Chapman's Death

[lynn cates]

conditional

Hello Mike. I completely agree with your conditional proposition. If he is telling the truth, he could not have missed her.

The best.
LC

Just wanted to weigh in on the possibility that if Richardson told the truth Annie might still have been there....I think based on her heads distance from the left side of the first step, or right side as you look at it from the back, he could not have missed seeing the body in my opinion.

I think if he told the truth, his evidence suggests that Annie had not yet been in the yard.

Best regards all.

[lynn cates]

Richardson

Hello Chava. I see what you mean. Imagine what SY thought when they discovered he possessed not only a knife but also a leather apron!

The best.
LC

[Chava]

At one time on the old board I started a thread that posited we should look closely at the only man who admits to being in the vicinity of Chapman's body with a knife--viz John Richardson. I don't think he's necessarily a serious suspect, but I don't think we should discount him either. The time of death has always been a bit controversial, and really depends on whether one puts one's faith in Phillips' experience or Long/Cadosche's eye-witness evidence. I think it's most likely that Cadosche's evidence was probably the most believable, so if I had to bet right now, I'd say that Chapman was killed around 5.15-5.30 am. But I'm not going to take Richardson down from the suspects' gallery just yet!

[lynn cates]

2 points

Hello Sam.

"{He] poke[d] about inside his boot with a knife."

I'm glad you put it this way. Perhaps he was not in earnest about cutting off the piece of leather? But with that dull knife, I'm sure cutting was a bit much. Delighted he emended that story.

"Even if it had been dark, there are other modalities to consider - like touch and smell. In short, he'd have been lucky to avoid bumping into her with his feet as he rested them on the flags[.]"

That is so--provided, of course, he actually did that rather than merely peering out to the right whilst checking the lock. If only he would have emended THAT story.

The best.
LC

[curious]

Your post prompted me to recheck the witness accounts. Cadoche heard the voice say "no" at an undetermined time between 5:15 and 5:30. He then went back inside his house but returned to the yard three or four minutes later at which time he heard something fall against the fence. He then left to go to work and saw when he reached the clock on Christchurch Spitalfields that it was 5:32.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Long said she saw Annie talking to a man outside #29 at 5:30, as she had just heard the brewery clock on Brick Lane strike that time. So if anything, if Cadoche heard something other than the murder taking place it would seem that it had to be something that happened before, not after.

Or Mrs. Long saw someone else.

curious

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think he could have missed her! That doorstep wasn't big and he would have been sitting right outside the backdoor. Annie's body was right next to him. I know it was dark, but it wouldn't have been that dark!

... furthermore, he said that it wasn't so dark that he couldn't see "all around" him at the time. It was certainly light enough to permit Richardson to poke about inside his boot with a knife. Even if it had been dark, there are other modalities to consider - like touch and smell. In short, he'd have been lucky to avoid bumping into her with his feet as he rested them on the flags, and the odour of freshly-opened guts would have been rather hard to avoid.

[Chava]

I don't think he could have missed her! That doorstep wasn't big and he would have been sitting right outside the backdoor. Annie's body was right next to him. I know it was dark, but it wouldn't have been that dark!

[lynn cates]

yet again

Hello Chris. Yet again we agree that the problem rests largely on:

"unless Richardson was lying or mistaken"

And, I don't think he was lying (except perhaps about the shoe). I believe that, in his own mind, he looked left and saw no Annie.

But I believe he looked only right and missed the poor devil.

The best.
LC

[Chris]

We also agree that Annie could have been killed 1 hour earlier than the estimated 4:30 as well as one hour later.

On the basis of Phillips's evidence alone, certainly.

But unless Richardson was lying or mistaken, that's obviously not possible. I don't see any persuasive reason to think he was - and that's where we disagree. Which, as you say, needn't involve being disagreeable ...

[lynn cates]

agreeing

Hello Chris.

"All we have [are] subjective impressions from different doctors, and various estimates of how long they had been dead, whose basis we don't know. There's no implication that Chapman "cooled more rapidly" than the other victims. The point is simply that in all these estimates of the time of death there is a large margin of error."

Agreed. It is subjective, based only on the doctor's experience.

We also agree that Annie could have been killed 1 hour earlier than the estimated 4:30 as well as one hour later.

I take it, however, that we have divergent views about the testimonies of Richardson, Long and Cadosch.

Very well, we disagree, but we shan't, for that reason be disagreeable (as the old saying goes). So may we ever continue to be the agreeable chaps which, I trust, we both are.

The best.
LC

[Chris]

Lynn

As I said, no quantitative measurements were made of the victims' body temperatures. All we have is subjective impressions from different doctors, and various estimates of how long they had been dead, whose basis we don't know. There's no implication that Chapman "cooled more rapidly" than the other victims. The point is simply that in all these estimates of the time of death there is a large margin of error.

And of course the margin of error works both ways. But the fact that there is such a large margin of error means that there is no difficulty in reconciling the witness statements with Phillips's estimate. Not Long's or Cadosch's, and certainly not Richardson's, because the apparent discrepancy in Richardson's case is only about 20 minutes.

[lynn cates]

factors, take 2

Hello Chris.

"And on top of that there are a lot of other sources of uncertainty - the accuracy of Phillips's assessment of temperature by touch, the influence of air temperature, the contribution of cooling by conduction because the body was lying on the ground, the fact that the body had been disembowelled and lost a lot of blood, and so on."

All true, as Phillips admits.

However, consider:

1. Other doctors with similar post mortem skills faced the same obstacles in their assessments.

2. The air temperature varied 1 degree F (as I recall) from the day Kate was killed.

3. Kate and Polly were both lying on the ground.

4. Kate had been disembowelled as well.

5. All of the C5 had lost a good deal of blood.

Yet we are to suppose that Annie cooled MUCH more rapidly?

"On this basis I really think it would have been quite out of the question for the margin of error of Phillips's estimate to be less than an hour."

Quite possibly so. Which, statistically speaking, means that it could have been 1 HOUR EARLIER than his 4-4:30.

The best.
LC

[Chris]

Hello Chris. All the factors you note were present in Polly and Kate's cases, yet both the cooling and rigor appeared "on schedule" with them.

Why should Annie cool so much more rapidly and stiffen so much sooner?

As we don't have a quantitative measurement of temperature in any of these cases - or indeed any information about how any of these doctors estimated the time of death from their impression of body temperature - there's no way any sensible comparison can be made between them.

But in any case, what's at issue is how accurately Phillips would have been able to estimate the time of death from his impression of body temperature, based on touching the body. If you look at the web page I posted a link to before, you'll see that various formulae have been used, which assume that the body cools by anything between 0.8 and 1.5 degrees Celsius an hour. (That range in itself implies an uncertainty of nearly a factor of two!) It also quotes a range of variation of 1.3 degrees for normal (oral) body temperature (which of course implies an additional uncertainty on the order of an hour).

Those two factors alone are more than enough to explain the discrepancy between Phillips's estimate and the timing implied by the witness evidence.

And on top of that there are a lot of other sources of uncertainty - the accuracy of Phillips's assessment of temperature by touch, the influence of air temperature, the contribution of cooling by conduction because the body was lying on the ground, the fact that the body had been disembowelled and lost a lot of blood, and so on.

On this basis I really think it would have been quite out of the question for the margin of error of Phillips's estimate to be less than an hour.

[lynn cates]

factors

Hello Chris. All the factors you note were present in Polly and Kate's cases, yet both the cooling and rigor appeared "on schedule" with them.

Why should Annie cool so much more rapidly and stiffen so much sooner?

The best.
LC