Jack The Ripper - Discussing The Evidence With Jason McCann.

[@joebykaeby]

What a really fantastic conversation between two people who clearly know their subject and have really valuable insight - as always, of course

[@BenLujan-r5q]

Thank you, Mr. Jones, for another great JTR video!😁

[@joycewalls8535]

One of the best informative podcasts I've listened to.

[@PatriciaSmith-id8sg]

Thank you for another fascinating discussion! I could happily have listened to you and Jason for longer.

[@FilmNerdy]

This was a really great conversation and Jason so interesting and informative. Absolutely digested everything he said with such intrigue, curiosity and was just such a depthful conversation. I could have allowed you guys to go on for hours. Also like he touched on the social history and the sociological aspects in this. And, sadly still true, we still live in unequal and greedy times but its tucked away in different settings. Well done, going to check his channel out.

[@amyfeeley4402]

Always good Sunday night when you release a video, even better when it’s a long one 😊

[@olimpzeus4115]

Looking forward to 2-3 hours interviews, i have a lot of downtime at work sometimes.

[@jamescorlett5272]

​@@olimpzeus4115beg ya pardon - wrong person .

[@MarshallLush]

Another excellent video from this channel. I appreciate the variety of guests and their informative interviews. Especially appreciate Mr Jones’ light and polite approach to his guests, he knows when to listen and when to interject. Every chat flows so well and are so wonderfully done. Excellent work.

[@stephen8577]

Excellent discussion, Jason is challenging the established narrative, which is very long overdue and refreshing. Richard is a titan of the JTR case and Jason will soon be up there with his excellent inspector Abberline channel. Thank you to both of you for an engaging discussion.

[@karolinejones3407]

Thank you for yet another great discussion!😊

[@ronaldm8235]

I live in Kentish Town and where Abberline worked is now downstairs of a restaurant near the tube. The stairs are down to the old Police station are still there.

[@GilbertSyndrome]

Great interview, very engaging. Subbed to the Abberline channel. Cheers 👍

[@jacksantos3459]

I could have listened to another 2 hours of this - fascinating conversation!

[@distortionhead37]

Great interview! Get this guy back!

[@filmbuff2777]

Great video. Thanks for sharing. It had some really interesting insightful analytical breakdowns of the witness descriptions. A different fresh perspective on things.

[@Mehpel]

fantastic interaction . between two people who know their stuff . well done richard and jason ,

[@chrisdavid1410]

I have seen his channel many times, but between this one, and House of Lechmere I thought it enough, but since this was a great interview I think I will make a visit. After all it has a great introduction from here.

[@Abberline_1888]

I'll do my best to make a channel worth your time.

[@MichaelBrownlie-g2e]

Another fantastic video Richard lots of good detail to think about.

[@dermotkelly6946]

Thank you Richard, will watch tonight 👍

[@ruiseartalcorn]

Many thanks for this absolutely fascinating discussion!!! :)

[@dinam336]

Interesting narrative and insights

[@AubreyWilkinsWursten]

I initially read this as, "Jack The Ripper Discusses The Evidence." You got an interview with him?! Does he think himself guilty?! Haha, just made me giggle. This is my new favorite channel, partly because it has just the right amount of (intentional) humor.

[@Dr.Q960]

Super great video👍🏻

[@maryknight4823]

Another great video, and wonderfull discussion thanks as always......

[@rickjensen2717]

Good interview. Main take away for me is to always go back to source evidence (e.g. what the witnesses actually said and not what has been reported by others - Chinese Whispers). I would always consider evidence from a medical practitioner as the most reliable.

[@andrewtomlinson5237]

It's a place to start but a lot of the practices used by doctors in 1888 to determine things like time of death were seriously flawed. For example, testing a body temperature at the scene of crime was generally performed by placing the back of ones hand on the body. All that tells you is a rough estimate of the difference in temperature between the body and the back of your hand. So a doctor with good circulation who took off a glove to feel the body would find it colder to the touch than a doctor with poor circulation whose hand had been ungloved for half an hour. and those two doctors would estimate very different ToDs And they weren't used to examining partially exanguinated bodies in the open so had little frame of reference for their estimates.

