AC and TOD

[Herlock Sholmes]

The simplest explanation was that Long was off on her time/chime and both her and cadosh were correct on seeing or hearing Annie in her last moments.

Why her being off and not Cadosh?

Because she saw/heard something innocuous during a journey, and cadosh something a little more strange right when hes getting ready to leave his residence-I think he would have been a little more in tune with the time.

Same here Abby. It’s Cadosch over Long for me if it comes to a choice. And as I feel that Richardson was overwhelmingly likely to have been correct then him leaving an empty yard at 4.50 leaves an easy 15 or so minutes for Annie to arrive with her killer.

[Abby Normal]

The simplest explanation was that Long was off on her time/chime and both her and cadosh were correct on seeing or hearing Annie in her last moments.

Why her being off and not Cadosh?

Because she saw/heard something innocuous during a journey, and cadosh something a little more strange right when hes getting ready to leave his residence-I think he would have been a little more in tune with the time.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Kindles are a mystery unto themselves.

I can only recommend a search on Cadosch or Mrs Long/Durrell.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

No worries, Herlock. The point he is making is a strange one. He seems to be stating that if the Brewery clock chimed 5:15 as she turned into Hanbury Street, and she arrived at the market at around 5:31 or 5:32 (as she estimated), it would have taken her a ridiculous 15-17 minutes to walk two blocks, thus the clock struck 5:30 and not 5.15.

However, it goes without saying that this is not the argument that you and Yost and Begg are making. Long didn't estimate her entry into Hanbury Street based on one clock, and her entry into the market based on a different clock, and not notice the 15 minute discrepancy. So it's rather an absurd point. Rather, the suggestion is that she was 15 minutes off throughout her journey and she was still using the "mistaken" time to estimate her entry into the market. So I think we can dismiss that particular argument. Cheers.

Thanks for that RJ

[Elamarna]

Shameless plug.

May I commend for your elucidation pages 375 to 379 of the revised edition of "Deconstructing Jack: The Secret History of the Whitechapel Murders"?

Thank you.

Simon, which chapter are we talking about, i have the kindle version, page numbers are not of much use.

many thanks in advanve


Steve

[Simon Wood]

Shameless plug.

May I commend for your elucidation pages 375 to 379 of the revised edition of "Deconstructing Jack: The Secret History of the Whitechapel Murders"?

Thank you.

[rjpalmer]

I can’t see what point he’s making here? Maybe I’m being a bit dense?

No worries, Herlock. The point he is making is a strange one. He seems to be stating that if the Brewery clock chimed 5:15 as she turned into Hanbury Street, and she arrived at the market at around 5:31 or 5:32 (as she estimated), it would have taken her a ridiculous 15-17 minutes to walk two blocks, thus the clock struck 5:30 and not 5.15.

However, it goes without saying that this is not the argument that you and Yost and Begg are making. Long didn't estimate her entry into Hanbury Street based on one clock, and her entry into the market based on a different clock, and not notice the 15 minute discrepancy. So it's rather an absurd point. Rather, the suggestion is that she was 15 minutes off throughout her journey and she was still using the "mistaken" time to estimate her entry into the market. So I think we can dismiss that particular argument. Cheers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a key point, and I wanted to move it over here from the 'Lechmere' thread so it doesn't get crossed-up (pun intended) with those longstanding arguments/mudslinging contests.

The claim usually runs along the following lines:

If Elizabeth Long was correct in her estimation of the time (5:30 a.m) and Cadoche was correct in his estimate of the time (5:25ish), then there is a whopping discrepancy and both witnesses can be tossed into the rubbish bin, because Long is claiming to have seen Annie Chapman alive and standing on the pavement after Cadoche heard the suspicious noises coming out of the backyard of No. 29.

