|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 09, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Annie Chapman:
Archive through July 09, 2001
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 09:58 pm |        | SIMON: Might? Had she or her son done so in the past? You got a copy of an arrest report? We don't have to guess how J. Richardson would have treated
discovering a prostitute at work in his mom's house or yard--we have his own testimony for that.
Just because folks didn't like what went on around them, didn't mean they wanted to take time from their jobs to talk to the police ... Most poor folk worked practically around the clock as was back then & most mistrusted authority figures. It's more realistic thinking many folks treated prostitutes like a dog they found digging in their garbage bins ... Yell, "get outta here" & maybe throw a rock.
Post an arrest report here & I'll shut up.
Thanks,
Ashling |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 04:31 am | | When I said ' summoned some big burly guy ' in my last post , I didn't mean a policeman. I meant a fellow tennant of the lodging house. I am in complete agreement with you that the Richardson's would NOT have summoned the police to get rid of a prostitute , rather they might have resorted to direct action. Lets face it , no-one wants to have someone burst in on them when they are having sex because they are at their most vulnerable. The prostitute would be liable to violence from the intruder ( even if it was only a thrown rock or saucepan ) as well as violence from the client for having his enjoyment interrupted , and she would probably not get paid either. Thus a properly secluded place or indoors is the ideal place for coupling. However Chapman might have agreed to the transaction if she was assured it would only be a quick ' knee-trembler ' up against the fence. Its not the question that Chapman would have chosen 29 Hanbury Street however , but whether the killer would have agreed to that choice. The back yard was not properly secluded. It had become daylight at around 5.20am , there were windows that overlooked the backyard , people such as John Davis and his family were waking up inside , the killer had to make his exit with blood on his clothes into a busy street , he had to perform the mutilations in the open air where he could be seen from the house and its neighbours etc. Now our killer is supposed to be smart. Why would he place himself in potential danger like this ? |
Author: Jeffrey
Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 12:07 pm | | Hello All !
I wonder if people had any thoughts on the gentleman Mrs. Fiddymont served in her pub, at around 7:00am the morning of the Chapman murder ?
He had a little blood apparently running from below his ear down the side of his face, had a torn shirt, dried blood under his finger-nails and appeared totally disorientated. He probably was just a butcher or something but this description would be in keeping with the victim struggling a little, and tearing his shirt while trying to free herself from his grasp. There is a reasonable description of this man, and I do believe the police took the sighting very seriously (of course). I believe this description tallys quite closely with that of Mrs. Long's sighting, right down to the "shabby genteel" remark.
If I try to put a face to the killer, I do seem to focus my thoughts towards a man of about 5' 7" or so, fairish hair & moustache, Salt 'n' Pepper coloured trousers, shabby genteel, etc., The man according to Mrs. Long & Fiddymont appears certainly to have been a stranger. I just wondered if anyone had any further thoughts on Mrs. Fiddymonts' sighting, on the morning Chapman was murdered ?
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 31 March 2000 - 04:48 am | | | This man was Jacob Isenschimdt and thus can be discounted from our enquiries ( See A-Z ). |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 31 March 2000 - 04:50 am | | | I mean Isenschmidt ! Doh ! |
Author: Jeffrey
Friday, 31 March 2000 - 07:42 am | | How silly of me.....
Thank-You Simon !
Jeff D |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 01 April 2000 - 06:01 pm | | (Simon)
'Mrs Richardson would have cared because she wanted it known she kept a respectable house , she held prayer meetings in her kitchen.'
-------------------------------------------
What is apparent is that the 'act' was carried out anywhere & everywhere. Mrs Richardson only defended her territory because she was asked.
Same as any/many dosshouse owners/managers who, when asked by Police became quite assertive that they kept a respectable 'ouse.
Prostitutes plied there trade day by day, night by night, and everyone turned the other way. It was the only living many women could make. Eastenders were, for the most part, all in the same boat. There is the odd occation where a businessman or middle class person would complain but mostly, the prostitutes were left alone.