[@otisdylan9532]

@@andrewtomlinson5237 exactly

[@EvanDavies-p5b]

One thing that surprises me about these murders, is how much economic activity was going on in the area. There is a railway yard to the left, a slaughter house to the right, and a brewery at the end of the street. An able bodied man living in the area, would probably have not had much difficulty finding some kind of work. A woman on the other hand woudl have had very narrow options.

[@Tsumami__]

Industrial areas of cities are always where the working class live and work. But yeah, women wouldn’t have had many options no matter what branch of society they fell from.

[@shaunflavour6366]

​@Tsumami__ correct me if I'm wrong but weren't most of the victims in full time employment when they became alcoholics and then street workers. I understand the empathy but I think the picture being painted is not an accurate one. For whatever reason, it sounds like they had problems with life itself

[@JasonX2]

Good Jack The Ripper discussion breh

[@MsZoedog66]

I am enjoying listening to your dugressions! Keep it up 💗🌵

[@sjj39]

A great commentary on social history.

[@valerieoconnor4132]

"Human exploitation" perfectly said. Have always thought it pathetically sad that the undergarments of one of the victims was stamped as the property of a workhouse, not even the underclothing she was wearing at the time of her death was hers. Love the Terence McSwiney quote as a fellow Corkonian!

[@Abberline_1888]

I dropped McSwiney in there just for you.

[@adelecurry7405]

I've always wondered why nobody saw Annie after she left the lodging house (I don't think Elizabeth Long saw her). There were sightings of the other victims, people going home late or to work early, policemen doing their rounds, etc. I really do think she must have been killed when the doctor suggested. He wouldn't just be going by temperature, but by stomach contents (the potato). Anyway, fantastic video, thank you 😊

[@davekeating.]

“We know the Ripper is quite a flighty character, he runs away, you know, he is someone who flees the scene without finishing. So, finishing, perhaps, was not his main objective here.” The Ripper’s “calling card” was to leave butchered bodies on display for all to see. An exhibitionist into shock and awe. He was an organised killer, who left little trace evidence, few witnesses, and to this day nobody has one iota who he was. Organised and clever. He knew when to flee and when not to flee. On Buck’s Row and Berner Street someone was approaching in his direction and would shortly be on top of him. In the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, Albert Cadosch was next door, separated by a 5ft wooden fence. No need to flee. The Ripper simply stopped what he was doing, remained quiet and waited out the few minutes until Cadosch went back indoors.

[@blazbratovic2724]

"and to this day nobody has one iota who he was" At least we know who attended the inquest of Polly Nichols murder so there's that.

[@Tellhimhesdead-m1y]

@davekeating. The calling card of JTR you say, was to leave his victims on display. Polly Nichols` body in Bucks Row wasn`t left on display, her wounds were covered up. I would suggest she was covered up because JTR was caught red handed with no way of escaping and therefore he had to brazen it out ....and that man`s story is still believed by most people to this day. That man was Charles Lechmere.

[@davekeating.]

@@blazbratovic2724 Wynne Baxter and Inspector Abberline attended more inquests than Charles Cross maybe one of them done it? 🤠

[@davekeating.]

@@Tellhimhesdead-m1y In Bucks Row and Berner Street the killer was disturbed and did not have time to put his butchery on display. On both occasions he left the scene immediately. There were plenty of escape routes from that end of Bucks Row, near the Board School.

