Time Of Death

[Herlock Sholmes]

yes you do that because you had then closed the other times

This coming from a man who:

Misquoted himself.
Accused me of supporting Lechmere as a candidate.
Claimed greater knowledge than the world’s forensic scientists.
Makes statements like don’t make me prove that the hospital existed and then repeatedly refused all requests to do so.

You’ll have to excuse me when I don’t take you seriously. No one else does after all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for the reply. I was aware of the siting once he left for work and that it was 5:32 AM. -- What I felt was that the key time issue at hand was the 5:20 number. He was doing (it seems) his morning routine, getting ready for work. He entered two separate times into the yard, the "No" and the bump.

When I usually found myself racing about in the mornings preparing for work (as a school teacher) the span of time from when I got out of bed to leaving the house 5:30 to 6:15, was usually consistent, but I wouldn't at any moment note what the time actually was until I saw the car clock and confirmed I was on schedule . If during that span something odd occurred outside of my routine I would not have been able to note the time it happened (unless I looked at a clock.) I was thinking his 5:20 time was a guesstimate based on routine; as in: "I was this far into my routine so it was probably 5:20 AM."

But I am not sure how that actually matters concerning Long's siting of Annie; I was just replying that if the dispute between the two, Long and Cadosh has to be parsed, then I would go with Long's call over Cadosh's 5:20 AM.

But I think the real issue is whether or not that was Annie Long saw.

This is one of the trickiest parts of this particular episode of the case for me. Both Cadosch and Long both appeared confident in their timings. Long said that she’d heard the Black Eagle Brewery clock strike half past the hour just as she passed number 29. As she was on the way to work along a route that she would have used 6 days a weeks it’s difficult to see how she might have been mistaken.

On leaving the house Cadosch read the time on Christ’s Church clock at 5.32. Could he have been mistaken? The times between the two are frustratingly close. With Cadosch we have have Annie dying sometime around 5.25 whilst with Long it couldn’t have been much before 5.35. A mere 10 minutes messes everything up!

Of the two, as far as their testimony goes, I’m more inclined to Cadosch. When asked, Long said that there were often people around at that time of the morning and so, if she had seen two people it wouldn’t have been significant enough for her to pay specific attention. There has to be a possibility that she just saw two people talking and connected them to Chapman and her killer with hindsight.

Cadosch was uncertain about which direction the word no came from which at least shows caution. You would expect someone looking for their 15 minutes of fame to have been more confident. He was far more confident about hearing something falling against the fence though. So I’m more inclined to believe him over Long.

We can’t be certain of course and they both could have been mistaken or lying but if Phillips was correct then we have to add Richardson to the list of mistaken or lying witnesses. If any one of these three were correct in what they said though then Phillips was wrong. And, as we know the difficulties of TOD estimations at that time it’s no stretch to consider this possibility. Phillips obviously wouldn’t lie so we have the possibility of an understandable error. So my interpretation, although not certain by any means is:

Phillips - Wrong ( an understandable error given the level of knowledge at the time)
Long - Mistaken (she simply saw a random man and woman talking and connected them with the murders in her memory)
Cadosch - Correct ( although the no might have been unconnected the sound of something falling against the fence was very likely to have been connected to the murder.)
Richardson - Correct (despite the initial discrepancies in testimony we have someone voluntarily placing themselves at the crime scene with a knife. I think it likely that he sat on the step when he said that he did and that he was correct when he said that the body wasn’t there.)

And so I’d have Annie being killed at approximately 5.25am.

[APerno]

Cadosch too cited a clock, albeit one he sighted just after he left the house;

"While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church."

Thank you for the reply. I was aware of the siting once he left for work and that it was 5:32 AM. -- What I felt was that the key time issue at hand was the 5:20 number. He was doing (it seems) his morning routine, getting ready for work. He entered two separate times into the yard, the "No" and the bump.

When I usually found myself racing about in the mornings preparing for work (as a school teacher) the span of time from when I got out of bed to leaving the house 5:30 to 6:15, was usually consistent, but I wouldn't at any moment note what the time actually was until I saw the car clock and confirmed I was on schedule . If during that span something odd occurred outside of my routine I would not have been able to note the time it happened (unless I looked at a clock.) I was thinking his 5:20 time was a guesstimate based on routine; as in: "I was this far into my routine so it was probably 5:20 AM."

But I am not sure how that actually matters concerning Long's siting of Annie; I was just replying that if the dispute between the two, Long and Cadosh has to be parsed, then I would go with Long's call over Cadosh's 5:20 AM.

But I think the real issue is whether or not that was Annie Long saw.

[FISHY1118]

I’ll keep my eyes open just in case I miss your first example of this.

yes you do that because you had then closed the other times

[Joshua Rogan]

I am more prone to think Cadosch wrong about the 5:20 AM time, only because Long was citing a clock, but how that fits into the big picture I have not pieced together as of yet. This is my first look at it. --- Long may not of seen Annie, but someone else . . . and on and on it goes . . .