Mrs Richardson would not want the publicity associated with those activities, now that the press were involved.
So, lets not run away with the idea that these people had a 'holier than thou' attitude all the time, in this case it was likely just because she was being questioned.
Life goes on, and these women had regular beats, it was reported that #29 was on Chapmans beat. So it was a regular haunt for dossers (on the stairs) and apparently pro's.
This may have been the case because Richardson's son had moved them along on more than one occation.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 05:01 am | | Simon -
What is your source for the claim that Isenschmid was the man seen by Mrs. Fiddymont? The nearest I can find is from Sugden:
Abberline was convinced that they were identical and, from what we know of Isenschmid's appearance, he may have been right...Unfortunately...Dr. Mickle, resident medical officer at Grove Hall, was so concerned about his patient's health that he declined to permit the witnesses to confront him...we do not know whether Mrs. Fiddymont and her witnesses ever did identify the suspect.
Complete History, pp160-161 |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 05:42 am | | | Guy , check out the ' A-Z ' under the entry on Mrs Fiddymont. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 06:03 am | | I'll do that, Simon. I've got Sugden in front of me at the moment, but not the A-Z. I wonder if this may a case of Sugden correcting an assumption made in the A-Z? Ironically, of course, the edition of Sugden I have here carries the following comment from Martin Fido on the back cover:
...Full, accurate, readable and up-to-date, it now becomes the narrative of choice I shall recommend on the murders when asked.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Jeffrey
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 06:57 am | | Hi !
My sarcasm was obviously missed. I guess I am a little out-of-step with a great deal of the current discussions, but I would have really appreciated peoples opinion on whether they felt there was any validity to Mrs. Fiddymonts' alleged sigthting of this strange individual at 7:00 am the morning of the Chapman murder.
Simon. To the best of my knowledge, Mrs. Fiddymont was never confronted with Issenschmidd. She apparently did attend an identification of Piggott (I believe) and ruled him out. Issenschmidd did resemble the description given, however was ruled out of the investigation, as he was in custody when the Ripper struck again, which is a pretty solid alibi. That is where the trail ended as far as Mrs. Fiddymont was concerned.
I understand, that the police did lose interest in Mrs. Fidymonts' suspect, but there are still a few interesting points regarding this encounter. The police certainly could have been too busy or felt they had other more promising leads, but this man does resemble other witness sightings, and that is why I wanted to solicit other peoples opinions. Abberline himself appears to have made a few mistakes with respect to a number of suspects, so I do not rule out this encounter so readily.
I don't think the Ripper would have gone straight out to have a pint to celebrate following his recent accomplishment, but he may just have had to step out after he had been home (nearby) to find a way to settle himself down a little. You see, one of the reasons I am interested in this man, is not only does he resemble other descriptions, the route from Hanbury Street, passing Brushfield Street, is heading back into Whitechapel, just as the Ghoulston Street Apron indicates a route in from the opposite direction. I know this is a barely tennible link, but many of the murder sites appear to radiate out from the area of Commercial Street and this to me, could be significant.
Washing facilities were not all that great, why could the killer not have headed home, did what ever he did with the trophies he had just acquired, then had a quick wash-up. Washing up, possibly without a mirror available, missing the blood down the side of his face, dried blood still between his fingers, etc. The killer would not be of normal mind. maybe he just had to head out and have a quick one then, to steady his nerves and a route past Brushfield St, or back to his lair (say)in Dorset Street for example, or a nearby location in or around Commercial Street, then pop out to the Pub in Brushfield St., would be in keeping with a man who does live quite near by.
I am also interested in the term "Shabby Genteel" I find it quite odd that Mrs Long used this term, then Mrs. Fiddymont (or Mr. Thomas) is quoted as offering the same description. Would Shabby Genteel be a wording placed into the mouths of the witness by the newspaper reporters or investigating officers, I wonder. The point is the description is virtually identical to that of Mrs. Longs, down to salt-n-pepper coloured trousers, and I find this along with a few other points relating to this particular sighting quite interesting.
