Jack's Escape Route?

[Curious Cat]

Again, in his signed statement, he says "I should say it was 4 or 5 weeks since they slept together at this house. They had been hopping."
So, not 4 or 5 weeks ago, but 4 or 5 weeks since they slept together at 55, Flower and Dean. How does Mr. Wilkinson know they went hopping? All we know of the trip is from the words of John Kelly.

Catherine and John went hopping together every year for 7 years. Wilkinson knew them over all that time and he would have know they usually go hopping around that time of year. He knew them well enough that he says he would have trusted them to pay for their bed later if they didn't have the money on them on the day/night. John stayed at the lodging house on the Saturday night of the murder. The chance of him and Wilkinson having a passing conversation about the poor hopping experience is highly possible.

In the end, the signed statement by Eliza Gold states she last saw them 3 or 4 weeks ago.

Why would Eliza keep the fact she had in fact seen Kate 3 to 4 weeks prior, from her daughter, Annie Phillips. To add to that, why would Annie be looking for her mother the week of her murder when the entire family states they tried to avoid her at all cost.

Daily News
United Kingdom
4 October 1888

"She had two or three children by him. It's rather strange-one of them, the girl that's married, came to me last week and asked me if I had seen anything of her mother. She said it was a very long time since she had seen her; but it was a long time since I had, too, and I told her so. In fact I have not seen her much oftener than once or twice since she has been with Kelly, though we lived so close together. We were not on the best of terms."

Eliza Gold could not write and only signed her statement with a cross mark while in a distressed state. She could have been signing a birthday card for Bob in the office and be none the wiser. The number of weeks was a cause for confusion during her evidence. It was conflated by the juryman then compounded by the coroner.

Eliza wasn't asked about seeing Catherine's daughter and neither did she offer that information at the inquest. As such we can't know what her reasoning was to tell Annie she hadn't seen her mother. Annie is also not asked at the inquest about why she had been in Whitechapel and asked Eliza if she had seen Catherine just a few days before the murder. Again, it means we don't know why she was in the area or why she was asking about Catherine.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In your opinion, almost certainly one based on the mistaken belief of doctors at the time that TOD could be fixed to within a few minutes by Touch and by RM.
This is a view No modern Forensic Pathologist would ascribe to.

You may well argue that she was dead, but again you are stating this belief as FACT.

The evidence about the timing of her last meal, the fact it had not been fully digested, the lack of subsequent sightings of her after 1.50 a.m., the almost total coldness of her body at 6.30 a.m., the onset of rigor mortis by the same time, the fact that people were up and about by 5.30 a.m., and the murderer's failure to use the water to wash his hands in the yard, all prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder took place well before 5.30 a.m.

Even if you accept that Cadoche's evidence means that he heard the murderer with Chapman, that must have taken place before the alleged sighting of Chapman by Long.

Either way, Chapman must have been dead by the time of Long's sighting of her.

You suggest that Chapman secretly took another potato with her from the lodging house and ate it much later, that she found a customer but decided not to claim her bed and instead spent her earnings on food, that her digestion was unusually slow, that somehow no-one saw her for three hours and forty minutes, that the murderer was prepared to go into the yard, knowing the risk of being caught at such a late hour, that rigor mortis set in abnormally quickly, that her body became cold abnormally quickly, and (by implication) that the murderer did not notice the water with which he could wash his hands, even though it was getting light.

You also suggest that just about everyone is wrong about the time and all the clocks, including the church clock, are wrong, and all in such a way that I can be wrong!

What about the evidence?

The preponderance of evidence is supposedly overridden by a long list of improbabilities.

[Elamarna]

The evidence about the timing of her last meal, the fact it had not been fully digested, the lack of subsequent sightings of her after 1.50 a.m., the almost total coldness of her body at 6.30 a.m., the onset of rigor mortis by the same time, the fact that people were up and about by 5.30 a.m., and the murderer's failure to use the water to wash his hands in the yard, all prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder took place well before 5.30 a.m.