[@jeffbirch3407]

@@davekeating. Yawn ……

[@matthewjames206]

Another insightful discussion. Jason made a lot of great points. I enjoyed his scholarly assesment of what was reported. I agree that the "thud" alone doesn't hold much weight. But the fact that it was accompanied by a woman's voice saying "no" gives it some credibility. I don't know what else it could have been if it wasn't Annie Chapman being murdered. And the time it was heard lines up with the supposed time of death. Just one more mind scramble in the JTR mystery. September 30th steadily approaches. Always an absolute pleasure 🍻

[@otisdylan9532]

Yes, if there was someone in the yard saying no, then that person surely would have seen Chapman's body there if she had been killed earlier. But if that's what happened, she never reported seeing it.

[@cbamr]

Interesting conversation, Richard. But in some cases more speculative than factual. Such is the case when we talk about Jack the Ripper.

[@davidwalker3626]

Reducing the situation of all the victims to "survival prostitution" is a half-truth, at best. Nichols abandoned her family to dedicate her life to alcohol, and it has never even been close to proven that her husband kicked her out to begin an immediate affair. Eddowes' alcoholism similarly was to blame far more than desperation for her own resort to prostitution, and most of the victims had lengthy records of disorderly conduct among other crimes. Obviously they did not deserve to die in such horrible ways by the hands of an evil killer, but to pretend that some of their own decisions, namely choosing alcohol over family and even choosing alcohol over a good job in one case, does not equal survival prostitution.

[@jakehammond12345]

Thankfully another soul who prefers the truth to narrative.

[@Abberline_1888]

This is a rather limited understanding of both poverty and addiction. But you do you.

[@stephenadams7596]

Excellent stuff subscribed to you both . I believe that the problem is that back then if someone say they saw or herd something then it took prevalence over the science and probably didn't help Mr Baxter Phillips not being a little more posative . I think that the people believe what they say is true but it doesn't link together to over rule the Medical science. Again a nice refreshing video discussion with maybe even some eye opening consequences 🤔👍

[@jakehammond12345]

After being critical of a few more political points I really enjoyed the breakdown of the ‘ eye witness ‘ evidence . None of them really stand up do they.

[@shaunisaacs2994]

That was incredible

[@JeffMilton-f8v]

Really good, until he got onto Hanbury Street. He doesn't want to believe that this murder took place at the time it clearly did. Suggesting that the murder happened earlier he tells us, "Jack didn't take too many risks". What is he on about? He attacked Liz Stride in front of two men. And then we hear his laboured hypothesis, questioning the validity of the three Hanbury Street witnesses. It would seem that he has an agenda and is desperate to disregard witness statements. If there are three people, independently corroborating each other, then I tend to believe them.

[@tommybrownlee4683]

Totally agree. Trying to estimate the time of death is difficult enough now. He says wants to forensically look at evidence. Then we have the common sense approach. Which is whatever iv decided it is.

[@robert1746]

Agree. Having to 'rubbish' three witness statements is at least one too many.

[@otisdylan9532]

Absolutely. And he does it on the basis of Baxter's estimate despite the fact that doctors at that time didn't have the ability to estimate time of death, the knowledge didn't exist. Baxter's estimate was little more than a guess. Baxter himself said that his estimate could be wrong.

[@perlefisker]

I don't know enough about the debate of the times to say whether guilt was felt over the destitute Whitechapel, but I have heard enough of newspaper reporting on this channel to say that two other sentiments were prevailing around the murders: 1) the excitement of sexual imagination that we still observe today being propagated in the tabloid press, Just look at the newspaper illustrations of the victims. There's a fairy tale fascination to them with the victim looking like Snow White and nothing like the actual women. 2) the 'feel good factor' served to the middle and upper class reader. They can indulge in the enjoyment of not having such miserable lives. Yes, basically all not pushed into prostitution and being alive, could feel better about themselves. (Interesting discussion as always. Thank you.)

[@jack_knife-1478]

This guy speaks a lot of sense

[@AustinD1993]

Woohoo!!! 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 new video!!!!

