Archive through February 17, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through February 17, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Joseph Sickert was right about the Ripper: Archive through February 17, 2000

Author: Simon Owen Monday, 14 February 2000 - 11:54 am
Hi guys and girls , happy Valentine's day. I have been scanning through all these pages and the only conclusion one could draw about the Ripper's identity from all this is that everybody has a different suspect for the crimes. Now , it is my belief that we already have the answer to this question and that the identity and motives of the Ripper(s) have already been revealed. And they were revealed in Melvyn Fairclough's book ' The Ripper and the Royals ' by Joseph Sickert i.e. that Mary Kelley attempted to blackmail important men in HM Government over Eddy's morgantic marriage to a commoner , and was hunted down by a Masonic conspiracy involving Sir William Gull and Eddy's coachman John Netley. Incredible , yes. But not impossible. I have read many possible solutions to this mystery and I still keep coming back to this one , otherwise if you don't accept Sickert's explanation what do you accept? That Jack was a crazed psychosexual serial killer , down on whores and killing for 'jolys' ? In my mind that doesn't ring true. There is a STRATEGY behind these terrible crimes that I cannot find in the mind of a crazed murderer. The killer was never seen by the police making their rounds , he was never seen fleeing from a crime scene , the screams of his victims were never heard , he managed to perform complicated dissections on some of his victims and nobody knew a thing. Surely this takes a major effort and flawless planning ? Thats why I'm going with the Sickert solution which everyone else seems to dismiss out of hand : if anyone would care to offer any objections to this theory please state them and I will try to offer a possible explanation. For some food for thought , try this : most profiles of serial killers show us a man working alone in taking care of his victims. Yet in this case difficult surgery was performed on bodies in pitch black public places ( I am thinking esp. of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square ) - not only did the killer overpower and murder his victims , cut them up and remove organs but he had to make his escape as well , covered in blood. All this was performed in a matter of minutes. Surely it is more likely that a team of men were involved and they used a well-lit carriage to carry out their crimes , this would also explain the lack of blood at the scene of the murders. This means that the men who did this had a common purpose for their actions , that the crimes were not committed by our usual serial killer : you might say they were killing for fun , but they managed five murders without being caught so why stop with Mary Kelley ? Surely there is something more complicated going on behind the scenes here? If you agree with me , or if you disagree with me , please let me know.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Monday, 14 February 2000 - 04:47 pm
Simon - I personally believe the Royal Conspiracy (in whatever form it chooses to rear its head) is beneath contempt. I will, however, point out that the basic premise you are using is flawed. HRH Prince Albert Victor's marriage, whether to commoner or Catholic, is of no import. If he married a Catholic, there was an Act already in place to disallow the marriage. If he married a commoner, Eddy had yet to achieve his majority, and the marriage could and would have been set aside at the express command of Queen Victoria. What exactly were MJK and her conspirators threatening? To reveal Eddy had married a Catholic? No matter; the marriage would have been disallowed, and people knew he could not marry a Catholic who would not convert. That he married a commoner and then put her in an asylum? The records don't exist; it was all made up. It is also worth noting that before Eddy was engaged to Princess May of Teck (the future Queen Mary), he wished to marry Helene D'Orleans, daughter of the French Pretender and a Catholic. The marriage was discouraged because of her faith. If Eddy did not go through with it then, there is precious little reason to think he would have done it in the 1880s. Anti-Catholic sentiment there was in 1888. Anti-monarchical sentiment there was in 1888. However, the great political question of the time was Home Rule for Ireland, not religion. The throne and Government were not desperately holding on to tottering power likely to be taken away at any moment; this is yet another of Stephen Knight's fables. You should also know that Melvyn Fairclough, the author of "Ripper and the Royals," has stated that he no longer believes Joseph Sickert; he has, in fact, changed his allegiance and supports the Maybrick Diary. I will be happy to debate further on this if you like, but I would suggest you read Melvin Harris' "Jack the Ripper: The Bloody Truth" or William Beadle's "Jack the Ripper: Anatomy of a Myth" for a thorough debunking of the Sickert stories. No offense, however, intended and none, I hope, taken. Regards, Christopher-Michael
Author: David M. Radka Monday, 14 February 2000 - 08:55 pm
The post of Owens is virtuous in that it affirms the murders were not the random acts of a psycho-sexual madman, but had a coherent purpose intelligible to the understanding. David