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 08:43 am | | From ' The Jack the Ripper A-Z ' , p.134 : " Abberline also reported ( 19th September ) ' Issenschmidt...is identical with the man seen in the Prince Albert...by Mrs Fiddymont...'. As the police rapidly lost interest in her , this may be true. " I am prepared to accept Abberline's opinion on this suspect as being correct ! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 09:03 am | | Simon -
Thanks for the quotation. As you will have seen above, Sugden also gives credence to Abberline's identification of Isenschmid with Mrs. Fiddymont's customer. It is the lack of positive witness identification that leaves open the (admittedly vague) possibility of this man being in some way involved in Chapman's murder; we could only eliminate him decisively if we could be sure he was Isenschmid.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Jeffrey
Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 07:29 am | | Nobody seems to want to play !
I just wondered, would the news of Chapmans' killing have reached Mrs. Fiddymont in her pub before or after the strange man entered at around 7:00 am ?
I know people keep writing-off this witness, but it is a sighting corroborated by at least 3-people, Mrs. Fiddymont never actually did confront Issenschmid face-to-face, and this guy bears a remarkably strong resemblance to other witness sightings of the Ripper.
For the sake of it, if it was Issenschmid, why was his shirt torn ? Blood down the side of his face, dried blood in-between his fingers, and the torn shirt would be very much in keeping with a scenario of the victim putting up at least a bit of a struggle, before succumbing to the choke hold or whatever.
I am very interested in this choke hold too. Could anyone tell me more about the actual technique? While believing the victims were overcome, and were either dead or unconcious before the knife came out, Chapman for example doesn't have much of a neck as such, and I would think it quite difficult, to have strangled her with bare hands. If there was a technique or choke hold used that cuts off the flow of blood to the head, how common would knowledge of this method have been. The murderer would have to be pretty confident of his actions. Is this something that soldiers would be trained in for example? I would really be interested in learning more about his procedure.
Thanks
Jeff D |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 08:14 am | | Jeff , it would seem that the murderer used this procedure in the Nichols murder , thus he was skilled in it from the start and did not develop this technique through his murderous career. I should imagine that it would be a technique availible to soldiers - if not actually taught , then picked up on campaign or something. Others who might know it might be actual criminals or Victorian wrestlers or circus folk. The problem with this man is that , if he matched Isenschmidt , then he must have been nearly 40 years old : my suspect for the Ripper , as you have seen from my Stride articles , would be younger. He was seen with blood on his right hand and between his fingers , and blood below his right ear , but this does not make him the Ripper : surely the Ripper would have cleaned himself thoroughly before appearing in public , he wouldn't want to give himself away. I suspect this man was a butcher or slaughterer who had just come off a long nightshift and had popped in for a pint. Otherwise he may have been someone who had just been robbed or beaten up , and needed a pint to calm his nerves. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 09:26 am | | In my article on Long Liz on the " Elizabeth ' Long Liz ' Stride board " I mentioned that I thought the newspaper package carried by Liz's companion contained the grapes bought at Packer's shop ( Incidentally , I have read that Fido thought the same thing ! ). Now there is a connection to the Chapman case here. In the Black Swan pub yard , only a few doors down from No.29 Hanbury Street , a bloody piece of newspaper was found. Could it have been possible that the killer carried the organs away in a newspaper ? In the late 19th century lots of food items might have been wrapped in newspaper , the most famous being fish and chips which were still wrapped such at least until the 1970s. Butter , fruit , meat and cheese might have also been wrapped up in the stuff ; another method was for the housewife to go to the grocers with a cup or saucer and bring home a piece of butter or sugar using that. With the victim's organs wrapped in the newspaper however, the killer could merely have been mistaken for someone who had been to the butchers. It can't be proved that the bloody piece of newspaper found in 23a Hanbury Street was used by the Ripper - it could have been by a guest at the pub to bring home his supper. But it is an interesting suggestion that the Ripper may have used newspaper to carry the organs ; the sheets would have soaked up much of the blood from the offal. If none was to hand during the Eddowes murder , that might explain why the apron was cut away - in order to carry away the uterus. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 04:18 pm | | Inspector Abberline: "A telegram was received at Scotland Yard with the information that a very suspicious character had been taken into custody at Gravesend. The man was arrested on Sunday night...The man gave the name of William Henry Piggott and seemed to be about 40 years of age. Piggott was actually 53 years old at the time, He was in a very dirty state, which he explained was due to his having tramped from London. Upon his clothing were many stains, apparently blood and his shirt was torn and dirty. The forefinger of his left hand was badly wounded and he had other suspicious marks about him...I proceeded to Gravesend and on seeing the prisoner I was much struck with his resemblance to the man who entered The Prince of Wales public house in Whitechapel of whom a description was issued on information supplied by the landlady, Mrs. Fiddymont."
