John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

You said this a couple days ago, and I replied to you, and A P Tomlinson replied to me. Here's what we said:

Me: My question here is, did outdoor prostitution sometimes occur in Whitechapel and Spitalfields between dawn and dusk? If so, I don't know what would have been a better place for it than Dutfield Yard. It did provide some measure of privacy, more than most outdoor locations. It was also a place that the police didn't patrol, so if they were seen there, they at least wouldn't be seen by someone who would arrest them.
(6106)

A P: We sort of have an idea that they did.

[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.

But... DOCTOR SAID FOUR THIRTY!!!!!!!!!
6132


If you're sticking with your original position, what do you have to say in response to our comments?

The term "All hours" is ambiguous, she states she often turned them out, but if in the case of Chapman taking someone to this location at 3.30am would all hours apply after all would she know what went on during the early hours of the morning, especially in the case of Chapman and the suggested early time of death, she would be asleep and unaware of what was happening.

She does not say that she ever got up in the middle of the night to check after hearing any noises or movements

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hmmm, I've always enjoyed a bit of creative writing too Trevor. But, if we're going to pretend to know what Annie is thinking and what choices she would make, why bother working that out from the evidence of her being found in the back yard, rather, let's create a character who was too shy to go in, or who was afraid of getting caught, so we can make the plot go where we want it to. But why not create a character in our little made up stories that has a bit more gusto.

It's unfortunate that some people play the speculation card when it suits, and employ speculation at other times.

In the event you look back through this thread, it is littered with speculation, from just about everybody posting.

I think it's entirely legitimate to ask the question: would Annie have gone into that location at that time of the morning?

I don't know the answer, maybe there is evidence from the time, other women and what they did; that would lend towards likely or unlikely.

Either way, I think the more pertinent point is lost in that discussion, that being: would Jack have killed in that location in daylight?

The good news is that we do have empirical data for that particular discussion.

The empirical data tells us that serial killers are unlikely to kill in that location in daylight. Jack being a serial killer, then the conclusion must be that it is unlikely Jack did. And then of course we have more empirical data from Jack's murder series, in that he didn't kill in daylight and outdoors at any other time. From there, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Jack appreciated the cover of darkness or four walls, and in turn reasonable to suggest that it was his cover, as it is with other serial killers.

And, that's only one point of many that leads away from Annie still being alive at a quarter past five in the morning.

[Trevor Marriott]

My nick has to do with Watership Down.

IIRC, Trevor dismisses the eyewitness testimony as unsafe. He and other people who dismiss the eyewitnesses out of hand have given me the impression that a later time of death would contradict their theory.

I have no theory it is the facts and the unsafe witness testimony, and all the new facts I have presented that in my own personal opinion point to an early TOD.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have no theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nor do I, and I agree that the information we have at our disposal suggests it is likely that Dr Phillips was correct when he stated: "at least two hours, and probably more".

My only theory is that in the event the murderer is in the information we have, it is more likely to be a seemingly innocuous witness who is not considered to be a suspect today, than it is to be one of today's acknowledged suspects. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it, and I've no idea which witness would be towards the top of the possibilities simply because we do not know much about them. I'm not necessarily saying a witness who has been discussed much, simply somebody who is in the information no matter how central to any discussion we're having.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi George

You have confirmed a point I made in a previous post where I stated Chapman knew this location as she he had been there selling items previously so she would probably have known that 17 people were residents at that address. So it would also be fair to say that Chapman took the killer to this secluded location long before the later TOD. I doubt she would have taken anyone to that location at the later time of the morning for fear of being caught.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unless she had been oustide in the street when she saw Richardson leave. He was the bouncer - not the old lady.

[JeffHamm]

Which suggests to me that Long mis-remembered the day on which she saw the couple.

I do not believe that the clocks were all wrong in just such a way as to enable the man seen by Long to murder Chapman and be heard by Cadoche.

Nor do I believe that the dark 'foreigner' in his forties was the Whitechapel Murderer.