Even if you accept that Cadoche's evidence means that he heard the murderer with Chapman, that must have taken place before the alleged sighting of Chapman by Long.

Either way, Chapman must have been dead by the time of Long's sighting of her.

You suggest that Chapman secretly took another potato with her from the lodging house and ate it much later, that she found a customer but decided not to claim her bed and instead spent her earnings on food, that her digestion was unusually slow, that somehow no-one saw her for three hours and forty minutes, that the murderer was prepared to go into the yard, knowing the risk of being caught at such a late hour, that rigor mortis set in abnormally quickly, that her body became cold abnormally quickly, and (by implication) that the murderer did not notice the water with which he could wash his hands, even though it was getting light.

You also suggest that just about everyone is wrong about the time and all the clocks, including the church clock, are wrong, and all in such a way that I can be wrong!

What about the evidence?

The preponderance of evidence is supposedly overridden by a long list of improbabilities.

You demonstatrate a complete lack of understanding of the reliability of timings, and and endearing faith in the ability of the Doctors to determine TOD in the late 19th century.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You demonstatrate a complete lack of understanding of the reliability of timings, and and endearing faith in the ability of the Doctors to determine TOD in the late 19th century.

You have not even attempted to refute anything I have written.

[FISHY1118]

You have not even attempted to refute anything I have written.

Exactly.

Your post was spot on .

[FISHY1118]

All The evidence and I mean "All " we have to work from suggest earlier than later t.o.d .

As was well explained over 3400 post on the Richardson thread.

[Elamarna]

You have not even attempted to refute anything I have written.

That's because I have better things to do than repeat information that is on this site, in several other threads, sometime from myself, but more importantly from medical and scientific reports , mentioned in threads discussing the issues with determining TOD .

In short, Rigor Mortis is not a reliable indication of TOD, it varies greatly.

Temperatures of the body were not taken, what we have are highly subjective comments based on touch.

Cadosch and Long, appear to disagree on the timing by around 10minutes or so.
Such is not unusual, given the issues with non syncronizied time keeping in the late 19th century.

[Elamarna]

All The evidence and I mean "All " we have to work from suggest earlier than later t.o.d .

As was well explained over 3400 post on the Richardson thread.

Sorry, that is not what the evidence tells us at all.
The early TOD is based entirely on accepting the guesstimates of Phillips.
Touch as an indication of body temperature is simply a non starter .

That you wish to ignore the overriding weight of modern medical opinion on the issues of determing TOD is not proof of anything.

Seriously I have far better things to do that rehash the lack of understanding shown by some.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's because I have better things to do than repeat information that is on this site, in several other threads, sometime from myself, but more importantly from medical and scientific reports , mentioned in threads discussing the issues with determining TOD .

In short, Rigor Mortis is not a reliable indication of TOD, it varies greatly.

Temperatures of the body were not taken, what we have are highly subjective comments based on touch.

Cadosch and Long, appear to disagree on the timing by around 10minutes or so.
Such is not unusual, given the issues with non syncronizied time keeping in the late 19th century.

Maybe you have better things to do when the going gets tough.

As I wrote:

You suggest that Chapman secretly took another potato with her from the lodging house and ate it much later, that she found a customer but decided not to claim her bed and instead spent her earnings on food, that her digestion was unusually slow, that somehow no-one saw her for three hours and forty minutes, that the murderer was prepared to go into the yard, knowing the risk of being caught at such a late hour, that rigor mortis set in abnormally quickly, that her body became cold abnormally quickly, and (by implication) that the murderer did not notice the water with which he could wash his hands, even though it was getting light.

The preponderance of evidence is supposedly overridden by a long list of improbabilities.

I suggest we go by the evidence of what happened rather than unfounded speculation - and that includes clock times on public buildings.

Phillips made a reasonable estimate, but it is being rubbished because it contradicts the evidence of three witnesses, which many prefer.