Piggott was dragged back to London and put in a police lineup where neither Mrs. Fiddymont nor Joseph Taylor could or would pick him out. Mrs. Chappell did identify Piggott as the man but she refused to swear to him. An alcoholic, Piggott was taken to the Whitechapel Union Infirmary to dry out. He was discharged 9 October, 1888.
Simon, no piece of bloodied newspaper was found in the yard of the Black Swan. Another story of a message written in blood at Hanbury street was also untrue. Both stories seem to stem from the report that splotches of blood were found on a fence of a nearby house. The "blood" turned out to be urine.
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 11:29 am | | Je ne suis pas en accord ! " A piece of newspaper , absolutely saturated in what appeared to be blood , had already been discovered in the yard of the Black Swan at No 23 where Joseph and Thomas Bayley had a packing case business...The stains on the newspaper proved , on analysis , to be human blood - and were never explained - but the others were of urine , which said more about the habits of the tennants than anything else !" ( Tully , p131-132) For Conspiracy theorists , this could mean that the carriage in which the mutilations took place was parked outside the Black Swan pub or yard. The killer may have wiped his hands on the paper and chucked it over the fence. Or the organs were brought to the carriage in the paper , were transferred to another container and then the paper was tossed away. With the confirmation that the blood on the paper was now human we can discount the ' somebody's supper ' theory and we must look at this piece of paper in a more sinister light. |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 03:30 pm | | Simon,
According to Paul Begg's 'Uncensored Facts', the story of the bloodstained newspaper is taken from a press report in the East London Observer of 22nd September. Even if there were any truth in it the story, its text appears flawed.
From memory, I don’t think it was possible at that time to distinguish human blood from that of any other mammals. If I'm wrong about this somebody will doubtless offer a correction, but if it is true then the piece of paper could have come from just about anywhere. Anything from a workman wiping away the blood after ripping his hand on a nail in Bayley's packing case yard to a discarded piece of cat meat wrapping from Mrs. Hardiman's shop! There is no justification for anybody to draw such sensational conclusions as you suggest.
Regards, V. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 07 April 2000 - 05:02 am | | | If its true that mammal's blood couldn't be distinguished from human blood at the time , then the ' human blood ' story was probably made up by the East London Observer. Sigh , another great clue lost to us investigators... |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 07 April 2000 - 03:06 pm | | The precipitin test is (or at least was), used to determine whether blood was animal or human. The test was developed by the German scientist, Dr.Uhlenhuth, in 1901.
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 06:17 am | | Did Annie Chapman struggle with her killer ? I know where I got the idea that she did from , its in ' The Complete Jack the Ripper ' ( Rumbelow ) on p.46 : " From the steps the woman's face was clearly visible. Her hands were raised with the palms upwards as if she had fought for her throat. Her hands and face were smeared with blood as if she had been struggling." So Chapman may have struggled after all. What is interesting as well is that an attempt seems to have been made to decapitate Chapman , quote from Fido , p.34 :" ...the murderer tried to cut Annie's head off. And failed." Does anyone have an opinion on why this was done , did the killer not want the identity of his victim to be known ? Why did he change his MO later on to mutilation of the face when he could simply have brought an axe and chopped the head off ? There may even have been an axe found in Kelly's room which could have been used to do the job. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Sunday, 16 April 2000 - 03:07 am | | Simon, the quote from Rumbelow comes from the inquest testimony of James Kent, a 20 year old
packing-case maker:
"The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat."