Nor am I convinced that the woman he was seen talking with was a lady of the night.

That's fine. When looking at Long as producing a false positive, I start with considering that either the Brewers clock and the Spitalfields clock were simply out of sync, such that Cadosche's 5:30 is not Long's 5:30. If Long doesn't see Annie, then Long's sighting could be any time either side of Cadosche's 5:30, and her clock just has to be out by say 2 minutes compared to Cadosches. They just can't be the same time, and they have to out by enough for Long, and the couple, to move into or out of view after/before Cadosche leaves for work.

Of course, if Long did see Annie, she's not got the day wrong, and it would appear that either the Brewer's clock is 15 minutes fast, or she's just misrecalled the chimes. Personally, I think misrecalling a detail like the chime is the easiest explanation as that is just the sort of error that crops up in Witness statements all the time. Even if Long did see and identify Annie, I don't put much stock in Long's description of the fellow though, as she herself says she only saw him from behind. As such, I wouldn't put any stock in the 40 years old (age is also very poorly estimated by witnesses, many will be out by 10 years on guessing ages of adults) and so forth. Perhaps her noting he wasn't much taller than Annie, and his clothes were "shabby gentile", but not much more than that.

Anyway, I think one has to deal with Long's testimony and the time issue in different ways depending upon which possibility one is considering. When viewing it as an actual siting, then it requires on line of explanation, and when considering her sighting as a false positive, it would get a different explanation (because, of course, which possible situation one considers changes the context, so changes the explanations).

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

Nor do I, and I agree that the information we have at our disposal suggests it is likely that Dr Phillips was correct when he stated: "at least two hours, and probably more".

My only theory is that in the event the murderer is in the information we have, it is more likely to be a seemingly innocuous witness who is not considered to be a suspect today, than it is to be one of today's acknowledged suspects. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it, and I've no idea which witness would be towards the top of the possibilities simply because we do not know much about them. I'm not necessarily saying a witness who has been discussed much, simply somebody who is in the information no matter how central to any discussion we're having.

What information beyond Philips' estimation supports "at least two hours probably more"? I've asked this and all people have done is provide opinions that attempt to question the credibility of the witnesses who suggest a later time.

You know the difference between what I'm asking for Trevor, better than PI and Fishy do; actual corroboration of Philips. Not silly things like "She wasn't seen by as many people as saw other victims" that support nothing. NOt "I think these people were wrong so Philips must be right"

Some sort of evidence to support Philips.

The problem you are going to have is that your theory relies on making witnesses generally inadmissible, so you created a situation where witnesses are useless to you without hypocrisy, so what information do you have to suppport Philips?

[Herlock Sholmes]

He doesn't need to turn it into a point in favour of an earlier ToD.

It clearly is.

Chapman had visited the house before and had acquired some familiarity with the occupants and their habits.

She is hardly likely then to have visited the back yard with a customer at a time when there was a chance of any of them being up and about.

But an hour earlier and she’d have known that she was perfectly safe?

Ok.

[A P Tomlinson]

The term "All hours" is ambiguous, she states she often turned them out, but if in the case of Chapman taking someone to this location at 3.30am would all hours apply after all would she know what went on during the early hours of the morning, especially in the case of Chapman and the suggested early time of death, she would be asleep and unaware of what was happening.

She does not say that she ever got up in the middle of the night to check after hearing any noises or movements

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Except...
(Testimony of Mrs Richardson)
[Coroner] Which room do you occupy? - The first floor front, and my grandson slept in the same room on Friday night. I went to bed about half-past nine, and was very wakeful half the night. I was awake at three a.m., and only dozed after that.
[Coroner] Did you hear any noise during the night? - No.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The problem you are going to have is that your theory relies on making witnesses generally inadmissible, so you created a situation where witnesses are useless to you without hypocrisy, so what information do you have to suppport Philips?