[@jakehammond12345]

Totally agree with all the details re Annie chapman. 17 people in that house plus passers by and neighbours . He didn’t do it in daylight or when people were getting up for work. Also, dismissing an experienced surgeons testimony is just crazy. Kadoshs’ testimony basically states that he heard a noise in the vicinity and that it may be of some use as a clue. That’s it.

[@awotnot]

Great interview. I think Long saw another woman at 05.30 am and this woman, either with a man or just passing through the yard, spotted the body and gasped, saying no, causing the noise, but fleeing without raising the alarm for whatever reason. This is what Cadosch probably heard. Richardson probably embellished the story or just did not see Annie laying there. Bagster Phillips was therefore more than likely correct on the time of death. The enclosed yard could of also staved off the cold a bit. Committing the murder in broad or near dawn daylight does not make sense. Mizen proves that people were being knocked up from 03.45 am onwards. The police were useless and so was the inquest. Everyone including the public were obviously taken by surprise by the murder spree. And it's so interesting how just a few spurious facts can upend the investigation and give cover to the actual murderer.

[@timculp]

What a great accent.

[@stevenb427]

It's his phone voice he is using. 😊

[@Abberline_1888]

@@stevenb427 Of course it is!

[@straingedays]

Interesting to learn about the "sounded like a thud" on "a" fence, not heard it described this way before. Also the fact that it was in pre-dawn glow that morning, both facts paint the scene of 27 and 29 Hanbury Street in a whole new light.

[@ftumschk]

They were mistaken here. Cadoche specifically told the inquest that, and I quote his testimony here, "I heard a sort of a fall against *THE* fence which divides my yard from that of 29" (my emphasis).

[@ftumschk]

38:55 _"A half-hour process, as estimated, for the evisceration"_ - I don't think so. Five minutes, ten minutes at the most.

[@otisdylan9532]

Thank you, I noticed that too. Consider that even more mutilation was performed on Catherine Eddowes in what couldn't have been any more than 10 minutes.

[@colinmcewen9530]

im always discovering new things about these murders you think you know it all and more turns up

[@peterdixon7734]

A very good discussion about the light on the morning of 8 September in the East End. (Don't forget that there was no daylight saving time/British Summer Time in 1988. 5.15 AM really was 5.15 AM in those days. None of this putting-the-clocks-forward-in-April nonsense to get more darkness in the morning.) The gathering daylight would have been absurdly bright by 5.25 AM, for committing a crime in a confined and overlooked back garden.

[@RegHoldsworth-ri7hh]

Ithankyoukindly Richard and your friend with beautiful accent.

[@22leggedsasquatch]

She was about to be choked out, said "no.." and then 5 seconds later, she collapsed into the fence, which wouldn't necessarily be loud noise.. just a bump into the fence. Let's not forget these people were actually there.. experiencing events from their perspective

[@otisdylan9532]

He didn't go into much detail on this. Cadosch actually made 2 trips to the yard, and heard "no" on the first trip. On his 2nd trip he heard the noise against the fence. It's not surprising that he didn't hear any struggle, because that could have happened (and probably did) while he was inside, with the noise to the fence happening when Chapman was already unconscious.

[@ohmy4275]

It really annoys me that in the end the answer could be something as simple as Jack the Ripper being simply lucky. Just pure luck. He had all the luck in the world and the police none. But the Kelly murder really bothers me. It feels as if something in some way went very wrong for Jack the Ripper there and that may be a possible reason why the murders stopped.

[@davekeating.]