This laymens opinion and description does not fit with what Inspector Chandler reported, (i.e. no signs of a struggle and: "the left arm was resting on the left breast. The right hand was lying down the right side." nor with what Dr. Phillips had observed. Experience and believability lies with the Inspector and the Doctor.
As for why the Ripper had attempted to cut off the head of Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly? ("The neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th and 6th being deeply notched", from Dr. Bonds post mortem notes on the autopsy of Mary Kelly.) Who knows. Why did he mutilate? Why did he remove and carry away certain body parts? We can speculate but never know for sure.
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 06:34 am | | I'm not going to do a 'points to ponder' on Annie just yet , but IMHO the case of Chapman is just as mysterious , if not more so , than those of Eddowes and Kelly. There are just three points I want to raise here though , they should be pretty familiar ones to everyone ( especially the first since its in the posts above ! ) : Point 1 The killer had tried to use his knife to cut the victim's head off , although thankfully he failed. What could have been the reason for this ? Could it have been to prevent the body being identified or could it have been an attempt to take a trophy ? Could the killer have had instructions to take it back to a third party to prove the kill had been made ? Does it prove the killer lived alone - if he was planning to take the head , he couldn't put it in his mum's wardrobe ! Point 2 Did the killer live locally in the Whitechapel area ? If he had been planning to take the head it would have been dripping a lot of blood , even if put in a sack. The killer himself would have been at least covered in gore and blood up to his elbows and he would have smelt ' bloody '. He would probably not have been in a fit mental state to do much after the murder and mutilation , and would have been exhausted if he had been out all night looking for a victim. Thus leaving the yard at 29 Hanbury Street he had to negotiate busy streets ( assuming TOD was between 4.20 and 5.30am ) and there was the possibility he might bump into someone who knew him as well. How did the killer deal with these difficulties ? Point 3 Why was there such a long period of time between the Chapman murder and the ' Double Event ' ? Did the killer have to rethink his methods - had he nearly been caught on the Chapman murder ? Was he satisfied for such a time by the first two murders so he didn't need to kill more ? Did he need to let things cool off a while ? Any suggestions most welcome ! |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 03:39 pm | | Hi, Simon:
In regards to your points 1 and 2, I am not sure we can say there was an attempt to remove the head, so I think you are taking your supposition too far. More likely the killer used a viciously strong cut to the throat that cut through the victim's neck clear to the vertebrae, giving the appearance that head removal was the object. If you want to remove a head you use an axe or hatchet and not a knife. So I think your ponderings on whether the murderer intended to remove the head and place it in Mum's closet are rather moot. If he had wanted to remove the head, he certainly could have, but probably using a different weapon. In a series of five murders (presuming Stride is one of the five), the head was not removed in any of the five, even in the case of Mary Jane Kelly, whose the murder and mutilation evidently took him the longest.
As for your point 3, I would say that fear kept him from killing in the three-week period between Chapman's murder (September 8) and the Double Event (September 30). The hue and cry after the Chapman murder, the police house-to-house searches, and so on, must have played mightily on his mind. Of course, a much more major period with no killings (almost six weeks) is observable between the "Double Event" and the murder of Mary Jane Kelly on November 9 and again can probably be attributed to his wariness due to stepped up police activity, and that of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee under George Lusk, and fear of Sir Charles Warren's bloodhounds. This is probably also why the murder of Kelly occurred indoors -- he may have thought he could not risk a killing on the street again and thus sought out a woman who had her own room.
Chris George |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 07:50 am | | Hi All,
Also of Chapman I have tried a wounds template. I have used this information to make it up:
Neck injuries: "He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply.; that the incision through the skin were jagged and reached right round the neck"
... "The throat had been severed as before described. the incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck. "
Bruises: "There was a bruise over the middle part of the bone of the right hand." ... "The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and side of the jaw, but the bruises in front of the chest and temple were of longer standing - probably of days."