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Monday, 14 February 2000 - 09:33 pm
Hello Simon, you have claimed that Joseph Sickert has provided the identity and motives of the Ripper(s) with the help of Melvyn Fairclough but since The Ripper and the Royals was published, Fairclough has changed his mind about the truthfulness of Sickert's story and now believes that the Maybrick diary holds the truth behind the Ripper's identity and motives, (he will be moving on to space aliens next). As for Sickert's fantasy, it is hard to believe someone who offers absolutely no proof to his story, claims it was all a hoax and then rebuts himself, offering Abberline's supposed diaries as new proof, diaries that are filled with errors, by the way (hmm, where have I heard that before?). Do I accept, "that Jack was a crazed psychosexual serial killer, down on whores and killing for 'jolys'?"Yes, I do because that is exactly what he was. Of course there is a STRATEGY behind the killings, find a vulnerable woman (all the victims were either drunk or had been drinking with the possible exception of Annie Chapman who may have been ill), women who were desperate, (all the victims needed money desperately), ask for sex in some secluded spot, early in the morning and then kill them. Your line about "the mind of a crazed murderer" sounds like you envisage serial killers to be shambling, wide eyed monsters who drool and froth at the mouth and therefore incapable of guile or strategy or the ability to evade the police while most serial killers have a higher than average IQ and the ability to learn and hone their techniques. Nobody heard the victims scream for the simple reason that the Ripper strangled them to death or at least to unconsciousness before cutting their throats. By slowing or stopping his victims hearts by strangulation he would also avoid a massive amount of blood flow when he severed the main arteries of the neck so it was unlikely that he was covered in blood. Each victim was murdered where her body was found, the police surgeons at the time said so and there was plenty of blood on the ground around the bodies to prove this. Also, the Ripper did not, "perform complicated dissections"nor "difficult surgery"on the women. He performed acts of simple butchery which didn't need well lit coaches nor experienced surgeons. Is there even one shred of real, honest, hard evidence to prove Sickert's claims? No, there's not. I'm afraid Simon that you might want to do a little more reading on the Whitechapel murders, something other than from the loony fringes of Masons, royalty, diaries etc. Wolf.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 08:26 am
Wolf , please could you enlighten me on the exact errors in Abberline's diaries as I am not aware of them : I was under the impression that Fairclough had seen the diaries BEFORE the 1989 True Detective article , although I suppose only the man himself will know. As to the victims , obviously Liz Stride was killed where she stood but I believe there are discrepancies in the cases of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes. Chapman was believed to have been dead for 2 hours on discovery but various people had been in the yard where she was found during this time period ; none had seen the body. As for Eddowes , the body was found in the darkest part of Mitre Square 65 feet ( 22m ) away from the nearest gaslamp. And yet , the killer managed to remove the victims uterus - IN PITCH BLACKNESS ! And in the space of 15 minutes between the rounds of the local bobby !
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 08:30 am
Thank you to Wolf and Christopher and David for taking the time to reply to my missive. David , I am honoured by the fact that you agree to something in my theory but surely you have now eliminated many possible subjects from the Ripper list in respect to your theory. Is now the time to reveal all , Mr Radka ?
Author: Melanie Johnson Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 02:12 pm
Hi, everyone. While i'm not new to the Casebook, I am new to this discussion, but had to put in my $.02 =). I do not believe that Sickert is telling the truth with his convoluted story. First, I must make one clear point, however: Eddowes was not, most likely, operated on in pitch blackness. The lamplight from across the square would have been more than enough to make out the rough edges, at the very least. And if the Ripper possessed as much surgical skill as some give him credit for he could have felt around for his objective. Secondly, to Sickert. I must agree with whomever argued about Eddy's Catholic marriage. He hadn't reached majority yet! Queen Victoria would have dissolved the marriage anyway, had the bride refused to convert. It just sounds a bit hard to swallow. Thirdly, Annie Chapman. According to Sugden, who I believe is the most knowledgeable authority at this date, there was only one person truly IN the yard during those hours: John Richardson. And he never went past the steps. Annie was found hunched up against the fence, with her left side touching the boards. Richardson was out there at about 4.30, when it would have still been pitch black, or very nearly so. The steps of the Richardson house were far enough away to doubt Richardson's ability to see a dark-clothed body at that time of night. Until I return, happy hunting!
