AC and TOD

[Fisherman]

This is thoroughly interesting to discuss, and I welcome the input. I also note that people who ascribe to the Long/Cadosch/Richardson lineup strive - naturally - to look for the exceptions to the rule that may allow for believing in Chapman dying at around 5.30. Feverish people can go into rigor early on, there has been recorded quick coolings-off and so on.

All very true. James Brady was hit between the eyes when Reagan was shot, but Brady didnīt die - he miraculously survived, since the bullet passed exactly between the two halves of his brain. Conclusion? You can survive being shot right between the eyes. Forgotten conclusion? You normally die.

The best explanation to Chapman being cold (yes, Lynn, apart from a small area in the stomach she WAS quite cold), to her having an onsetting rigor mortis and to her having partly undigested food in her stomach is and remains that she was killed around two or three hours before Phillips saw her. Not a living soul would - or could - object to that.
The one and only reason the idea is being bandied about that Chapmans corpse could loose all itīs body warmth (yes, Lynn, etc) in an hour or less and that rigor mortis would set in very early in spite of the prevailing chill and that her potato was so incredibly hard to digest, is that there are three witnesses who seemingly nullify Phillips suggestion of a TOD around 4 AM.

I think that too much credence has been invested in these witnesses, and I will outline why.

Mrs Long - she purportedly saw Chapman and her killer outside 29 Hanbury Street at around 5.30 or shortly thereafter. She heard the man say "Will you?" and the woman answer "Yes", and she positively identified Chapman at the morgue.

Problems: She admitted that she offered the couple only scant attention, yet she says four days after the murder that she recognizes the woman at the morgue as the one she had seen in Hanbury Street. And what did she say initially? Letīs turn to the Daily News of September 12:th, the day Long surfaced:
"Another fresh point was elicited in the form of a statement made by a woman named Darrell, who minds carts on market mornings in Spitalfields Market. She asserts that about half-past five on Saturday morning she was passing the front door of No. 29, Hanbury-street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say "Will you?" and the woman replied "Yes," and they then disappeared. Mrs. Darrell does not think she could identify the couple."

Somehow, the day after, she COULD identify Chapman, however. Positively so, even.

Letīs also listen to that exchange again - does it not ring strange? Letīs suppose that a person wants fifteen minutes of fame, and letīs suppose this person is Mrs Long. Now, how could she drive home a message that the couple she saw was Chapman and her killer?
Perhaps by presenting a rudimentary conversation that left us unable to fill the blanks in in any other way than as a confirmation of Long being right:
Will you? (...follow me into the backyard and serve me sexually for money?)
Yes (I will step into that backyard with you)

There is a nice parallel with Cadosh here; more on that later.

Now, the conversation lends itself excellently to ruling out that this was anything else than a meeting between a prostitute and a client. However, a client KNOWS that the prostitute "will", so he need not ask her that. I find the conversation very odd. I donīt think that this sort of wording is very likely to go down in an encounter such as the one we are looking at. A question about the price, a "come along, luvī", something like that; yes. But "Will you?" No.

So, a witness that changes her view on the ability to recognize the couple and who offers a very odd conversation, clumsily shaped to try and confirm an act of sexual purchasing and to top things off, a witness that took three days on herself to surface. She would have known the timeline and the circumstances and could shape her story accordingly. Letīs throw her out of court, shall we?

But no - in steps young Cadosh to serve a story that ALSO speaks of Chapman being alive up til about 5.30 - but not all the way up to that point.

The Times, September 15:
"On the question as to the time when the crime was committed, concerning which there was a difference between the evidence of the man Richardson and the opinion of Dr. Phillips, a correspondent yesterday elicited that Mr. Cadoche, who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, where the murder was committed, went to the back of the premises at half-past 5 a.m. As he passed the wooden partition he heard a woman say "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle and then someone fell heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into his house. Some surprise is felt that this statement was not made in evidence at the inquest. There is a very strong feeling in the district and large numbers of persons continue to visit the locality."

So, just the one trip to the loo? And it was a woman who said "No, no" as he passed the partition? And there was a heavy fall against the palings?

At the inquest, he did not know where the voice came from, he did not say it belonged to a woman, he made two trips to the loo and the fall sounded like something suddenly touching the fence. Plus the voice said "No", not "No, no".

Cadosh apparently surfaced many days after the murder, just like Long. And just like Long, he finds the choice bits that leave us with a scenario that is easily read: The killer makes his intentions clear, Chapman says "No!", but is subdued and killed. It takes the odd minute, but she falls against the fence along which she was subsequently found.

How lucky that these two witnesses get hold of these exact details, leaving us in no doubt of what went down!

Actually, if Long had said that she saw the couple speaking to each other and no more, and if Cadosch had only stated that he had heard people moving about in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, I would have thought the evidence a lot more credible. Especially if it had been delivered on Saturday morning.

As it stands, my thoughts are drawn to Millerīs court, where the different women tried to outbid each other about the "Murder" cry. Just like the Cadosch article from the 15:th says, "There is a very strong feeling in the district and large numbers of persons continue to visit the locality." There would have been many persons wanting to be part of the ongoing saga.

