AC and TOD

[Chris2307uk]

Hi Fisherman,

I agree in regards to the Hanbury Street murder.... but what if Jack was around looking for a victim. It would be interesting to know when the witness stopped being followed/chased....maybe both were scared off by the 'LIPSKI' shout and both just happened to run away in the same direction....Maybe Jack (the chaser) simply ran away and disappeared up another road or alleyway and found himself by chance in or around Mitre Square, where he managed to compose himself before the death of Eddowes.... Plausible?

[Fisherman]

Excellent observation. How ironic if Jack never approached a single client!

I think a scenario could be devised for each of the C5, but with Kate's being the most difficult. I suppose one could claim Lawende did not see Kate, that she was already inside Mitre square at the time. On this scenario, perhaps Jack was hiding inside one of the empty houses.

When Liz Stride was being attacked in Dutfield's Yard, and her attacker was said to have shouted 'Lipski', was one of the witnesses who ran away not followed a short distance by some who say that this was the attackers accomplice? Could this second man possibly be Jack who was simply waiting in the shadows for his chance to pounce?

Yes - but I don´t think so. Nor do I think that Chapman´s killer waited inside 29 Hanbury Street for a suitable victim to arrive. The category "suitable victims" would seem to mean "prostitutes", and there would have been little or no reason for such a woman to go into that backyard all alone, would there?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris2307uk]

Excellent observation. How ironic if Jack never approached a single client!

I think a scenario could be devised for each of the C5, but with Kate's being the most difficult. I suppose one could claim Lawende did not see Kate, that she was already inside Mitre square at the time. On this scenario, perhaps Jack was hiding inside one of the empty houses.

When Liz Stride was being attacked in Dutfield's Yard, and her attacker was said to have shouted 'Lipski', was one of the witnesses who ran away not followed a short distance by some who say that this was the attackers accomplice? Could this second man possibly be Jack who was simply waiting in the shadows for his chance to pounce?

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

I agree. Perhaps it is as simple as this. John was under the thumb of Ma Richardson and didn't want her to find out he hadn't bothered to check the cellar that day. People who lie often embroider - thus the leather and the boot (I was there, even sat on the step to cut a piece off from my boot), which led on to the carrot and the rabbit when he realised that being there with a knife was not a good idea.

I would like to see John Richardson as Jack, but can't get it to fit somehow.

Best wishes,
C4

The possibility that Richardson lied to cover up for his failure to see to his lock-checking duties have been discussed at times. It is, I guess, a possibility.
Myself, I´m more inclined to believe that Richardson realized that he may well have spent the odd minute in company of a freshly killed Ripper victim, without seeing her. This would have made him look somewhat ridiculous, and so he elaborated somewhat on how thorough his check was, in order to try and establish that the body could not have been there when he was.

I think he told Chandler the truth from the beginning. I believe he gave the door a smallish shove, just enough to be able to get a cursory glance on the padlock, and then he left.
And that would have meant that he failed to do his duty thoroughly, just as it meant that he failed to see a ripped-up woman lying more or less straight beneath him.
Uncontent with this picture being painted, he fabricated a second scenario in which he claims to have stayed for a while on the stairs, have gotten further out on them, have secured a better look at the padlock but first and foremost, have seen enough to be able to decide that Chapman could not have been there as he was.

Regardless of how he did things, he would have done it with the door falling onto his left hand side (or his back, depending on how he stood/sat on the staircase). And the further to the right he would have moved as he stepped onto the stairs, the more acute the angle of the door would be. Consequently, the more it would obscure things on his left side.
I can easily see how this would have played a role when the police decided that there was a very real chance that Richardson could have missed Chapman even if he DID sit on the middle stair for a minute.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello (again) Christer.

"How could Chapman be stone cold after an hour?"

Does Bagster EVER say this? Did he not claim some residual heat?

