NOT even circumstantial. Its an opinion.

I'm sorry but a slight difference in pattern is NOT circumstantial evidence for 4.30, it provides NO support for any time of death. There are distinct differences between all of them. Nichols - no removal of organs. Chapman - viscera thrown over shoulder, later ToD, Stride - nothing more than throat cut, Eddowes - additional organ removal (kidney) and massive facial disfigurement, and Kelly... well, where would I start?

Not washing hands at the scene is NOT circumstantial evidence to support 4.30.
If he HAD washed his hands you'd claim THAT was a deviation from MO.

Others being sighted at closer times is NOT circumstantial evidence that supports 4.30, it's the sound of straws slipping from your clutch.

The small intestine was severed at the mesenteric flap (valve? can;t remember the term, but it was the end that connnected to the stomach not the bowel...), meaning any food at that end of the intestinal tract would have been squeezed back into the cavity as it was pulled free, and that's not supporting Philips' evidence that IS Philips evidence.

"I think these things happened/didn't happen" is NOT substantive or supportive of anything.

You are STILL trying to dispute a later ToD rather than support 4.30.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Just because one person was spotted it doesn’t mean another has to have been.

It is not a case of just one victim being seen in the minutes or hours before her murder.

This looks like yet another case in which inconvenient facts are not allowed to get in the way of an approach which states that because a certain case could be an exception, let us treat it as an exception.

[A P Tomlinson]

It is not a case of just one victim being seen in the minutes or hours before her murder.

This looks like yet another case in which inconvenient facts are not allowed to get in the way of an approach which states that because a certain case could be an exception, let us treat it as an exception.

I'm not sure what you are getting at... are you saying that if anyone had seen her, they would remember her? OK then... Long.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sorry, APT, but I did not really follow your reasoning, especially your first sentence.

You write, If he HAD washed his hands you'd claim THAT was a deviation from MO.

I would not.

There was no water tap at any other murder scene.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm not sure what you are getting at... are you saying that if anyone had seen her, they would remember her? OK then... Long.

Why did four people remember seeing Nichols, two Stride (in the space of about 25 minutes), and one Eddowes (in the space of about half an hour)?

Why did they remember seeing them but no-one saw Chapman for three and three-quarter hours?

[Ms Diddles]

Why did four people remember seeing Nichols, two Stride (in the space of about 25 minutes), and one Eddowes (in the space of about half an hour)?

Why did they remember seeing them but no-one saw Chapman for three and three-quarter hours?

Hi P.I.!

I'm sorry, I'm not quite getting this either.

Just because people saw the other victims, it doesn't follow that Annie must have been seen.

She was feeling poorly.

I think it entirely possible that she holed up somewhere for a rest / sleep, whereas the others were out and about on the streets.

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi P.I.!

I'm sorry, I'm not quite getting this either.

Just because people saw the other victims, it doesn't follow that Annie must have been seen.

She was feeling poorly.

I think it entirely possible that she holed up somewhere for a rest / sleep, whereas the others were out and about on the streets.

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

If she was sleeping somewhere, then why did she need to find a customer in order to pay for a bed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not a case of just one victim being seen in the minutes or hours before her murder.

This looks like yet another case in which inconvenient facts are not allowed to get in the way of an approach which states that because a certain case could be an exception, let us treat it as an exception.

All that I’m saying PI as that we can’t read anything into the fact that no one came forward to say that they had seen her. It’s not an exception. You are constant trying to invest more meaning into things that don’t merit it. Come on PI. Just for once stop trying to shape everything to fit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why did four people remember seeing Nichols, two Stride (in the space of about 25 minutes), and one Eddowes (in the space of about half an hour)?

Why did they remember seeing them but no-one saw Chapman for three and three-quarter hours?

And if no one is reported seen for three and three quarter hours in the early hours in a Victorian slum that must mean that she was dead.

Its irrelevant. You don’t know where she was. I don’t know where she was. No one knows where she was. We have no CCTV footage. So in the complete absence of knowledge you try to fill the hole with the weakest suggestion ever.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If she was sleeping somewhere, then why did she need to find a customer in order to pay for a bed?

Unbelievable!

Annie Chapman was permanently poor. Not just on certain days and she wasn’t just ‘a bit skint.’ She was grindingly, desperately poor. If she had slept somewhere until the early hours and then was presented with the opportunity to earn a few pennies do you really think that she would have turned it down. She would have needed a bed for the next night, and food and gin. She was permanently in need of money.

[Ms Diddles]

If she was sleeping somewhere, then why did she need to find a customer in order to pay for a bed?

Hi P.I.

I'm not saying she was sleeping.

I'm just saying it's a possibility.

I just don't see any mystery in the lack of eyewitnesses.

Would I like to know where she was for the missing hours?

Of course, but in light of her poor health, I find it entirely possible that she would need to rest up in some quiet spot, sleeping or otherwise, whilst the other victims were moving around the streets being seen.