I cannot help but to feel that we are at great risk if we accept Long and Cadosch. We have other witnesses in the Ripper saga of the same quality; Prater who first heard nothing and then spoke of a "Murder" cry, and Lewis, who gave flesh and bone to a person she had already admitted to not being able to describe at all leap to mind.

And Richardson? Heīs all over the place, testimonywise. All over the stairs, at least. Plus no matter if he was on step one or step two, it still applies that a door that closes itself would have been very much in the way for his ability to see Chapman.

The one guy who does not wawer is Phillips. We may conclude that he was not in it for any fifteen minutes of fame, at the very least. He gave a professional view, standing on three legs that all corroborate each other. He therefore offers the best explanation as to why nobody could remember seeing Annie Chapman on the London Streets after she left her dosshouse: because to see her, one would need to enter the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo all.

Scenario: Murderer had begun strangling/garoting whatever. Hears Cadosche and produces knife to slit throat, before Chapman is rendered unconscious. She gets in a 'no', the throat is slit and she bumps up against fence. Murderer holds Chapman in place to keep her movements to a minimum until death is certain, ie no more bumps against fence.

[Wickerman]

Hello Christer.

"And if she was the party that said "No!", it's strange that it took him three minutes to wrestle her down, during which time she kept completely quiet ...?"

It takes time to struggle (scratched neck) and be strangled. And often, people being strangled are fairly quiet.

Cheers.
LC

The physical indications that she struggled and fought for her life, including the turgid fingernails, and, that she may have been ill (a fever?), all contribute to an acceleration of the build-up of lactic acid in the system.

At death the body of such a victim could bare the signs of a rapid onset of rigor mortis, giving the impression (compared with the normal scale) that she had died some time earlier.

[Wickerman]

Was just discussing this with someone last evening. A professional might shed some light on Chapman/Eddowes discrepancy. Rigor has to do with depletion of oxygen if I understand half of it at all.

There are several processes at work, one of which is the build-up of lactic acid, similar to when you get cramp. Heat, either from fever or physical activity, accelerates the process, and cold temperatures slows the process down.
The 19th century physicians did not know this, and I have not managed to read on what they actually ascribed the cause of the onset of rigor to.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo all.

Was just discussing this with someone last evening. A professional might shed some light on Chapman/Eddowes discrepancy. Rigor has to do with depletion of oxygen if I understand half of it at all. With so much blood lost rigor might have set in quicker. Now the difference between Chapman and Eddowes might have something to do with all those clothes she had on. Insulating her from the ground and ambient temperature. I think it might be possible to narrow the range down with some professional help. If I can get the time I'll try and write up a little something and see if I can get a bite from the Body Farm. Couldn't hurt too much I don't think.

[Damaso Marte]

We would also need to accept that the Ripper chatted with Chapman before killing her. And if she was the party that said "No!", itīs strange that it took him three minutes to wrestle her down, during which time she kept completely quiet ...?

You assume that Cadosch either heard Chapman fall to the ground or nothing related to the murder at all. He could have heard the killer bump into the wall while mutilating the corpse.

[Wickerman]

...And Chapman was quite cold, Eddowes was quite warm - once again the overlap is not there.

Is the glass half full, or half empty?

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Abby. Are we actually agreeing?

Good thinking.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

strangled

Hello Christer.

"And if she was the party that said "No!", it's strange that it took him three minutes to wrestle her down, during which time she kept completely quiet ...?"

It takes time to struggle (scratched neck) and be strangled. And often, people being strangled are fairly quiet.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

amen

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"That's not a very good reason to hold a view on evidence -- then or now."

A hearty, "Amen."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

asleep

Hello (again) Christer. Thanks.

"Nobody heard the couple, Lynn."

Davis certainly did not. He fell asleep around 5.00, and he did not waken until 5.45--AFTER Jacob, er "Jack" left.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

backing off

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"Because the arguably most experienced medico in errands like these says so."

He said there may be exceptions. He backed off.

"I take it you would have liked me to answer "because it fits with the Lechmere scenario", and yes, it does. Plus it fits with the general timing of the other weekday killings. Plus it means that the killer did not take the risk of killing in daylight, and leaving the premises with blood on his hands."

Lechmere? Don't see the relevance of time for him.

"But first and foremost because the medical evidence is impossible to look away from. An icecold corpse. . ."

Overegging again?

". . . killed an hour before, with an onsetting rigor?"

Rigor can have onset in as little as ten minutes.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Dave. Thanks for that.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

I really think people need to be aware that there's a considerable margin of error in the estimation of time of death from body temperature, even under 'normal' conditions today, with the benefit of accurate temperature measurements and a proper understanding of the physical processes involved.

Looking at the numbers, it is very difficult to believe that Dr Phillips, without actual measurements of either body or ambient temperature, without an accurate model of how post mortem temperature decreased with time and in exceptional circumstances (a disembowelled corpse), could have guessed the time of death with a margin of error less than several hours.

Hi Chris
I totally agree with this.

Let's see. We have a smallish woman, already ill, perhaps with the effects of alcohol, chilly morning with stomach ripped open and some innards removed and a Dr. Trying to establish inexact science of TOD vs. 3 witnesses who all corroborate her being alive later. I go with the latter.

Richardson probably would have seen chapmans body.
Long probably saw chapman alive.
Cadosh probably heard chapman.

The good dr. Was more than likely off on his approximation.

[Chris]

Deleted.