Four little words

[curious4]

Vanquished!

Hello Tom,

Yes, you have me there. Not saying it couldn't have happened but it is pure speculation.

As is the urinating idea.

All good wishes,
C4

[Tom_Wescott]

But it would still be evidenced by those in the area and on the ground surrounding the dead body I would think. Something so common as a quick shower would surely have been obvious to James Kent and others, also residents of England and people who were alive and moving about in the area at the time. I'm not saying a quick shower isn't a possible solution, but if so, I'd expect to see mention of it from somebody, somewhere. Perhaps you'll find the answer in the papers relating to something other than the murder? But until then it's not really on the table as an option.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious4]

Rain

Hello Tom,

This is England. A quick, light shower would hardly be called rain.

I think.

But I grant you, it could have been dew. Not wee though.

Best wishes,
C4

[Tom_Wescott]

Why do you 'think' this? If it happened, it did so without the knowledge of James Kent and other witnesses, or Cadosch, Long, etc. Rain isn't a matter of opinion, it either happened or not. If it didn't happen, and I've personally not seen any mention of it, we're left with heavy dew, urine, or some kind of liquid being sprinkled over the deceased.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious4]

The rain in

Hello Tom,

Ditto.

I did check the weather and it had rained the evening before. I think there could have been a light shower sometime during the early morning. Not heavy rain.

Best wishes,
C4

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Curious,

I'm an American male and our urine smells like rose water. Not sure about you Swedes though.

But it didn't rain that morning...no showers...so that's not really an option.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious4]

Oh dear!

Hello Tom,

Sorry, was I being sexist? Judging by the odours on many a Swedish street, it still being acceptable (I believe) over here to relieve yourself in the nearest shady corner, I believe male wee to be more pungent. Not planning on doing a sniff test though.

I think that her clothes would have smelled strongly of it if Jack had urinated on her. One particular smell that would have stood out more among the others.

Could have sprinkled her with gin I
suppose - that particular scent would have been expected on or around poor Annie, but I still think a light shower sometime after the murder is most likely.

Best wishes,
C4

[Tom_Wescott]

I would expect it did, Robert. But I don't see how it would have covered most or all of her body. I would imagine that whatever the liquid was - dew, water, or urine - it got onto her after he'd riffled her clothing and got away.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

Hence the expression, going for a slash.

Since Jack removed part of Annie's bladder, could not this act have spilled some urine?

[Tom_Wescott]

Jack peed on the body? Unlikely that anyone would have missed the pungent odour of male urine, even if the East End was particularly smelly at the time. I would vote for a shower of rain. Also, such a juicy detail would hardly have escaped the press.

Best wishes,
C4

I'm not saying I think Jack peed on the body. I'm suggesting it as a possibility. As to the smell, considering that Chapman's own urine, feces, and blood were all over the yard, such smells would surely be expected and I can't see how "male urine" would especially stand out to anyone, including a medical man. As for the press missing this, they didn't, as James Kent (not John Davis who I mistakenly named earlier) was reported in the press as noticing this sprinkling of clear liquid over Chapman's body.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

The time Mrs Long reached No. 29 is not all that clear.

I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street.
Daily Telegraph.

It was about 5:30. She was certain of the time, as the brewers' clock had just struck that time when she passed 29, Hanbury-street.
Times.

If Cadosch is correct about the time on the Spitalfields clock (5:32) then he must have left his home close on 5:30am, this should cast doubt on the Times Inquest report.

Cadosch also said:
"I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out."
Daily Telegraph

"When he left the house he did not see any man or woman in Hanbury-street. He did not see Mrs. Long."
Times.

And if the Daily Telegraph version is correct as to the time she heard the Brewers clock, then Mrs Long must have arrived after Cadosch left home. Therefore, whoever she saw in Hanbury St. it was not Chapman & client.

Then we have the added complication of whether Mrs Long mistook a 5:15 chime, for the 5:30 chime.
If we replace 5:15 for 5:30 in her statement then the whole picture changes and either the D.T. or Times could be correct.

[Michael W Richards]

Hmm....a witness claims to have seen the dead woman at 5:30am, and a witness hears voices from the very spot next door at 5:15am....seems to me to believe Long one would have to assume that the sounds Cadosche heard were not the soon to be dead woman and her assailant. Which would mean that another couple was in that yard after 5am and then left after the soft thud and "no" to allow Mrs Longs couple to enter the yard after 5:30am....as daylight was upon it. A sensible answer?

Seems to me the daylight issue should be a key here. Did the killer kill her in daylight then mutilate her....while windows in the house were open, neighbors windows were open, and people were getting up and out for work?

If he left before daylight was present, then Mrs Long didnt see Annie. Seems logical to me that he did.

Cheers

[curious4]

Back to door

Hello Jon,

I was thinking a more two o'clock direction - looking towards the cellar. He would have had his back to the door to hold it open easily, whether sitting or standing, though I think. If in a hurry, as he seemed to be, I think he could have been standing, he had taken off most of the leather the day before, so the remaining piece must have been small.

Best wishes,
C4/Gwyneth

[Wickerman]

Hello all,

Just a few thoughts. In the Sourcebook, Richardson states first that he stood on the top(?) step and cut leather from his boot. Standing on one leg, cutting off a piece of leather.

Richardson claimed he cut a piece of leather off because it hurt him - he had taken a piece out the previous day, but it was not enough.

Doesn't that suggest the piece he cut off was from inside his boot?
Therefore, to remove leather from the inside he would need to take his boot off - so no need for standing on one leg - sitting would be good though.

The door "closed by itself", so presumably he stood with his back to the door propping it open with his back and looking towards the cellar.

Or hold it back with his elbow, or knee, while he trimmed his boot?

The body was essentially in front of anyone who opened the door, yes it was to their left, but if you envisage a 12:00 position meaning directly ahead, then the body was about 10:00. I think you'd have to be cursed with tunnel vision to miss it.

Cadoche. Did he ever say whether the voice saying "no" was male or female?

No he didn't (that I remember), but the Times published an account on 15th Sept. that suggests the voice was female.

[Fisherman]

Jack peed on the body? Unlikely that anyone would have missed the pungent odour of male urine, even if the East End was particularly smelly at the time. I would vote for a shower of rain. Also, such a juicy detail would hardly have escaped the press.

Best wishes,
C4

Although I find Toms suggestion tantalizing, I´m with you here - if that liquid had been urine, then this would have been recognized, I think.

So! If it was NOT urine - what was it? Early september mornings bring dew wqith them over here, and Britain would not have differed in that respect - in the morning, my car sometimes look dipped in water when I come out on the street. Could it simply have been dew?

And no jokes about Walter D, ladies and gentlemen, please ...

The best,
Fisherman