“The more I practise, the luckier I get.” Gary Player on his golf game

[@Legionmint7091]

50:51 Reflections on this interesting episode. Could John Richardson have lied to the police because he had something to hide rather than to get his 15 minutes of fame? In Richardson’s first statement to Inspector Chandler Richardson never mentioned sitting down and fixing his boot. Nor did he mention anything about that when he was interviewed in The Star on the 8th of September. However, by the 10th of September Richardson seems to have changed his story and it was reported in the Star that "Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot." This altered second version was also repeated to the coroner at the inquest two days later on the 12th. So what had changed in these two days? What if Richardson was seen entering and exiting 29 Hanbury Street by someone who never was interviewed by the police or called to testify at the inquest, and Richardson, as counter measure, needed to come up with a motive for being in the yard for a considerably longer time than he first had claimed. He was giving himself an uncorroborated motive for being at the murder scene, with a knife. However, the self-ascribed motive, the cutting of the boot, had to be changed too when the coroner demanded to see the knife that Richardson claimed to have used, and he produced a small, rusty and dull dessert knife with half the blade broken off and no handle, a knife that anyone with half a brain immediately realized couldn’t have been used to cut leather. So Richardson changed his story once again and claimed that he borrowed a knife from friend at Spitalfields market, effectively nullifying his own motive for being at the crime scene. Did the coroner even check if his story about borrowing a knife panned out? As far as I know, he didn’t. He didn’t even ask for the name. Another possible discrepancy is that Richardson himself said that ”It was not quite light at the time, but there was enough light to see all over the place”. Yet we’re supposed to believe there was enough light to perform mending inside a boot? Richardson’s testimony is crucial to determine the timeline. If he was lying, and I would argue that he did on several occasions, he had the opportunity to kill Annie Chapman, which would mean that Dr. Phillips estimated time of death may not have been far off after all. It has always been assumed by both the police and ripperologists alike that Annie Chapman entered 29 Hanbury Street together with the killer. But what is that assumption based on? What if she didn’t? What if Annie Chapman wasn’t in the backyard with a client, but was in fact using the privy, and exited more or less in the arms of Richardson (who of course may have followed her into the yard)? The Whitechapel serial killer’s modus operandi indicates that he was a disorganized opportunistic killer. He didn’t stalk his victims for a long period of time or study their habits and routines. He acted on impulses and showed an apparent high-risk behavior. If Richardson was the Whitechapel serial killer this scenario must have presented itself as a golden opportunity. We will most likely never know the full motive of JTR’s murders and mutilations, but we can place Richardson at the scene of the crime and he may have had the opportunity to commit this murder. I’m not saying he did, I’m just pointing out that there are discrepancies in his story that may not be because he wanted attention, but because he tried to avoid attention. He may have had unbelievable luck, and the police may have had JTR right under their noses - but never realized it because they were busy looking for an imaginary knife wielding lunatic. If someone was caught trying to lie to the police, changing his story on crucial points and on top of that was caught meddling with evidence that may incriminate said person, the police today would definitely look into into that person’s life in detail. Yet the coroner chose to believe Richardsons word and disregard two professional’s testimonies. That is very odd, not to say unprofessional. Lastly, a perhaps very far-fetched connection, that nevertheless may be worth mentioning, is that John Richardson worked as a porter in Spitalfields market and Joseph Barnett, boyfriend of Mary Kelly, was a porter in Billingsgate Market. Could they have known each other through their trade? Addition: After watching the scene from the yard at 29 Hanbury Street in James Mason’s ”The London Nobody Knows” there’s no chance the door could have obscured the body. There’s something fishy about Mr. Richardson’s testimony.

[@jamescorlett5272]

my comments are taken down under the pretence of this or that - i will only say then that i believe you and your reflections have most likely hit the nail firmly on the head - there is no point in me adding anything to what you have already said - i would like to but Anyway well done you have come as close as Anybody to solving Annie's death - yes Richardson killed her and then went apparently off to the market i wonder how long it was before he " heard " the dreadful " news " and came rushing back .

[@jimster255101]

24 minutes in: “I don’t want to get too political” - too late!

[@Abberline_1888]

The politics is inescapable.

[@nikitameo8711]

Agreed. All prostitution is survival prostitution. I would use the term prostituted woman so its an adjective rather than a noun. Sex worker is a terrible term in my opinion.

[@Abberline_1888]

I think you are absolutely right.