I've put my thoughts down on the various forms of information that suggest to me Dr Phillips was correct, throughout this thread. Information that includes, but is not remotely exclusive to, Dr Phillips' medical information left to us. You're more than welcome to have a look at those posts and respond in a sensible manner.

The problem you're going to have is that in the event you appeal to 'hypocrisy' and 'silly questions', they're not going to be taken as serious discussion points. As for 'creating a situation where the witnesses are useless', that's not a serious discussion point either.

On the witnesses, it is widely acknowledged that witness testimony is often incorrect and should be treated with caution. There is a whole series of studies, undertaken by people qualified in that field I may add, that detail the extent to which witness testimony is often incorrect, and this includes empirical data as opposed to that which you or I theorise; and the studies explain why witness testimony is often incorrect, again explained by people qualified in that field.

Assuming you do not agree with those qualified people and their evidence from actual witness testimony that witness testimony is often incorrect, then what you need to do is to explain why in a reasonable manner.

Appealing to 'hypocrisy' and 'silly questions', is not sensible discussion in response to somebody who has put forward these studies of actual witness testimony.

Witness testimony appears to be central to your post and so you may want to start with that. I'll ask you: are you aware of these studies and that these studies are based upon actual witness testimony, and that they're undertaken by people qualified in that field?

[Herlock Sholmes]

d by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Is there anything, absolutely anything that you can look at without turning it into a point in favour of an earlier ToD?

Its not me personally it's what the evidence tells us I am merely presenting those facts and interpreting the evidence in an unbiased fashion

Unbiased? You?

A woman who could barely look at the victims face is reliable, but Long isn’t.

You are right Long is not reliable

No more or less reliable than any other eyewitness.

Chapman had possibly been there before and took a bit of a census to find out how many people lived there.

It would seem that she had been to No29 several times so it would be foolish to dismiss her knowledge of who resided there

And it would be foolish to make a point of it.

The fact that she might have been there before so you think it unlikely that she would have gone there at that time is considered a good point? Why didn’t she just go somewhere that she wasn’t known?

Because at 4am or before she would know the likelihood of being disturbed was very slim.

And a desperately poor prostitute living in a slum would have course have been primarily concerned with preserving her modesty and dignity by eliminating every outside chance of being disturbed. So much so she, being desperately in need of money, would have either turned down a client or said “hold on, can we go and spend time finding somewhere else please”…..at a time where people were starting to move around. Or……would she have said “this will only take a minute or two so we’re probably safe, and if we get disturbed….so what?” Unless you think that they’d have intended to engage in a 10 minutes of foreplay before getting down to it?

And this weak point is stronger than a man, with eyes that worked, telling us categorically that Chapman wasn’t there at 4.45.

Chapman was still alive at 4.45. Three witnesses trump silly points.

You need to rethink the unsafe testimony of those witnesses you hold in such high esteem take the blinkers off

And you need to stop desperately scratching around for points in favour of an earlier ToD. You remind me of the Apostles of St. Christer and the Church of Herr Oberstrurmbannführer Von Stow.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is farfetched.

The police did not even consider the idea and it is not worthy of consideration.

And they knew full well that the accusations that a Jew committed the murders were inextricably linked to local antisemitism.

I have been reading that Jews are to blame for the fact that about a thousand of their civilians were butchered two weeks ago by Islamic terrorists, and that Jews are to blame for an explosion at a hospital in Gaza which was actually caused by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Even Anderson accepted that the writer was a Gentile.

The current situation in Gaza is irrelevant to this debate.

You think that the suggestion that a serial killer might have been deceptive is far-fetched.

No time should be wasted in discussing this.

[A P Tomlinson]

I've put my thoughts down on the various forms of information that suggest to me Dr Phillips was correct, throughout this thread. Information that includes, but is not remotely exclusive to, Dr Phillips' medical information left to us. You're more than welcome to have a look at those posts and respond in a sensible manner.

The problem you're going to have is that in the event you appeal to 'hypocrisy' and 'silly questions', they're not going to be taken as serious discussion points. As for 'creating a situation where the witnesses are useless', that's not a serious discussion point either.