As I say, this argument is often used to dismiss one, or indeed both witnesses, and it is a key point brought up by Fisherman as well as by Vanderlinden in his 'Considerable Doubt' essay.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

However, I think Bridewell is pointing out a logical flaw buried inside this line of thinking. If both Cadoche and Long were indeed correct in their estimations, as Vanderlinden/Fisherman argue, then Cadoche would have exited his building at 5.30 a.m.

So why didn't he see Liz Long?

If Long was also correct, wouldn't she have been passing up the street at 5:29-5:31? Or, even if Cadoche had missed her by 30 seconds or a minute, why didn't he at least see the couple she described and who was still left standing on the pavement as she hobbled away? Where did they go?

Nowhere is this addressed.

Thus, to me, the argument is internally flawed and either Cadoche or Long HAD to be off in their estimation...

So which one was it?

'Herlock' argues it was Liz Long. Like Dave Yost in News from Whitechapel (a very useful book) or Paul Begg in The Facts, he suggests that Long actually heard the clock chime 5:15 and not 5:30.

Here is how Vanderlinden addresses this argument:

"One theory has it that instead of hearing the brewery clock strike the half hour, it actually struck the quarter hour and so Mrs. Long was merely mistaken about the time."

"Forget for a moment that Mrs. Long would probably have heard this clock strike on every working day but somehow didn't realize that it struck the quarter hour. Also forget that she stated at the inquest that she arrived at the market a few minutes after 5:30 which would mean that the two blocks she had to cover between Hanbury Street and work would have to have take her fifteen minutes to cover! The real problem with this neat solution is that it doesn't take into consideration how clocks actually work."

"Some clocks strike the half hour as well as the hour (a single bong signifying the half hour) while some clocks give you hour, quarter hours and half hour. These clocks, the type that it is suggested the brewery had, do not strike, they chime. A good example is the Westminster clock which chimes four notes to signify the quarter hour; eight notes signify the half hour; twelve notes the three-quarter hour and sixteen notes the top of the hour. This is followed by the bonging of the hour. This is not just a possible confusion over a single note or bong but confusing the difference between four notes and eight. It is difficult to see how Mrs. Long was unable to distinguish the difference between 5:15 and 5:30 on such a clock."

Comments?

You can perhaps now see why I brought up the clock house of Truman's Brewery. Does anyone actually know that this clock chimed the Westminster chimes?

Both the 'pro' and the 'con' theorists are making assumptions about this clock, but no one actually cites a source for their beliefs, though perhaps they have one...

Hi RJ,

I certainly have no information on the chimes I’m afraid but I’d like to ask a question about WV’s piece. It’s about this part:

Also forget that she stated at the inquest that she arrived at the market a few minutes after 5:30 which would mean that the two blocks she had to cover between Hanbury Street and work would have to have take her fifteen minutes to cover!

I can’t see what point he’s making here? Maybe I’m being a bit dense? (Nothing new there says Fish)

As for the chimes, yes she might have heard them every day but I don’t think it’s impossible to mis-hear. She could have spoken to someone at the time which distracted her; she could simply have been ‘miles away’ thinking of other things and so only noticed part of the chimes. I’m not saying that this is definitely the case rather that it’s possible.

[Elamarna]

This is a key point, and I wanted to move it over here from the 'Lechmere' thread so it doesn't get crossed-up (pun intended) with those longstanding arguments/mudslinging contests.

The claim usually runs along the following lines:

If Elizabeth Long was correct in her estimation of the time (5:30 a.m) and Cadoche was correct in his estimate of the time (5:25ish), then there is a whopping discrepancy and both witnesses can be tossed into the rubbish bin, because Long is claiming to have seen Annie Chapman alive and standing on the pavement after Cadoche heard the suspicious noises coming out of the backyard of No. 29.

As I say, this argument is often used to dismiss one, or indeed both witnesses, and it is a key point brought up by Fisherman as well as by Vanderlinden in his 'Considerable Doubt' essay.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

However, I think Bridewell is pointing out a logical flaw buried inside this line of thinking. If both Cadoche and Long were indeed correct in their estimations, as Vanderlinden/Fisherman argue, then Cadoche would have exited his building at 5.30 a.m.