[@ftumschk]

Great discussion, and much food for thought. However, I'd be wary of Bagster's credibility, given his patently overblown estimate of how long it took to perform the mutilations.

[@ohmy4275]

I never understood the discussion around prostitution in this case. I mean of course it's good to state facts but whether a person chose to prostitute themselves or was forced to matters absolutely none. None at all. Zero. These women did not commit suicide. They were murdered. Their murder is a fact and consequently their particular situation is wholly and utterly irrelevant

[@Abberline_1888]

Victimology is always important. It is important that we know they were prostituted women. It tells us something about the killer - that he was targeting women he could easily access.

[@ohmy4275]

​@@Abberline_1888yes of course. I am mostly referring to the discussion whether some chose to sell sex or were forced to. It doesn't make one less of a victim than the other.

[@ianpeddle6818]

Jason is great what a fascinating guy

[@herbert9241]

Yes Richard, 'prostitute' or 'unfortunate' are far more appropriate than the hand-wringing (if you'll pardon the pun) 'sex worker.' As Jason articulates, 'sex worker' is the language of Newspeak contortionists who throw out the bath tub with the bath water. They blithely detach themselves from the disposition of the victims for the sake of their own petty sensibility posturing.

[@leslierock5005]

Lovely

[@Abberline_1888]

Oh my! That Jason guy is so good looking!

[@jamescorlett5272]

your mate .

[@Abberline_1888]

​@@jamescorlett5272 No. It's me.

[@jamescorlett5272]

​@Abberline_1888 well I'm in agreement for once let's get that Straight .

[@PatrickWhelan-sp1th]

Very average at best

[@jasontuck-smith3896]

Rumour has it he's very modest too 😉

[@Tsumami__]

The term sex worker isn’t sanitation. It’s a term preferred by sex workers themselves. People that are trafficked aren’t referred to as sex workers, because they aren’t sex workers, they’re trafficking victims (much like when minors are forced into trafficking, people too often use the term CP, but that’s not pornography, it’s child exploitation materials.) None of these women had “handlers” that forced them into sex work, they were born into the working class in England during the height of imperialism. Albeit due to being born into poor conditions, they still were not forced into it like trafficking victims are today. They were sex workers. Also I have to say, although addiction is tragic, it’s still something that is started by choice. I work with plenty of people that have addiction issues, but actively choose not to drink or take pills because I don’t want to be a train wreck of a human. They actively made the choice to drink instead of paying their doss and almost all of them ended up in their circumstances - in sex work - because of their problems with drinking causing instability in their jobs and relationships.

[@EvanDavies-p5b]

Good to finally put a face to the name.

[@ianclarke3627]

Why were there no homeless communities, like hooverville in the states , were tents available , camping gear ??

[@WayneVeck-yb3ul]

i wonder if jack heard the chat

[@starshineraiser6729]

His eyes lit up when the ole’ punching bag known as Capitalism got dragged out. What would England have been otherwise?

[@Abberline_1888]

Better?

[@jimbeam67]

Despite me highly recommending the Inspector Abberline channel and this being a very interesting discussion it was very hard to listen to.... my god: how often can a person say "You know"??? Must have been way over a 100 times during this video! VERY annoying! Jason should get rid off this bad habit before returning back.

[@ianclarke3627]

Could annie Chapman not have been slaughtered within 5 mins ,and not much longer ?

[@otisdylan9532]

Yes. We know that The Ripper murdered and mutilated Catherine Eddowes, spending 5-10 minutes to do it.

[@jakehammond12345]

17 mins approx -- talking about unfortunate vs victims vs sex workers vs prostitutes... the lack of self awareness is unreal ! one minute the middle classes are covering up for the truth by calling these alcoholics, thieves and ex professional prostitutes ' unfortunates' and the next minute the middle class of today are covering up the same truth by calling them ' victims' . Wowsers. The women were in several cases slightly unfortunate in the route that life had taken them but they were also all alcoholics and had somewhat shady pasts including professional prostitution and theft. Yes life was tough for a Victorian working class woman but they could have easily worked their way out of their situation financially if they weren't alcoholics. In doing this the 1st end would have been slightly less seedy, men slightly less tempted to engage in sex on the street, police slightly less busy and the doss house slightly less full. People need to take responsibility for their lives regardless of the car∂s they've been dealt.