It is unlikely that Chapman died at about 5.30 a.m. and the corresponding evidence from Eddowes' examination in Mitre Square does not support your contention.

[JeffHamm]

The evidence about the timing of her last meal, the fact it had not been fully digested, the lack of subsequent sightings of her after 1.50 a.m., the almost total coldness of her body at 6.30 a.m., the onset of rigor mortis by the same time, the fact that people were up and about by 5.30 a.m., and the murderer's failure to use the water to wash his hands in the yard, all prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder took place well before 5.30 a.m.

There have been a number of discussions on this in the past, which raise points that are important. First, at the inquest, it is only stated that "a little food" was found in her stomach. The nature of that food is not mentioned, and therefore we cannot be sure that the food found was potatoes. In addition, to state that the potatoes Annie was seen eating was her last meal is not a certainty. While we know she ate potatoes at that time, we do not know if that was indeed her last meal because after she leaves until she was found in the backyard, we have no idea what she did. Here's a purely illustrative example of what I mean, at the point she was required to go out to seek her doss money, we cannot be sure she didn't pack up some of her meal and take it with her, only to finish it off at some later time; as such, her last meal might have been potatoes, but it was much later than when she was seen eating potatoes at the doss house. Of course, if "the little food" found in her stomach wasn't even potato, then clearly she ate something else at some point. Perhaps the potatoes she was seen eating was only part of that meal, which also comprised of something that takes longer to digest?

In addition, the finding of food in the stomach is not really digestion per se, but in related to "gastric emptying" (how long does food remain in the stomach, etc). A while back I posted findings from a research article on that point, and the short story from that is, it is very rare for the stomach to be completely empty of food material, even many hours after death. The finding of "a little food" in her stomach, therefore, wouldn't be surprising even if our assumptions that the "little food" was indeed potato and was indeed from her meal at the doss house. And neither of those is an established fact, though one could (and many do) offer the hypothesis that those are both the case. But a hypothesis is not a conclusion, it's an assumption if one presumes they are true, it is a possibility that needs to be considered if one sees it for what it is.

In that latter vein, based upon the research into gastric emptying times, whether or not the food found in Annie's stomach was potatoes, and whether or not she ate some later than we are aware of, that finding does not preclude a ToD around 5:25-5:30.

{Here's a link to a post where I present the findings from a 2017 research paper on this topic)

Even if you accept that Cadoche's evidence means that he heard the murderer with Chapman, that must have taken place before the alleged sighting of Chapman by Long.

Either way, Chapman must have been dead by the time of Long's sighting of her.

Not really, unless one takes everything as literally stated. We do know that Long based her time (5:30) on hearing the chimes from the Brewer's clock. Again, Long's testimony has been looked at, and there are some questions that need answering to really know what to do with it. As I recall those discussions, somewhere Long states she left home at around 5:00 am, and based upon various possible home addresses (her exact residence hadn't been determined, but a few locations have been suggested, and the same conclusion worked for all of them), it should only have taken her around 10-15 minutes to get to the market. That leaves open the very real possibility that, when recalling the events, she remembers hearing the chimes but mis-remembers them as being the 5:30 when they might very well have been the 5:15 chimes. If so, and I'm not saying this is a fact, it would mean her sighting was at 5:15 and not 5:30, placing her sightings around 5 minutes before Cadache's events.

Obviously, the above is only a possibility. If Long stopped along the way between home and the market, then one could explain things, and so forth. The important thing we have to consider, though, is that there is reason to question the accuracy of the time she gives for her sighting just as much as there is reason to question the accuracy of who she sighted (and these aren't even mutually exclusive - she could have been wrong on both the time and who she saw of course).

You suggest that Chapman secretly took another potato with her from the lodging house and ate it much later, that she found a customer but decided not to claim her bed and instead spent her earnings on food, that her digestion was unusually slow, that somehow no-one saw her for three hours and forty minutes, that the murderer was prepared to go into the yard, knowing the risk of being caught at such a late hour, that rigor mortis set in abnormally quickly, that her body became cold abnormally quickly, and (by implication) that the murderer did not notice the water with which he could wash his hands, even though it was getting light.