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 07:42 pm
Simon, the so called Abberline diaries carry verbatim segments from Neal Shelden's 1989 article, Victims of Jack the Ripper (no matter when Fairclough said he first saw them). They also include mistakes made by Shelden in that article, so unless Shelden plagiarized Abberline, which neither Fairclough nor Sickert claim, then for the diaries to be authentic, Abberline must have plagiarized Shelden (quite a neat trick). Also consider the well known juxtaposition of Abberline's initials, F.G. Abberline becomes G.F. Abberline in the diaries. There are no discrepancies concerning the murder sights of either Annie Chapman or Katherine Eddowes. In Chapman's case, blood spray was evident on the wall of the house and the fence next to the body proving that she was killed where she was found. The question as to whether Annie Chapman was killed somewhere else was even raised at the inquest, Coroner: In your opinion did she enter the yard alive? DR. Phillips: I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard. Only John Richardson claimed to have been anywhere near the yard at number 29 before the body was found (as Melanie has stated)but he kept changing his story and I for one do not consider him to be a reliable witness. The corner of Mitre Square in which Katherine Eddowes was murdered was not "in pitch blackness" although it was deep in shadow. Blood on and around the body prove that she died where she was found. Considering the fact that Joseph Lawende, Harry Harris and Joseph Hyam Levy saw Eddowes alive at 1:34 a.m., and the body was discovered at 1:44 a.m., do you really think that she was murdered by a surgeon who carefully removed parts of her anatomy in under 10 minutes? The removal of Eddowes womb and kidney would seem spectacular if an operation was being carried out, one in which the patient recovered, but instead it was just a rather crude and rapid form of butchery, as I stated in my last post. No Simon, I am afraid that the conspiracy theories of Joseph Sickert should be consigned to the ash heap as they really don't hold any water. I do urge you to read more on the Ripper, however, and I would bet that if you do, you will quickly see through this particular fantasy. Wolf.
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 08:14 am
Dear everyone , thanks for replying. I have read through some other books on the Ripper , not just Knight and Fairclough , but I just feel that there is more to Sickert's story than the critics seem to think. There is something VERY strange about Abberline's diaries , allegedly given to Walter Sickert in 1928 by the Inspector ; surely if they were forged , wouldn't they have been forged at this point in time ? We know Fairclough read through the diaries and he certainly read reports about the supposed Rippers and their victims in the mid 80s - so why would there be a need to add on an extra bit post 1989 ? Any attempt to explain this would be gratefully recieved. As to John Richardson his story stands or falls on whether he was in the yard or not. Either he was or he wasn't. If he was , he WOULD have seen the body and if he wasn't in the yard , why would he say that he was? A further witness was in the neighbouring yard circa 5.10 am and said he heard a woman's cry and a thud against the fence : this was not Annie as according to the surgeon she was already dead at this time. It was probably another whore servicing her client , which means the body was not there at this time. Further evidence for the body being placed there comes from blood being found in the passageway leading to the road ; if Chapman was killed in the yard I believe her body was moved to be mutilated and then replaced. In the case of Catherine Eddowes , gaslighting in 1880s London was of a particularly poor type ( the more brilliant white gas lighting was introduced in the 1890s ) and it burned a sickly yellow colour. Plus the air was not clean , it was foggy and full of soot. Plus on the night of the ' double event ' it had been raining quite heavily. While obviously we cannot know for certain if the killer had enough light to murder Eddowes and remove her womb , from what I have said above I believe that particular corner of Mitre Square WAS pitch black on that night. Even if there some light it would have been particularly difficult to locate the womb amidst all the guts and perform the mutilation on the face in such a short time. As to the blood , if the carriage was already in the square then the body wouldn't have to travel far to be cut up ( probably about 10ft ) so that would explain why so much blood was in the square.