Abdomen: "The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri."
-> Since I did not find on which shoulder I just have placed them as I felt.
-> The problem also was there is no description given of location and length of incisions. Only that the abdomen was laid open and that the uterus was missing, so I drew the area as it would appear and crossed the area wher he had to cut for the pelvis and uterus.
 |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 04:07 am | | Hi All,
Here's the improvement:
The intestines were still attached
They were on the right shoulder
There was also a flap of abdomen skin placed on the right shoulder.
On the left shoulder were 2 other flaps of skin
And some skin with the navel was missing.
I only drew the bruisings that were related to the murder, not the fight of some days before the murder.
 |
Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 07:52 pm | | hi my names rebecca
can any one tell me what colour annie's hair and eyes were. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 09:49 pm | | Eliza Ann (Smith) Chapman in 1881
(adapted from my posting "Locating the Ripper Victims on the 1881 Census")
Most sources state that Annie & her husband John moved to Windsor in 1881, & separated in 1884 or 1885. But the 1881 census shows they were already living apart. John was aged 39, married, & living alone in the apartments over the stables at St. Leonard's Hill in Clewer, Berkshire. His occupation was given as coachman/domestic servant, & his birthplace was given as Newmarket, Suffolk.
Annie was living with her mother Ruth Smith, a 62-year-old widowed laundress, at 29 Montpelier Place, Westminster (St. Margaret), London. Annie gave her age as 40, her occupation as "stud groom's wife," & listed her birthplace as Knightsbridge, Middlesex. Her 3 children were with her: Emily Chapman, aged 10, born Knightsbridge, Annie Chapman, aged 7, born St. George's, & John Chapman, aged 4 months, born Windsor, Berkshire. This seems to indicate Annie & her husband separated directly after the birth of their son. While the 3 children are described as visiting grandchildren of the head of the household, Annie herself is not described as a visitor. Also living with Ruth Smith in 1881 were her son Fountain Smith (spelled "Fontin" in the census), a 20-year-old unmarried stationer's assistant, & her daughter Georgina Smith, a 25-year-old unmarried laundress. Ruth Smith's birthplace was given as Herstmonceux, Sussex. Interestingly, her oldest child Georgina is listed as being born in Windsor, Berkshire, although Fountain & Annie were born in Knightsbridge. Annie's daughters Emily & Annie were both in school. |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 08:51 pm | | Rebecca; Chapman had Blue eyes and dark brown wavy hair.
Were there any murders similar in nature to the JtR murders reported elsewhere in the U.K. during the lulls inbetween the murders of Chapman and the double event and the double event and the murder of Marie Jeanette Kelly? kindest Reguards, Neil |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 05:44 pm | | Hello everybody, incredibly enough, even after having done a lot of research, I do not find anywhere a reference as if the word "no" heard by the witness Cadosch at 5.20 a.m. the day of the Chapman murder and coming probably from the yard of 29 Hanbury street was pronounced by a man or by a woman.
Being too lazy to begin searching again, could someone please answer my question?
It would be very nice.
Thank a lot.
Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 05:57 pm | | Graziano
From recollection, I think it was never stated.
Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 07:23 pm | | I think this could result from a misinterpretation from Swanson's report on the Chapman murder.
" 5.25am 8th September. Albert Cadosh of 27 Hanbury Street had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of No. 27 , seperated only by a wooden fence about 5 feet high , and he heard words pass between some persons apparently at No. 29 Hanbury Street , but the only word he could catch was ' No '. (Here there is a marginal note - " Was the voice of the man that of a foreigner ? " ) "
The report implies that the person who spoke the word ' No ' was a man , but it would be easy to assume that only one of them was a man from the marginal note ( ie the voice of the man might be taken to imply there was only one man , therefore the other person was a woman ). Mistakenly I believe though. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 06:31 am | | Hello Jon and Simon, very happy to meet you again on this board.