On the witnesses, it is widely acknowledged that witness testimony is often incorrect and should be treated with caution. There is a whole series of studies, undertaken by people qualified in that field I may add, that detail the extent to which witness testimony is often incorrect, and this includes empirical data as opposed to that which you or I theorise; and the studies explain why witness testimony is often incorrect, again explained by people qualified in that field.

Assuming you do not agree with those qualified people and their evidence from actual witness testimony that witness testimony is often incorrect, then what you need to do is to explain why in a reasonable manner.

Appealing to 'hypocrisy' and 'silly questions', is not sensible discussion in response to somebody who has put forward these studies of actual witness testimony.

Witness testimony appears to be central to your post and so you may want to start with that. I'll ask you: are you aware of these studies and that these studies are based upon actual witness testimony, and that they're undertaken by people qualified in that field?

I'm sorry, but if your argument to dismiss the three witnesses who put Chapmans death later, is due to the general statement of "witness unreliability" without giving more specific reasons for the individual instances, or "memory is bad" and then rely on general witness reliability and memory, without specifying where your witnesses are more reliable than the others, that's hypocrisy.

Yes, I read the all the links you posted, even the ones where it was about a dozen links to the same piece, I followed them all just in case one was different...
The fact remains that witnesses, and their memories, are relied upon by pretty much every court in the Free world, and when independent witness stories meet up and support one another they are regarded as very reliable and strong evidence.
However, Philips' Victorian estimate of ToD is little better than a guess. And probably worse when he didn't factor in things like ambiant temperature, blood loss and the fact that about three pounds of her insides had been removed and placed on the outside, all of which only needed to contrbute to a drop in body temp of 1.5 degrees C for him to have been out by an hour EVEN IF he had been using a termometre to determine precisely how cold she was rather than the back of his hand.

And I have yet to see ANYTHING from the case that supports him. Beyond an obsession with witness fallibility, (that if you velieve... HAS to be turned and applied to EVERY witness who was in a similar situation) which doesn't even suppport his evidence. It only seeks to discount other evidence.
PLEASE try and understand the difference.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The police saw them and made the connection.

They did not know that 135 years later, someone might come out with a piece of nonsense such as

The killer writer could have been Jewish ...

The writing was at shoulder height, was it not?

Why should it not have been?

And it was written on the inside of a jamb of the arch inside of which the bloody clothing was lying, practically pointing to the clothing.

Its noticeable how, when it suits you to do so, you favour opinions like that of Anderson, Swanson and the Police in general. And yet elsewhere they are both liars.

We cannot know who wrote the graffito. It’s been debated for 135 years. Certainty won’t be declared simply because of your opinion on the matter (or mine or Wick’s) But it’s a fact that we don’t know who wrote it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which suggests to me that Long mis-remembered the day on which she saw the couple.

I do not believe that the clocks were all wrong in just such a way as to enable the man seen by Long to murder Chapman and be heard by Cadoche.

Nor do I believe that the dark 'foreigner' in his forties was the Whitechapel Murderer.

Nor am I convinced that the woman he was seen talking with was a lady of the night.

Yes, and wording it to sound as if someone went around changing clock times to fit a later ToD won’t work either PI.

That the clocks could have been misaligned by a measly 5 minutes or so shouldn’t even be a subject for debate. Clocks can be more misaligned that that in 2023 even with our technology, so your point has no merit.

And then all is explained:

“Nor do I believe that the dark 'foreigner' in his forties was the Whitechapel Murderer.”

This is your preconception that the killer couldn’t have been Jewish shaping your judgment. You start from that point and look for ways of bolstering that opinion. So Christer needs an earlier ToD so that Cross wasn’t at work. Fishy needs an earlier ToD because Sickert and Netley would have needed the cover of darkness. And you need an earlier ToD because you refuse to concede that the killer might possibly have been Jewish.