[@Londoneast80]

There was no welfare state then whatsoever. The Victorian upper society were lucky in retrospect they didn't reek havoc against them. No comparison whatsoever between the poverty now and then . Back then everyone fell between the cracks .

[@jakehammond12345]

@@Londoneast80 The idea of a welfare state wasn't even a concept then so they would have had no reason to ' wreak havoc' against the ' upper classes' for not giving them free stuff. We're so conditioned now to expect free stuff it seems alien but just think about it. The insistence on lying about these women in 2024 is damaging to history. These women were prostitutes, thats not casting a moral or spiritual judgement on them, thats the truth. They ended up here because of drink and bad life choices. Even if they had have fallen through the cracks and had loads of bad luck they were still choosing to drink extremely heavily. In addition... there may have been no official welfare state but there were schemes and charities set up by wealthy businessmen of the time, quite a few in fact. Secondly, food was CHEAP then so they couldn't starve to death and the doss houses were also very cheap. The vast quantity of the money they earned and spent went through the tills at the pub.

[@suchanhachan]

These women led brutal lives, and in no way could they have "easily worked their way out of their situation". Did some or all of them make some poor decisions along the way? More than likely. But we might forget in our modern, privileged lives that the reason we make good decisions is the certainty that we will benefit from them, often greatly. These women did not have that certainty. In their lives of extremely limited options the relief from misery that alcohol or other vices provided may have seemed like the best or only choice open to them. Selling their bodies may have been the only option they could see to earn enough for food and a warm, safe place to sleep. At any rate, I think many modern people need to be self-aware enough to realize that they don't know nearly as much about these women's lives as they think they do, and it certainly isn't their place to judge them in any way...

[@PatrickWhelan-sp1th]

There is simply no way Richardson would have missed that body that was literally stretched out in front of him with red and white striped stockings even in the dark .Sitting on the step his eyes would adjust to the dark and he was deliberately checking the yard.

[@Abberline_1888]

Unless he wasn't there.

[@otisdylan9532]

I agree, and it's very unlikely that he'd make up a story about being in the place where a knife murder took place in which he was holding a knife.

[@ftumschk]

42:50 Crows taking flight or rats make other, quite distinct, noises, such as the flapping of wings - maybe even a "caw!" - and the scurryiing of rodent feet on paving-stones. Cadoche seems to have heard but one noise. And, _pace_ the estimable Mr Jones, Cadoche's witness testimony - as reported in the Telegraph, I think - is quite specific: "I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29"... note, not "a" fence, but THE fence between him and #29.

[@robert1746]

yes, and cats jump on fences, but never against them. Whoever made noises in the yard before John Davies came down, can only have been the killer, because if anybody else had been in the yard before Davies, they would have surely raised the alarm

[@otisdylan9532]

@@robert1746 Yes, McCann's speculations about what the noises could have been were rather far-fetched.

[@davesmith7432]

39:16 “ …interrupted by a carman, on Bucks Row, he fled…” 🤔

[@Abberline_1888]

'Fled' doesn't necessarily mean he ran away. He took evasive action.

[@kevinkenny6975]

Yes, sounds a bit odd.

[@davesmith7432]

@@kevinkenny6975 indeed Kevin, I’m glad I’m not the only one who caught that.

[@davekeating.]

Are we reinventing the english language here? Fled - the past tense of to flee ie run away from a place or situation of danger.

[@Abberline_1888]

@@davekeating. Not at all. As our friend Edward Stow has said, this was a 'fight or flight' moment. What sort of 'flight' is he describing. Let's not limit the language either.