Cadosch too cited a clock, albeit one he sighted just after he left the house;

"While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church."

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the point. Anywhere like Buck’s Row perhaps or Pinching Street? It would hardly have been difficulty to have found somewhere. I really can’t think of anywhere riskier that 29 Hanbury Street.

Of course this should read Pinchin Street. Bloody auto-correct!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which is what ive been doing all along , and will continue to do so .

I’ll keep my eyes open just in case I miss your first example of this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to play devil's advocate with you -- according to Knight the purpose was to terrorize the blackmailers (the girls) so the bodies needed to be displayed where they would be found come the morning sun. They wouldn't have wanted to dump in a secluded place, so the conspiracy logic goes.

But then again any side street would have served their purpose, they certainly didn't need to be carrying the corpse through hallways.

This is the point. Anywhere like Buck’s Row perhaps or Pinching Street? It would hardly have been difficulty to have found somewhere. I really can’t think of anywhere riskier that 29 Hanbury Street.

[APerno]

Can you not see the major flaw in this point Fishy?

Your saying that it would have been just as risky for Jack as it would have been for two men dumping a body but it wasn’t really about how risky it was but how risky it was perceived to have been at that time?

First we have the suggestion of a single killer (Jack) He enters into an agreement with Annie who takes him to the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. The punter relies on the prostitute to know a place where they won’t be disturbed. She assures him that - we’ll be ok here. She knows that a punter won’t want to be disturbed or caught in the act. The punter has a level of trust because he assumes (probably correctly) that this was a regular spot that she used for business on many occasions. We know from Richardson that he’d moved couples on in the recent past. All of this is sadly why prostitutes are such ideal victims for killers.

So we have a punter/killer that has been given a level of confidence, based on Annie’s regular use of the yard, that he won’t be disturbed. There would always have been risk attached to any murder outdoors of course but as he knew that he only needed 5 minutes or so he’d have felt ok to proceed.

So how much risk would our two men carrying a body have perceived?

Well, Annie’s dead of course so they have no one to reassure them that they wouldn’t have been seen or disturbed. Number 29 is just a random door which may or may not have been locked. So they have to consider what they would have done if they’d found that door locked? Or, even worse, if they’d got in but found the yard door locked. Or they’d met with someone coming down the stairs? These are massive, and very obvious risks. So the question is - why would they have risked it? How long would it have taken them, in a carriage, to have found a safe(r) spot? A deserted railway arch, a deserted alley, somewhere near to the river? Five minutes? I’d say that they’d have had to have worked hard to have found a riskier spot (unless they’d decided to dump her body outside Buckingham Palace of course!)

And so it’s pretty obvious that Jack would have felt it far less of a risky spot than our Freemasonic Chuckle Brothers.

Just to play devil's advocate with you -- according to Knight the purpose was to terrorize the blackmailers (the girls) so the bodies needed to be displayed where they would be found come the morning sun. They wouldn't have wanted to dump in a secluded place, so the conspiracy logic goes.

But then again any side street would have served their purpose, they certainly didn't need to be carrying the corpse through hallways.

[FISHY1118]

[FISHY1118]

Are you really that s tu..pid..... Surely not

[FISHY1118]

And I’ll continue basing my opinions on facts, reason, logic, evidence

Which is what ive been doing all along , and will continue to do so .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for the record my statement about'' not giving a toss what people think'' was in direct relation to the conversations i was / am having with Herlock, and not in any way do i not give a toss about what others may think in relation to the jtr murders .I hope that clears up that part of the post

It appears that you don’t even read your own posts. If you were only talking about me why did you actually say this?

Firstly i dont give a toss what everyone else thinks

Everyone else Fishy. How can you manage to misquote yourself?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for the record my statement about'' not giving a toss what people think'' was in direct relation to the conversations i was / am having with Herlock, and not in any way do i not give a toss about what others may think in relation to the jtr murders .I hope that clears up that part of the post

Ok.......so you don’t mind every other poster on here thinking that the Knight/Sickert theory is nonsense and the idea of two men dumping a mutilated corpse is laughable.

Good.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock , ive already explained my thoughts on what happen in regards to the chapman murder. i wont be going around in circles with you debating what you think may or may not have happen , you believe what you like, ill do the same in my future post. cheers .

No problem. And I’ll continue basing my opinions on facts, reason, logic, evidence and likelihood rather than fixating on a particular theory and selecting what to accept or dismiss on the basis of that theory. And I’ll also try and back up my opinions (whether anyone agrees or not) and I’ll respond to questions honestly rather than resorting to changing the subject or answering a different question to avoid difficulty because that wouldn’t be honest would it Fishy?