So why didn't he see Liz Long?

If Long was also correct, wouldn't she have been passing up the street at 5:29-5:31? Or, even if Cadoche had missed her by 30 seconds or a minute, why didn't he at least see the couple she described and who was still left standing on the pavement as she hobbled away? Where did they go?

Nowhere is this addressed.

Thus, to me, the argument is internally flawed and either Cadoche or Long HAD to be off in their estimation...

So which one was it?

'Herlock' argues it was Liz Long. Like Dave Yost in News from Whitechapel (a very useful book) or Paul Begg in The Facts, he suggests that Long actually heard the clock chime 5:15 and not 5:30.

Here is how Vanderlinden addresses this argument:

"One theory has it that instead of hearing the brewery clock strike the half hour, it actually struck the quarter hour and so Mrs. Long was merely mistaken about the time."

"Forget for a moment that Mrs. Long would probably have heard this clock strike on every working day but somehow didn't realize that it struck the quarter hour. Also forget that she stated at the inquest that she arrived at the market a few minutes after 5:30 which would mean that the two blocks she had to cover between Hanbury Street and work would have to have take her fifteen minutes to cover! The real problem with this neat solution is that it doesn't take into consideration how clocks actually work."

"Some clocks strike the half hour as well as the hour (a single bong signifying the half hour) while some clocks give you hour, quarter hours and half hour. These clocks, the type that it is suggested the brewery had, do not strike, they chime. A good example is the Westminster clock which chimes four notes to signify the quarter hour; eight notes signify the half hour; twelve notes the three-quarter hour and sixteen notes the top of the hour. This is followed by the bonging of the hour. This is not just a possible confusion over a single note or bong but confusing the difference between four notes and eight. It is difficult to see how Mrs. Long was unable to distinguish the difference between 5:15 and 5:30 on such a clock."

Comments?

You can perhaps now see why I brought up the clock house of Truman's Brewery. Does anyone actually know that this clock chimed the Westminster chimes?

Both the 'pro' and the 'con' theorists are making assumptions about this clock, but no one actually cites a source for their beliefs, though perhaps they have one...

A very good point Sir, if information does exist, it would help us take the account along certainly. the very fact that no definitive answer has yet been cited, leads me to wonder if such knowledge actually exists.

Hopefully we may get a useful reply.



Steve

[rjpalmer]

Cadosch's time of 5.32 records when he passed the Spitalfields Church (Christchurch) which is about a two minute walk from 27 Hanbury Street; presumably, if correct, that means he left home about 5.30am - but as ever the timings can only be seen as approximate.

This is a key point, and I wanted to move it over here from the 'Lechmere' thread so it doesn't get crossed-up (pun intended) with those longstanding arguments/mudslinging contests.

The claim usually runs along the following lines:

If Elizabeth Long was correct in her estimation of the time (5:30 a.m) and Cadoche was correct in his estimate of the time (5:25ish), then there is a whopping discrepancy and both witnesses can be tossed into the rubbish bin, because Long is claiming to have seen Annie Chapman alive and standing on the pavement after Cadoche heard the suspicious noises coming out of the backyard of No. 29.

As I say, this argument is often used to dismiss one, or indeed both witnesses, and it is a key point brought up by Fisherman as well as by Vanderlinden in his 'Considerable Doubt' essay.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

However, I think Bridewell is pointing out a logical flaw buried inside this line of thinking. If both Cadoche and Long were indeed correct in their estimations, as Vanderlinden/Fisherman argue, then Cadoche would have exited his building at 5.30 a.m.

So why didn't he see Liz Long?

If Long was also correct, wouldn't she have been passing up the street at 5:29-5:31? Or, even if Cadoche had missed her by 30 seconds or a minute, why didn't he at least see the couple she described and who was still left standing on the pavement as she hobbled away? Where did they go?

Nowhere is this addressed.

