Specific

[kjab3112]

Hi Michael

Personally I agree that Cadosche was telling the truth. Long probably was too though. We are used to iPhone centralised time so everyone is accurate to the minute. If you are reliant on public clocks (or even time sellers) then that creates error. If one were to put two people in an environment with no external reference point they would almost certainly estimate the passage of time differently. All over this forum we see arguments to the minute (which is highly questionable when even a modern automatic watch has a 30 second weekly variance). The facts (historical but not in the Pierre sense) are that at some time after five and before six Annie was killed. One witness states at 0515 he heard a noise of a weight as though a body fell against the fence. The second claims at 0530 they witnessed the deceased outside the place of death. Reverse those timings and there is no controversy surely, which was the point I was trying to make. My apologies for confusion.

Best wishes

Paul

[Michael W Richards]

The timings and clock accuracy is a recurring theme unfortunately. Long set her time by the Truman Brewery clock chime, Cadosche by the time after he'd left the house, neither exact when we're talking about minutes. The medical opinion of how long is based on a deliberate surgical procedure, the actual killer would have been quicker as he didn't care about protecting life (obviously). There was an interesting article concerning inaccuracy of temperature decay due to variation in eg surrounding temperature from the 1950s, the precursors of which Dr Phillips certainly seemed aware

Paul

Its not just the timings....its the fact that we have evidence that most probably Annie and someone were in the yard at around 5:15am, its not conceivable that these were different people and the killer and Annie arrive after Longs sighting, for one..where did the couple at 5:15 go, and for another, Annie is found just after 5:45...from someone who looked at a clock before the discovery. Long says she was certain about the time she saw Annie...which has Annie and her killer not even in the yard yet and the discovery of her cooling greatly mutilated remains coming just 15 minutes after that 5:30 sighting against the shutters of 29 Hanbury.

For me this is easy if you believe Cadosche...whom I personally have no reason to doubt. It leaves 1/2 an hour to do all he does...which fits nicely with Phillips contention that even he could not have done it all (the mutilations) in under 15 minutes.

[The Good Michael]

You simpletons! Time, like gravity, is a social construct!

Of course this is true and is why so many people are correct, but information contradicts. It isn't just times. It's all details. This is why a systematic refutation of every little thing with regards to a "suspect" is problematic. Suspects need to be looked at in general sense rather than detailed to determine merit. After general things are satisfied, statements that contradict are just a wash and exact time, within reason, holds no meaning. Details are to be found in medical records and such, or not at all.

Mike

[DJA]

Patsy Cline's Birthday. 8th September. Sign of Virgo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkin%27_After_Midnight

[Henry Flower]

Am I the only one nearly hysterical with laughter at the fact that Pierre, of all people, has started a thread simply called....

"Specific"

???

The irony is so thick you could choke on it.

[Henry Flower]

You simpletons! Time, like gravity, is a social construct!

This is a historical fact. Not a fact, but a historical fact.

Natural science teaches us this.

Therefore both witnesses were right. They were both right about the time. It was time itself that got things wrong.

But only because there were humans there to witness it. Otherwise no-one would've known.

Pierre, you began as an irritation. You are rapidly becoming a joke.

[kjab3112]

The timings and clock accuracy is a recurring theme unfortunately. Long set her time by the Truman Brewery clock chime, Cadosche by the time after he'd left the house, neither exact when we're talking about minutes. The medical opinion of how long is based on a deliberate surgical procedure, the actual killer would have been quicker as he didn't care about protecting life (obviously). There was an interesting article concerning inaccuracy of temperature decay due to variation in eg surrounding temperature from the 1950s, the precursors of which Dr Phillips certainly seemed aware

Paul

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

To be fair to Dr Phillips, he did state that the coolness of the day and blood loss may hasten cooling and thus exaggerate time since death, but he doesn't seem to have considered starting temperature. If Annie was mildly hypothermic, by just 1C say, that would easily move the estimate to correlate with Cadosche and Long

Paul

Actually Paul we run into the same kind of trouble we run into in the Mitre Square case, IF the lady Lawende saw at 1:35ma with Sailor Man was indeed Kate. The problem is with the amount of time remaining to kill and mutilate after the last sighting to the time of discovery.

IF Cadosche heard Annie and her Killer at approx. 5:15, which seems most plausible, then Long did not see Annie at 5:30, because she is found mutilated and dead at 5:45 by Davis. Its not only the cooling time that needs to be considered, its the amount of time the killer needed to kill and mutilate.

Cheers

[kjab3112]

Hi Michael

To be fair to Dr Phillips, he did state that the coolness of the day and blood loss may hasten cooling and thus exaggerate time since death, but he doesn't seem to have considered starting temperature. If Annie was mildly hypothermic, by just 1C say, that would easily move the estimate to correlate with Cadosche and Long

Paul

[Michael W Richards]

Cadosch is definite as to the time - but is wrong if Elizabeth Long is right. One of them has to be mistaken, in whole or in part (as the coroner said must be the case). I'm just not sure which.

That's my point Bridewell, if Cadosche was correct Mrs Long is incorrect. And Cadosche has the distinction of making his audial observance from directly on the other side of the fence that Annie Chapman died beside. There is no reason on paper to dispute that claim other than witness statements that indicated a retroactive belief in the identity of the person they saw based on a subsequent morgue viewing of the person who died.

For me the witnesses speak volumes whether relevant to the immediate question of who killed the victim or not. In this case, Cadosches proximity to the crime scene and his remarks suggest that a man and a woman were alive on the other side of the fence at approx. 5:15am...and since its inconceivable that they stood over a gutted dying woman while they were there, it seems to strongly indicate that the couple heard were likely the killer and his victim. Which places her death near 5:30, which is contrary to the speculation about TOD by the medical examiner in this case.

See...give Cadoshche his due and we have the following results....Mrs Long is irrelevant, Richardson didn't see anything because nothing was there at that time, and Annie died sometime around 5:30am, making the man seen soon thereafter by Mrs Fiddymont possibly the same man. It also means that when a body was desecrated outdoors in cool morning air and opened to such a large degree, it cooled far quicker than contemporary medical experts believed.

[MsWeatherwax]

Just for the slow ones at the back.... erm how can you know someone can read or write (or anything) if you do know not who the person is you are referring to?

By rearranging the letters on the bottom of a cake tin, adding 7, subtracting 5 and dividing the result by your own age. 2653 bonus points if the cake tin was found in a pawn shop and contained a handwritten confession. Whatever the answer is, screw it up and throw it away because facts are a social construction.

::sigh::

In the interests of attempting sensible discourse, I am not aware of any material facts that would indicate that the killer was able to read and write. Equally, I am not aware of any material facts that would indicate that he was illiterate.

Conclusion: Inconclusive.

[Geddy2112]

No no no no, Pierre thinks he could read and write, so based on everything else Pierre has stated as unequivocal fact, he must have been a deaf, blind mute

Mmmmm the plot thickens..

[GUT]

Ah that's good though... we now know JtR could read and write... that should narrow the suspect list down a fair bit..

No no no no, Pierre thinks he could read and write, so based on everything else Pierre has stated as unequivocal fact, he must have been a deaf, blind mute

[Geddy2112]

But Pierre thinks that he does - just won't say who or why he thinks that.

Ah that's good though... we now know JtR could read and write... that should narrow the suspect list down a fair bit..

[Abby Normal]

Cadosch is definite as to the time - but is wrong if Elizabeth Long is right. One of them has to be mistaken, in whole or in part (as the coroner said must be the case). I'm just not sure which.

They both could be right-just one of them off on their time. Probably long