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 09:38 am
In respect to Eddy's morgantic marriage , I think the only way I can make sense of it is that Eddy was in love with Annie Crook. She was beautiful and she did resemble his mother somewhat , is it inconcievable that Eddy could have refused to give her up ? In 1936 Edward refused to give up Mrs Simpson and the only solution was for him to abdicate. It is possible that Crook was not a virgin before Eddie met her ( she had worked as an artist's model and in a tobacconists before Eddy met her , she would have had plenty of chance to meet potential lovers ) in a century when only a virgin bride for a Prince would do and her profession was certainly not respectable. Remember the fuss that Victoria made when Bertie was found to have had an actress smuggled in to him , now think what the fuss would have been like if he had secretly married her ! Yes , the marriage could have been anulled but Eddy could have resisted and still kept on seeing her - and his father certainly thought him a fool and therefore likely to have done just that. Thus Annie Crook was kidnapped away. When Mary Kelley and her friends started blackmailing the Government over the marriage certificate , it is just possible that members of the Government and police decided to ' teach the whores a lesson ' for their cheek and to shut them up. Remember , these years are the years of 'Bloody Sunday ' , the dockers strike and the Bryant and May strike : the Crown was NOT popular. Of course WE know that there was going to be no revolution , but that is not what people percieved at the time. There was a great fear that Socialism was going to overthrow British society , that there could be a belated revolt ' a la mode francaise ' , that women might demand the vote , that the working class were physically degenerating , that there might be more Fenian terrorism in London and so on. It seems very possible to me that there could be a conspiracy to silence MJK by men in power.
Author: Melanie Johnson Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 01:55 pm
I am in no position to comment on the Abberline diaries, I am no authority on that aspect of the case. But as for Eddy, I still just can't see it - the whole thing of undying love for a Catholic commoner. It is a romantic story, as is the parallel Simon draws in Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson. But the thing with Edward (royal history is my subject, folks) is that it was more calculation than romanticism, I believe. Edward did not want to be king. He abhorred the lack of privacy it offered him, as well as the huge responsibilities that were forced upon him by his coronation. Eddy would have been a similar way, I have no doubt. He has been described as "dissolute & brainless" - would it really be possible for him to have been a good king? Also, if he kept seeing her after a marriage was annulled, what would he have done? Kept her in an asylum or something? I mean, there could have been serious repercussions. I just don't think someone who was called such a dilettante could have had such serious aspirations. (And, not wishing to cast mud on anyone but feeling I have to point this out: remember Cleveland St? He's not likely to go mad for a girl if he's involved in things of that nature.) There is very little doubt -- though there is doubt -- that Eddy was in on that. For me, Sickert's story still doesn't add up. Mel
Author: Diana Louise Comer Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 09:57 pm
As I understand it Kelly and the others were supposedly in a position to blackmail the government because they had been selected to care for Eddy's child by this marriage. Now lets see -- I have a royal child. Wrong side of the blanket or whatever, but still royal. I gotta find a nurse or governess or whatever for this child. I know! I'll go to the east end and find me an alcoholic prostitute! Wonderful decision! I think not.
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 11:42 pm
Simon, I'm afraid that you seem to be a bit too trusting when it comes to what is fact and what is fiction (I hope you never read The Diary of Jack the Ripper). First, there is absolutely no real evidence that Walter Sickert ever received anything from Inspector Abberline, let alone his diaries, we only have Joseph Sickerts claim that this was so. Just because he claims that Walter Sickert received them in 1929 doesn't prove that they were forged at that time, in fact, the evidence proves that they were forged sometime after Neal Sheldon's article was published in 1989. Look at it this way, Joseph Sickert was interviewed by the BBC in 1973 for their program on the Ripper murders. He made no mention of any diaries. He was interviewed extensively by Stephan Knight in 1975 for his book, The Final Solution, again no mention of any diaries. In 1978, Sickert confesses that the whole story was a hoax. After Knights death in 1985, Sickert retracts his statement that he "made the whole thing up", later he claims, for the first time in over 16 years, to have Frederick Abberlines' diaries and he shows them to a gullible Melvyn Fairclough, not a writer or researcher but someone who thought that the story would make a good movie script. Fairclough started interviewing Sickert in 1988 but did not see any diaries until after 1989. Fairclough states that Sickert would not allow him to have the diaries analyzed by experts and that even he could see that the diaries are not in Abberlines' handwriting. When told by Neal Sheldon that the diaries have plagiarized his article, Fairclough realized and admitted that they are fakes. Why can't you accept this? John Richardson told Inspector Chandler that he had not gone down the steps of the yard