John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

where do you get these figures from ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Estimations. But reasonable ones. The main proponents of an earlier ToD have been - Christer, yourself, George, Fishy, Fleetwood and PI. Yourself, George and Fleetwood don’t have theories that require (or are supported by) an earlier ToD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you understand the meaning of 'empirical' evidence?

The serial killers we are aware of, is empirical evidence/data.

Are you saying you believe it is common for a serial killer running 'round murdering women, to do that in daylight outdoors at a time and location where that serial killer knows the wider community is active in going about their business.

Look on the internet, type in serial killers murdering women, you will get a long list, then report back on those who killed women in that situation.

It's not unheard of, but you won't find many at all, and statistically it is highly unusual.

It's pretty obvious why: they don't want to get caught and the cover of darkness, or four walls, or an isolated area such as the woods; is chosen to enable them to avoid detection.

There is nothing to suggest that the killer wouldn’t have killed at 5.30. The witnesses prove this. This is why we see such a desperate and laughable (and often dishonest) attempt to denigrate them.

[GBinOz]

How about, instead, we make up this story. After a long night walking the streets, with no luck, she went to #29 knowing that people in the house started their day around 5:45 to 6:00, which was just over an hour away. (That's when Davies gets up). She figures she might get lucky and sell something to them as she had done before so she can finally go get a bed and some sleep. That's when she's approached by JtR, and knowing she's still got over 30 minutes before the house starts rising, figures this is a quicker and more sure source of income. And she figures she can deal with the people in the house. She's had a fist fight over less after all.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Daily News 13 Sep:
Have you seen any strangers in the passage of the house?-Yes, lots; plenty of them, at all hours.
Men and women?-Yes; and I have turned them out. I have seen them lying down on the landing.
Do they go there for an immoral purpose?-They do. I have caught them.

This has puzzled me for a while. The couples that Richardson found and turned out were in the house. They were in the passage and on the landings. Why, on a cold morning, would Annie instead take Jack into the back yard? Did proceedings commence in the house, Jack strangles her and then carries her into the yard to begin the bloodwork. This would be OK in darkness, but would not be conducive of Cadosch hearing a "No", and if the bump was Jack putting her body down then surely Cadosch must have seen him open the door and descend the steps. Even if Jack found her rough sleeping, that still would have been in the house.

Cheer, George

[GBinOz]

Did Richardson mention the boot cutting to Chandler that morning? - Not according to Chandler.

So if he hadn’t mentioned it could Chandler have acquired knowledge about the boot cutting from another source? - No.

So, at no point that morning did Chandler or any other police officer know about and boot cutting? - Correct.

Hope you’re following this complex analysis?

So if Chandler did happen to notice a small piece of discarded leather would he have thought it remotely significant in any way? - No.

Conclusion

The absence of a small piece of leather is a complete non-point.

Hi Herlock,

Under these circumstances, why would Chandler find a small spring of any significance?

Cheers, George

[Paul Sutton]

Someone recommended I watched Trevor's documentary on the German sailor - I did, then realised I'd seen it before. I also had his book, which I must have read, but couldn't recall - not a criticism at all, as I can see it's good.

My view - for what it's worth - is that (like Christer) it's great to have the opening out it gives. The theory seems wild, but so what?

But the bigger point - and I'm sure he doesn't need my praise - is that this bloke will have dealt with many many witness statements, so to dismiss him is just crass. He may well be wrong, but (correct me) he's the only poster who's done murder investigations, as a job?

He'll have an intuitive sense of all this, which only working in the field can give. No amount of pedantry and point-scoring can gainsay that.

[Paul Sutton]

There is nothing to suggest that the killer wouldn’t have killed at 5.30. The witnesses prove this. This is why we see such a desperate and laughable (and often dishonest) attempt to denigrate them.

There is something - all the other killings and the likelihood that he'd do it in the dark. That's not binding nor even compelling, but it's not nothing. An experienced murder-squad chap is cautioning about witness statements, how they don't 'prove' this. I'd listen to him.

What is your expertise in this - from actual work?

I've precisely zero - like most here. Doesn't mean 'shut up', but it does mean that your hectoring gets increasingly absurd.

Have you ever worked in a field - scientific research say - which collects, collates and uses empirical facts and data? But which also tries to - haltingly - fit this to a broader theory. It would show if you had, so I'd say no. You seem to have no ability to think conceptually or even in broader terms - so hide behind 'evidence' and semantics. Whereas an actual murder-squad chap knows that the evidence now cannot be given this weight. Doesn't mean it can be ignored, but it shouldn't be unduly valorised, as you do.

[Trevor Marriott]

Same old nonsense Trevor.