It s nice to see it s always possible to lean on you.
If I remember well, Simon, the reference you cite correctly is not to be associated with the voice "over the fence" heard by Cadosch but with the words "Will you" heard by Long and pronounced by the man she sees with Annie Chapman (very likely) in the street.
Now the answer of Jon is confirming indirectly my assumption that no one has ever been interested in knowing the sex of the person who pronounced the "No" heard by Cadosh because everyone has always believed that it couldn t have been done by other persons that Annie Chapman herself.
Having read I think a lot about it(at least in Sugden s, Tully s, Paley s, Gordon s, A-Z, Feldman s -the latter not till the end, and others) I remember (I am not yet able to check on the books) that this has always create a problem when trying to put together the testimony of Long with the one of Cadosch.
Some thinks Long is right about the time, others Cadosch or, if they are both right about the time, the woman seen by Long could not have been Chapman.
This because Chapman is seen by Long alive and outside 29 Hanbury street at 5.30 a.m and Cadosch hears the "No" word at around 5.20 a.m. and then the rumour against the fence some minutes later (about 5.25 a.m.). Then he sees nobody when he goes out two or three minutes later.
Not least, this problem has also been answered in this way (trying to conciliate the two testimonies believing that one or the other is wrong at least about the time) at the conclusion of the inquest.
But what about if they are both right?
Cadosch hear someone (maybe a man) on the yard of 29 Hanbury street (I doubt this man would have spoken to himself) at about 5.20 a.m., Mrs Long sees Annie Chapman with a man at about 5.30 a.m. (maybe one minute before) outside the door of 29 Hanbury street. Cadosch do not see anyone when he goes out at about 5.30 a.m. (maybe one minute after).
The rumour against the fence could well having been done by someone positioning himself at around 5.25 a.m.
Why Cadosh does not see anyone going out?
Well, Chapman and the man seen by Long are schon inside.
And Long?
Well, in one minute walking alone you can do a long way.
Just a thought. What do you think of it?
Ed, you are wellcome (as anybody else).
Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 06:40 am | | Just another question of personal interest.
Mrs Richardson says at the inquest:" In the front room on the first floor on Friday night I had a prayer meeting.....".
I m not a religious man but that sounds to me more like a jewish tradition than a christian one.
So, that s the question: Is there a way to know for sure if Mrs Richardson was Jew?
Of course, if she was, her son (witness John Richardson) was also.
He was working on Saturday morning, he didn t seem to respect the Shabbat.
Thank you.
Graziano. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 09:05 am | | Hi, Graziano:
I had thought at one time that John Richardson was Jewish, on the basis of (as I thought) him taking the Hebrew oath. However, it seems I was misreading a press report which described John Pizer being sworn in as the next witness after Richardson in that fashion.
The next witness [Pizer] was quite unexpected, and created some little sensation. He took the oath in the Hebrew fashion, and answered all questions in a perfectly calm, clear voice, but with the deliberation of a man who had just been in deadly peril. . . . (East London Observer, 15 September 1888).
If the Richardsons had been Jewish, I would expect them also to have taken the Hebrew oath, but they apparently did not. It is possible that Mrs. Richardson belonged to a fundamentalist or evangelical sect that might have seen her holding a prayer service on Saturday morning. I agree that holding such a prayer service then would have been unusual for a Christian belonging to the established church but I think it would not be so unusual for a Christian who belonged to a noncomformist church.
I also think you are right that the voice heard by Cadosch saying "No!" was definitely that of Annie Chapman and that the marginal note was just to ascertain if the man's voice could be ascertained to be foreign even if his words could not be discerned, i.e., to determine, for instance, if he spoke in a gutteral German or East European voice.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: graziano
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 11:15 am | | Hello Chris, thanks for the answer.
Concerning the "No", in fact I have some doubts that it was pronounced by Annie Chapman simply because I have no reason to doubt the testimony of Long or Cadoche.