when he came to check on the basement lock. At the inquest he changed this to his sitting down on the steps to trim a piece of leather from his boot with a knife that he had conveniently slipped into his pocket by accident. When the Coroner examined the knife, a dull desert knife, he changed his story again and claimed that he hadn't been able to cut the piece of leather from his boot after all. All in all he never claimed to have gone into the yard and it is impossible for you to claim that he WOULD have seen the body had it been there. You, yourself, have stated that the gas light was of an insufficient yellowish light, imagine what Richardson could see before dawn in an unlit backyard, in an area poorly lit by gas. As for Albert Cadosch hearing a thud against the fence, this was between 5:20 and 5:30 in the morning, not 5:10. He had also heard two people talking but could not tell from which yard the voices were coming from. He was not interviewed by the police, nor was he asked to be a witness at the inquest until after reporters had talked to him and their reports had appeared in the newspapers. Why would anyone lie about what they had seen or heard? For the notoriety of course. It wasn't everyday that they could be interviewed by press from around the world, to see their names in print, to stand in front of an inquest and be the centre of attention. You stated that,"Further evidence for the body being placed there comes from blood being found in the passageway leading to the road." So are you saying that Dr. Phillips and Inspector Chandler were lying at the inquest? I posted part of the inquest testimony yesterday, Dr. Phillips:"...I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard." Inspector Chandler: "The blood-stains at No. 29 were in the immediate neighbourhood of the body only. There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall, near the head of the deceased." No other witnesses mentioned any blood in the passageway, however one of the newspapers did. The police double checked this and found that the reporter had only visited number 29 Hanbury Street, later in the day and that every witness who had been through the passageway before the body was removed had seen no blood. The conclusion? The blood in the passageway was from the body being removed to the morgue. Again, the corner of Mitre Square may have been dark but it wasn't pitch black. The butchery to Katherine Eddowes would only take 2 to 3 minutes and it would not be that difficult to find the womb in the darkness. Dr. Thomas Ind, who posts on these boards, has stated that it would be fairly simple to feel for the womb and uterus in the lower abdomen, (you would just have to follow the vagina). As for the blood, if Eddowes had been murdered and mutilated in a carriage, there would have been a lot less blood on the ground around the body, and the blood was only around the body, none on the road nor trail leading up to the body. As for a carriage roaming around the worst slum in all of Europe, you haven't explained why no one ever saw this suspicious sight. It would be like a limousine driving around a ghetto area during a time when the whole populace was on guard and no one noticing. Also you have yet to explain how Masonic ritual was able to precisely mimic the actions of a serial killer in a time when there were no serial killers and no knowledge of them or their traits. Wolf.
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 05:54 am
Wolf - I agree entirely that the "Abberline Diaries" are demonstrable fakes, possibly either manufactured by, or at the behest of, Joseph Gorman "Sickert" to bolster his revived claims. I agree entirely that the bloodstains in the passage are a demonstrable myth. I agree that the whole Royal/Masonic conspiracy theory is a distraction which really should have been consigned to the dustbin of history long ago. But why the insistence on branding two witnesses, whose testimony also squares with that of Mrs. Long, as liars? Is it not conceivable that Phillips' estimate of the time of death, made by comparatively crude methods, could be inaccurate? Richardson, as far as I am aware, consistently stated that he did not go into the yard. I see no problem in this, given that he only went as far as the back steps, rather than out into the yard per se. I am not aware of him ever claiming to have been successful in his attempt to trim the boot leather, and so he did not, as you claim, change his story. Remember too, that in 1888, British Summer Time was still more than 20 years away, and so, at the time he was there, the yard would be unlikely to be "pitch black". Although the sun would not yet have fully risen, the onset of dawn would have ensured enough light to see a body lying there at close range. I have previously analysed the proportions and layout of the yard and the back of the house (Prisoner 1167 board), and concluded that in this case "close range" means a matter of a few inches at most. I see no reason to dismiss Richardson's evidence. Furthermore, if there was a body lying there from 4:30 am, then who was doing what in the backyard at 5:20-ish, in full view of the corpse? Cadosch's evidence seems to have been given promptly enough for it to be unlikely that he had made it up to dovetail with Mrs. Long's sighting. All the Best Guy
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 06:04 am