Same old misguided replies

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Someone recommended I watched Trevor's documentary on the German sailor - I did, then realised I'd seen it before. I also had his book, which I must have read, but couldn't recall - not a criticism at all, as I can see it's good.

My view - for what it's worth - is that (like Christer) it's great to have the opening out it gives. The theory seems wild, but so what?

But the bigger point - and I'm sure he doesn't need my praise - is that this bloke will have dealt with many many witness statements, so to dismiss him is just crass. He may well be wrong, but (correct me) he's the only poster who's done murder investigations, as a job?

He'll have an intuitive sense of all this, which only working in the field can give. No amount of pedantry and point-scoring can gainsay that.

Thank you for that and I have fallen short of saying on here that over the past 25 years and I still do today I am actively involved in assessing and evaluating witness statements in criminal cases. So I think I am more than capable of identifying flaws and inconsistencies in witness statements.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Over the over the duration of the debate on Chapman ToD we appear to have 6 posters who favour an earlier ToD. Three of them (50%) have theories/suspects that require an earlier ToD. Of the 20 or so that go for a later ToD none of them (0%) have a theory/suspect that requires a later ToD.

The bandwagon logical fallacy.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain

[Fleetwood Mac]

There is nothing to suggest that the killer wouldn’t have killed at 5.30. The witnesses prove this. This is why we see such a desperate and laughable (and often dishonest) attempt to denigrate them.

I think this is a good example of how much your argument rests on two witnesses at the expense of all of the other information we have at our disposal.

It's also a Non Sequitur in that two witnesses statements from a case 150 years ago, do not dispel the notion, built upon empirical evidence; that it is highly unusual for a serial killer to murder in the circumstances at 29 Hanbury Street in daylight and at a time when people in the community are active in going about their business.

[Paul Sutton]

Thank you for that and I have fallen short of saying on here that over the past 25 years and I still do today I am actively involved in assessing and evaluating witness statements in criminal cases. So I think I am more than capable of identifying flaws and inconsistencies in witness statements.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes - I'm amazed at your tolerance for the denigration you get! I'm the last person to worship 'experts' for the sake of it, but your experience is unarguable. In fact, your service too - and it irks me to see someone who's worked for the public get such snotty dismissal.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The police of the time did not come to any conclusion about the graffito being written by the Ripper. Walter Dew appears to have not believed the GSG was written by the Ripper. Robert Anderson appears to have believed the GSG was the work of the Ripper, but he also said "In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact."

I think we have been through this before.

The prevailing view at Scotland Yard was that the graffito was written by the murderer in order to divert attention towards the Jews.

There is nothing to suggest that Anderson dissented from that view.

There is nothing in the sayings or writings of Sir Robert Anderson during the following two decades to suggest that he was convinced that the murderer was Jewish.

And when challenged, he could not refer to any evidence in support of his extremely belated afterthought, which just happened to materialise when he wrote his memoirs.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The police did not conclude that the Ripper was not Jewish. Several supported Jewish suspects. Several supported non-Jewish suspects. Several had no suspect at all.

Macnaghten, Warren, Abberline, Reid, and Smith all believed that the murderer was a gentile.

All the indications are that Anderson did too, at that time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Perhaps her noting he wasn't much taller than Annie, and his clothes were "shabby gentile", but not much more than that.


- Jeff

I think if you read in between her lines, she was suggesting that the man was a shabby Jew, not a shabby Gentile, Jeff.

[Fleetwood Mac]

On witness testimony:

Why eyewitnesses fail - PMC (nih.gov)

Contrary to common intuition, however, courtroom statements of confidence are very poor predictors of accuracy (26–29). The cause of this confidence–accuracy disparity is well captured by Daniel Kahneman’s cognitive “illusion of validity” (30). Subjective confidence in a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgment is correct. Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. Declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.

Broadly speaking, eyewitness misidentifications can be characterized as failures of visual perception or memory, the former being seeing things inaccurately, the latter being loss of accuracy or precision in the storage, maintenance, and recall of what was seen.

Declarative memories are conceptualized as involving three core processes—encoding, storage, and retrieval—which refer, respectively, to the placement of items in memory, maintenance therein, and subsequent access to the stored information (32). These are not passive, static processes that record, retain, and divulge their contents in an informational vacuum, unaffected by outside influences. The contents cannot be treated as a veridical permanent record, like photographs stored in a safe. On the contrary, the fidelity of our memories may be compromised by many factors at all stages of processing, from encoding through storage, to the final stages of retrieval (33–40).

Without awareness, we regularly encode information in a prejudiced manner and later forget, reconstruct, update, and distort the things we believe to be true.

This article is informed by 54 sources (see the footnotes).