They are both quite precise and positive, more than what it seems, also for the time.
Long says :
1. that she is sure about the time "because I heard the brewer s clock strike 5.30 a.m. just before I got to the street",
2. that :"I saw the woman face. I have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury street was the deceased".
Cadosch says:
2. "..I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about 02 minutes after 5.30 a.m. as I passed Spitalfield Church" (where I presume there is a clock).
1. "....It was then about 5.20 a.m. I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door".
Now, I don t think Cadosch could have been so wrong about the time because:
a) he was able to think retroactively about his actions having seen the hour more or less ten minutes later and
b) the time that had elapsed since he woke up and the moment he went out was not very long (15 minutes) and that makes things quite easy and precise to think retroactively without the possibility to be much wrong.
What I have seen with the different authors is that everybody (and this was the case also at the inquest) has had difficulty to make the two testimonies (Long and Cadosch) match together.
Why? Because I think everybody has started with the assumption that the "No" could only have pronounced by Annie Chapman.
So, they say (if I am not wrong) how it is possible that she pronounce "No" at 5.20 a.m. in the yard where instants after she is killed and cut (probably even the pronounciation of this word marking the beginning of the process)and then she is seen 10 minutes later speaking outside the house with a man (her likely killer)?
Of course this is not possible.
So the general conclusion (at least what I have seen till now) is that someone must be wrong:
A. Cadosch must only have believed hearing something.
B. Cadosh has heard Annie Chapman but he has been wrong about the time.
C. Long didn t see Annie Chapman (it was another woman)
D. Long must have been wrong about the time.
But if we say that we have no reason to doubt about what these two persons say we must aknowledge
a) that someone was in the yard of 29 Hanbury street at 5.20 a. m.,
b) that since he pronounce the word "No" he had to be answering to someone else,
c) that since incredibly nobody has never asked it at the inquest to Cadosch it could have been a man (who pronounced "No"
d) that it was not Annie Chapman who was in the yard at 5.20 a.m.
Had it been someone living in the house that would have come out at the inquest,
Had it been a prostitute with her client she should have met Annie and the man with her or at least Cadoche (he leaves at 5.30 probably not more than one or two minutes after Chapman enter the yard - or the house with the man).
That leaves us (as far as I am concerned) with only one possibility coming naturally from the acceptance of Long and Cadosch as reliable witness:
there were two persons in the yard when Annie Chapman was just outside the door of the house.
At least, this is my reasoning after having accepted entirely the deposition of Long and Cadosch, and as Jon told me in another board: "Graziano, we have no reason to question the veracity of the testimonies of persons who have no reason of lying".
Useless that I develop here what this would imply.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 11:19 am | | Hello Chris, I forgot:
attention to the marginal note because as far as I can remember, as I already told to Simon, it concerned the words "Will you?" heard by Long and not the word "No" heard by Cadosch.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 11:28 am | | Hello Chris,
it s me again, I m sorry, but sometime I want to rush and this is not for the precision.
In my first post answering to you instead of
"there were two persons in the yard when Annie Chapman was just outside the door of the house."
please read:
"there were two persons in the yard when Annie Chapman was just outside the door of the house standing with one man"
Sorry, bye. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 02:07 pm | | Hi there Graziano and Chris !
It would all make sense if : Cadosh heard some other people in the yard about 5.15-5.25am , Mrs Long saw Chapman and the killer at about 5.30am , the pair had gone into the yard at about 5.31am , Cadosh left at 5.32am and then the body was found at the appropriate time. This would even corroborate John Richardson's evidence.
But (!) where had Annie been all night in that case ? Why had nobody seen her between 1.35am and 5.30am ? And how could rigor mortis have set into the body in only just an hour ?
And - the body had ' lost a lot of blood ' according to Phillips , but there was no evidence of blood spray from the throat being cut in the yard. Only a few spots on the fence. By rights , blood splatter should have been everywhere but it wasn't ! So how do we explain that ?!!
Curiouser and curiouser...
Simon |
|
|
|
|