It didn't even have to be in secret that she took some potatoes with her. She may just have wrapped up the remaining portion and left with it (I don't know if that's the case, but I don't know it wasn't either). Also, the potatoes may not even be related to what was found in her stomach, as that is only described as being "a little food". If she had anything else with the potatoes at the time, perhaps that is what was found? Also, it is not that common for the stomach to be completely empty of all food matter, even many hours after one's last meal (even if that last meal is easily digestible foodstuffs). And given only a little food was found, we cannot even exclude the possibility that was indeed from the potatoes she was seen eating.

And again, we can't say that noone saw her, only that if anyone saw her they have not come forward to report it (perhaps they didn't realise the woman they saw was the same woman found dead; perhaps they didn't want to get involved; and so forth).

And Rigor Mortis can set in very quickly, in fact, full rigor can occur within half an hour (though that is not common, it's also not what we're dealing with anyway). Again, I had found some articles on the time course of rigor, and in the end, there's nothing about observing some stiffness in the limbs that precludes a ToD of 5:25-5:30 (nor does it preclude earlier times of course, but that's not the main issue here).

You also suggest that just about everyone is wrong about the time and all the clocks, including the church clock, are wrong, and all in such a way that I can be wrong!

What about the evidence?

The preponderance of evidence is supposedly overridden by a long list of improbabilities.

In short, the margins of error associated with estimates of the ToD based upon things like body temperature and rigor mortis, even today, are in terms of hours, not minutes. Given Dr. Phillips' time is within 40 or 50 minutes of the time suggested by the eye-witnesses, that is well within even today's margins of error, and so we cannot even say his estimate conflicts with the witness testimony.

As such, the preponderance of evidence is consistent with a ToD of around 5:25-5:30. If we exclude all of the witnesses, and focus only on the medical evidence, then the evidence is consistent with a ToD between the time she left the doss house and when she was discovered in the backyard of Hanbury Street - the medical information has such very wide margins of error that effectively it tells us nothing about her actual ToD.

Anyway, these have all be covered quite extensively (and in no less heated a manner) in a number of threads.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Maybe you have better things to do when the going gets tough.

As I wrote:

You suggest that Chapman secretly took another potato with her from the lodging house and ate it much later, that she found a customer but decided not to claim her bed and instead spent her earnings on food, that her digestion was unusually slow, that somehow no-one saw her for three hours and forty minutes, that the murderer was prepared to go into the yard, knowing the risk of being caught at such a late hour, that rigor mortis set in abnormally quickly, that her body became cold abnormally quickly, and (by implication) that the murderer did not notice the water with which he could wash his hands, even though it was getting light.

The preponderance of evidence is supposedly overridden by a long list of improbabilities.

I suggest we go by the evidence of what happened rather than unfounded speculation - and that includes clock times on public buildings.

Phillips made a reasonable estimate, but it is being rubbished because it contradicts the evidence of three witnesses, which many prefer.

It is unlikely that Chapman died at about 5.30 a.m. and the corresponding evidence from Eddowes' examination in Mitre Square does not support your contention.

NO, Phillips made a estimation using flawed methods. His timings are therefore unreliable. indeed he himself stated that he could be mistaken.
Such flawed methodology was not his fault, as at the time such methods were believed to be reliable.
Modern medicine shows such methods are in no way reliable.
The weight of medical research and papers on this issue , many of which are linked on this site, clearly demonstrate that to be the case.

It is not at all unlikely that Chapman died at around 5.30, despite you saying it is.
It is a highly disputed issue, to accept an earlier TOD relies on accepting the mistaken belief that Doctors in the late 19th century, could determine body temperature by touch, and death to with 30 minutes . Such is medically unsound

But I have no intention of rehashing these old tired, arguments, that often demonstrate a lack medical understanding.