Thus, to me, the argument is internally flawed and either Cadoche or Long HAD to be off in their estimation...

So which one was it?

'Herlock' argues it was Liz Long. Like Dave Yost in News from Whitechapel (a very useful book) or Paul Begg in The Facts, he suggests that Long actually heard the clock chime 5:15 and not 5:30.

Here is how Vanderlinden addresses this argument:

"One theory has it that instead of hearing the brewery clock strike the half hour, it actually struck the quarter hour and so Mrs. Long was merely mistaken about the time."

"Forget for a moment that Mrs. Long would probably have heard this clock strike on every working day but somehow didn't realize that it struck the quarter hour. Also forget that she stated at the inquest that she arrived at the market a few minutes after 5:30 which would mean that the two blocks she had to cover between Hanbury Street and work would have to have take her fifteen minutes to cover! The real problem with this neat solution is that it doesn't take into consideration how clocks actually work."

"Some clocks strike the half hour as well as the hour (a single bong signifying the half hour) while some clocks give you hour, quarter hours and half hour. These clocks, the type that it is suggested the brewery had, do not strike, they chime. A good example is the Westminster clock which chimes four notes to signify the quarter hour; eight notes signify the half hour; twelve notes the three-quarter hour and sixteen notes the top of the hour. This is followed by the bonging of the hour. This is not just a possible confusion over a single note or bong but confusing the difference between four notes and eight. It is difficult to see how Mrs. Long was unable to distinguish the difference between 5:15 and 5:30 on such a clock."

Comments?

You can perhaps now see why I brought up the clock house of Truman's Brewery. Does anyone actually know that this clock chimed the Westminster chimes?

Both the 'pro' and the 'con' theorists are making assumptions about this clock, but no one actually cites a source for their beliefs, though perhaps they have one...

[sdreid]

Well, it will be 125 years this Sunday morning. Rest in peace Annie.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

I can only conclude on the evidence of the last few days that you are one of those people who enjoy provoking arguments with people.

But rest assured I am not going to waste any more time on you.

You do as you wish, Chris - in fact, it´s a good many posts since you said you were leaving.

If you find it provocative that I don´t agree with you, fine. If that is the case, then I am genuinely and truly provocative.

To claim that I´ve enjoyed the exchange is a tad misleading, though.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Fisherman

I can only conclude on the evidence of the last few days that you are one of those people who enjoy provoking arguments with people.

But rest assured I am not going to waste any more time on you.

[Fisherman]

Are you asking me whether I know that the margin of error of Phillips's estimate of the time of death would have been at least an hour.

If so, yes - it is a demonstrable fact, not a matter of opinion.

I was not asking you anything. But now that you take it upon yourself to react anyway, I´d like to point out that it is not rocket science to realize that people can be wrong in their estimations. In that context, yes you have a fact on your hands.

But just how likely is it that he would misjudge the TOD given the many parameters he had to go by?

For him to have been as woefully wrong as you seem to suggest, it would take:

A/ A very rapid cooling off of the body, totally out of line with what he had seen before.
B/ A very quick onset of rigor mortis - in spite of the chilly conditions, which normally cause a delay in this respect.
C/ A very quick and full completion of lividity, something that normally takes from 2-4 hours or so.
D/ A very slow digestion of that last potato meal in her intestines, something that also differed from the ordinary.
E/ An overall appearance of the body that was - misleadingly! - consistent with a death two hours or more earlier; blood consistency, the eyes, cut surfaces etcetera.

If all of these things deviated very much in collaboration with each other, then we could have a mistake of major size.

And if a meteorite runs through universe, it may hit the church tower in my hometown.

And you know what? That´s a fact too!

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

I do, Chris. And I take it you believe what you want to believe - unless you claim you know it instead..?

Are you asking me whether I know that the margin of error of Phillips's estimate of the time of death would have been at least an hour.

If so, yes - it is a demonstrable fact, not a matter of opinion.