Wolf , I accept your point about Richardson being unreliable but what is not in question ( if his story is true ) is that he did go to check on his mother's basement , he did not deny this. If he had stood on the steps he would have seen the body of Chapman as it lay parallel to the fence on his left with the head at the bottom of the step. The knife was one he used to trim carrots for his rabbit apparently. Even in pitch blackness he would not have failed to notice the body , or at least something lying on the path : Remember how Diemschutz found Liz Stride. If Richardson was going to lie to the police , surely his story might have been spiced up a bit i.e. while trimming his boot he heard a noise in the shadows , or he heard voices behind the fence or something etc. But no. He went to check on the basement and he heard nothing , he saw nothing and he did nothing. Not much fame or notoriety from that. My point is that Richardson is only unreliable about the little things , this could be due to him being an honest man and trying to remember what he did so he could give the best testimony possible. As for Kadosh , if you discount his testimony on grounds of making it up for the fame then you could potentially discount the testimony of EVERY civilian witness for the same reason ! And we know Elizabeth Long was mistaken because we know Chapman was well dead at 5.30 am , the police surgeon said so. Are you saying then Wolf that NOBODY has anything to say about the Chapman murder , that NOBODY has anything to say about the scene of the crime that night ? Yet the murder happened in the heart of the East End where there were always people about even in the middle of the night , in the backyard of a lodging house often frequented by prostitutes and their clients - surely somebody would have noticed something ? I believe Richardson and Kadosh are essentially truthful in what they say , and that Long is simply mistaken. As to blood in the passage , you are forgetting something : how did the murderer escape ? He has just dismembered a body and stolen the womb and bladder , he is going to be covered in blood and with a dripping knife. How did he get out of the yard without leaving a bloodstain or a bloody fingerprint on something ( the spots on the fence being counted as coming from CHAPMAN )? I am not sure but could there be a back entrance to the yard - if so perhaps the body was brought in this way , or if Chapman was murdered elsewhere could she have been brought into the yard in a waterproof tarpauline either via the passage or over the fence ? I cannot buy the serial killer aspect Wolf , because a serial killer would have surely left a clue somewhere. A serial killer would have strategy yes , but the strategy used to perpetrate the JtR murders was IMPECCABLE ( apart from Stride where things seem to have gone wrong ). For instance , the killer was aware of the times of the police patrols and he killed between them. He must have planned his exact movements out and timed them so he could kill , mutilate and then escape unseen within the limits of his availible window.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 06:11 am
Guy , did the backyard of 29 Hanbury street have a rear entrance ? See my article above for reason why : this could be important ! Thank you for supporting me on the witnesses , even if you think the rest is bull !
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 06:21 am
Simon - People who commit murders in public places and get away with it do so between police patrols by definition. If the police are there, the intended crime is abandoned or postponed. If the police turn up as the crime is being committed, the murderer gets caught. The degree of planning required is limited to choosing a relatively secluded spot, and looking to see if there is a policeman in sight before you start. The rest is down to luck. That the Whitechapel murderer had no apparent knowledge of the patrol timings is suggested by the extremely close call in Mitre Square, where it is even possible that he may have had to hide in the shadows to avoid being seen by P.C. Harvey. I'm afraid your attempts to describe how Chapman's body was placed in the yard are beginning to smack of desperation! All the Best Guy
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 06:22 am
Richardson said at the Inquest that he sat down to trim a piece of leather from his boot on the steps of the Yard , when crossexamined by the Coroner he merely added that he was not successful in doing so. This is reasonable given that the knife was used to cut carrots for a rabbit. Richardson therefore DID NOT change his story. All the above is consistent with his initial story that he did not enter the yard , which he told to the police ( he merely sat on the step ). If there was light enough for him to trim his boot then there would have been light enough for him to see a body lying a few feet in front of him. All the above means that we do not have enough evidence to question the reliablity of this witness.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 06:30 am
Guy , do you believe then that Chapman was murdered in the yard or murdered ( or mutilated ) elsewhere and then brought into the yard ? It has to be one or the other ! What then did Kadosch hear at 5.20 am ? And if Richardson was in the yard at 4.45am why did he not see the body , when time of death was 4.30 am or possibly earlier ? If Richardson is reliable then the body WAS moved into the yard somehow !
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 06:37 am
As to the coach , besides being 2 wheeled Hansom cabs , there were also 4 wheeled ones ( called 'growlers I think ). The murder coach could have been one of these. Also there would have been various professionals entering or working in the East End at the time ( policemen , doctors , lawyers etc ) as well as rich johns trying to pick up whores so although uncommon , a coach would not be that much of a rarity. It is possible the murderers could have used a tradesman's wagon to commit the crimes instead of a coach : that would have been even less conspicuous. Happy now ?