With regards to timings.
I have carried out intensive research on the issue of the reliability of timings in 1888, and the conclusions are that differences of 10 minutes are not unexpected .
Indeed research on modern public building clocks shows discrepancies of this magnitude, and I presented evidence of such in a conference talk last year.

We don't agree, such is common in life

[FISHY1118]

Sorry, that is not what the evidence tells us at all.
The early TOD is based entirely on accepting the guesstimates of Phillips.
Touch as an indication of body temperature is simply a non starter .

That you wish to ignore the overriding weight of modern medical opinion on the issues of determing TOD is not proof of anything.

Seriously I have far better things to do that rehash the lack of understanding shown by some.

Sorry but you missed "all" the evidence not just what you chose to use and what you ignore

I too have better things to do .

3400 post that covered all this already.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Jeff.

Please see my replies below.

In addition, to state that the potatoes Annie was seen eating was her last meal is not a certainty.

We are not dealing with certainties.

We are dealing with evidence.

There is no evidence that she ate anything after she left the lodging house.



While we know she ate potatoes at that time, we do not know if that was indeed her last meal because after she leaves until she was found in the backyard, we have no idea what she did.

We know what she did.

She met the murderer and went with him into the yard at the back of 29 Hanbury Street.



Here's a purely illustrative example of what I mean, at the point she was required to go out to seek her doss money, we cannot be sure she didn't pack up some of her meal and take it with her, only to finish it off at some later time;

But the witnesses did not mention that.



That leaves open the very real possibility that, when recalling the events, she remembers hearing the chimes but mis-remembers them as being the 5:30 when they might very well have been the 5:15 chimes. If so, and I'm not saying this is a fact, it would mean her sighting was at 5:15 and not 5:30, placing her sightings around 5 minutes before Cadache's events.

Why not speculate that she mis-remembered the day on which she saw the couple?



And again, we can't say that noone saw her, only that if anyone saw her they have not come forward to report it (perhaps they didn't realise the woman they saw was the same woman found dead; perhaps they didn't want to get involved; and so forth).

The fact that she was last seen at 1.50 a.m., walking in the general direction of Hanbury Street, but no-one reported seeing her for hours thereafter is consistent with her having been murdered not long afterwards.



And Rigor Mortis can set in very quickly, in fact, full rigor can occur within half an hour (though that is not common, it's also not what we're dealing with anyway). Again, I had found some articles on the time course of rigor, and in the end, there's nothing about observing some stiffness in the limbs that precludes a ToD of 5:25-5:30 (nor does it preclude earlier times of course, but that's not the main issue here).

Why would rigor mortis set in unusually quickly in this case?

Why would the victim's body become almost completely cold so quickly?

What was so different about the conditions in Hanbury Street from those in Mitre Square?



In short, the margins of error associated with estimates of the ToD based upon things like body temperature and rigor mortis, even today, are in terms of hours, not minutes. Given Dr. Phillips' time is within 40 or 50 minutes of the time suggested by the eye-witnesses, that is well within even today's margins of error, and so we cannot even say his estimate conflicts with the witness testimony.

But you have not given a reason for thinking that rigor mortis would have set in so quickly in this particular case.

As I demonstrated on another thread, the general view is that it usually sets in after at least two hours.

What is different about this case, other than the need to accommodate the testimony of other witnesses?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is not at all unlikely that Chapman died at around 5.30, despite you saying it is.

Of course it is unlikely that Chapman died at 5.30 a.m., just like the long list of improbabilities I cited.

If you think it is not unlikely that Chapman was almost completely cold with rigor mortis setting in within an hour of being murdered, how do you explain the altogether different condition of the victim in Mitre Square in similar conditions?

[Elamarna]

Sorry but you missed "all" the evidence not just what you chose to use and what you ignore

I too have better things to do .

3400 post that covered all this already.

No, I missed nothing.
3400 posts many of which were full of false assumptions, and a lack of medical/scientific knowledge .

Sadly one cannot convince those who do not wish to be convinced.