Cheers.
LC

Phillips said:

"The body was cold..."

meaning that it was stone cold, generally speaking. And then he added

"...except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body"

So Chapman WAS cold, according to Phillips, but for a very small portion of the body. There was no remaining warmth in her otherwise, it was all gone. And this made him conclude that she was long dead. The remainder of the food in her together with the onsetting rigor mortis both supported this view.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"I think the police kept the possibility very much open that Richardson simply missed Chapman."

Completely agree. Of course, the real question is, If Richardson had looked left at 4.45, would he have seen Annie?

My thought is that, No, he would not have.

Cheers.
LC

I agree. But that´s simply because he would have been staring into a door. Otherwise, yes, she would have been behind that door as far as I´m concerned.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

residual heat

Hello (again) Christer.

"How could Chapman be stone cold after an hour?"

Does Bagster EVER say this? Did he not claim some residual heat?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

the question

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"I think the police kept the possibility very much open that Richardson simply missed Chapman."

Completely agree. Of course, the real question is, If Richardson had looked left at 4.45, would he have seen Annie?

My thought is that, No, he would not have.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Annie

Hello Fish,

I agree. Perhaps it is as simple as this. John was under the thumb of Ma Richardson and didn't want her to find out he hadn't bothered to check the cellar that day. People who lie often embroider - thus the leather and the boot (I was there, even sat on the step to cut a piece off from my boot), which led on to the carrot and the rabbit when he realised that being there with a knife was not a good idea.

I would like to see John Richardson as Jack, but can't get it to fit somehow.

Best wishes,
C4

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

Fever is always present in active TB. Mind you, we can't be sure that that was what she was suffering from, of course.

Best wishes,
C4

Her lungs and brain were diseased, that was what was said, right?

Just looked up the Mpemba effect, by the way - that would have had very marginal effects on Chapman, predisposing that she WAS feverish, methinks. And as Wolf V points out in his dissertation, Eddowes ´extensively mutilated body was "quite warm when examined" 40 minutes after her death in late september - so how could Chapman be stone cold after an hour?

It does not pan out.

If we accept Phillips, then we can sort Chapman in as dying at the approximate same time as Tabram and Nichols were killed - during the dark early morning hours. It makes a whole lot of sense to me.

All the best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

TB

Well, let´s not forget the effect of chilly conditions on rigor mortis in this context - it slows it down.
And I am not certain that TBC patients have a constant fever - though I´m no doctor, so I´d need expertise to straighten that one out.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hello Fish,

Fever is always present in active TB. Mind you, we can't be sure that that was what she was suffering from, of course.

Best wishes,
C4

[Fisherman]

I suspect Phillips is using a number of criteria to judge time of death - rigor mortis, body temperature and stomach contents all come to mind...so I suspect his codicil, or caveat as I'd prefer to regard it, in respect of just one of these factors could hardly be said to invalidate his estimate...especially as the coldness that he mentions would actually extend the period before rigor set in.

All the best

Dave

It also deserves to be pointed out - just like Wolf Vanderlinden does in the dissertation he mentions (a thoroughly good read and a brilliant piece of reasoning, by the way) - that much as Phillips did say that the chill could have an impact on the cooling off of the body, he does NOT say that he has not weighed this in, nor does he change his verdict in any way at all. He remains at the stance that Chapman was killed at the latest around 4.20 and quite probably before that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Wolf

Yes I've read your thought-provoking dissertation and (at the risk of appearing a creep) hope my postings adequately reflect this!

All the best

Dave

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Those interested may want to read "Considerable Doubt and the Death of Annie Chapmen" found in the Dissertation section here on the Casebook.

Wolf.

[Cogidubnus]

I suspect Phillips is using a number of criteria to judge time of death - rigor mortis, body temperature and stomach contents all come to mind...so I suspect his codicil, or caveat as I'd prefer to regard it, in respect of just one of these factors could hardly be said to invalidate his estimate...especially as the coldness that he mentions would actually extend the period before rigor set in.

All the best

Dave