AC and TOD

[moonbegger]

G'day Fish

They believed Richardson, though, when it came to his visit to the yard - they simply thought he had missed the body.

Easily done , even if he did take a peek into the yard !

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Thanks fish
We will just have to disagree then. I just don't see how all three could be wrong.

If you take a look at my post above to Lynn, you will see that the police had no trouble accepting that both Long and Cadosch were wrong. They believed Richardson, though, when it came to his visit to the yard - they simply thought he had missed the body.

So if you think Swansonīs judgement is anything to go by, you are welcome to join the TOWKTADE club - The Ones Who Know That Annie Died Earlier. As of the moment, itīs Wolf Vanderlinden, me, Swanson, Phillips and you. If you sign up, that is!

Otherwise itīs the Baxter Boys for you...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The Times were on the right track as early as the 14:th, by the way:

"Dr Phillipīs positive opinion that the woman had been dead quite two hours when he first saw the body at half-past 6, throws serious doubt upon the accuracy of at least two important witnesses, and adds to the prevailing confusion."

Phillips was thus positive, just like I say. He was dead certain of the two hours, he suspected three or more could be the true time, but he was willing to concede the point that this latter suggestion could have been taking it too long, due to the possible impact of the cold weather and the extensive mutilation.

But he was positive - positive! - that Chapman could not have been dead for less than two hours.

I am no medico, so I cannot say how well grounded this stance of his was. But I CAN say that we have evidence that goes to show that he would not budge a single second on the two hour estimation!

The best,
Fisherman

PS: The two witnesses mentioned will be Long and Cadosch. Not Richardson.

[Fisherman]

Thanks in part to Wynne Baxter, much about Bagster Phillips is misunderstood.

You can say that again, Cris!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yes cold is cold. But there was warmth yet--as you yourself admit. Let's let Bagster be Bagster.

I am all for letting Bagster be Bagster. But the truth of the matter is that he could not detect any warmth at all but for in the area mentioned, under the intestines. There - and ONLY there - was there a little warmth. The rest of the body was totally cold.
Bagster did not need to say that, by the way - it says itself.

And a body that was totally cold everywhere but for in a small portion of the abdomen where a little warmth remained, is a body that has been dead for at the very least two hours. That was what Phillips said, and that was what he stood by.

You erroneously interpret him as having opened up for a chilling off time of an hour only, allowing for Chapman to have been killed 5.30, but Phillips did never do that.

So itīs your version ...

(Phillips told the coroner that he was sure that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours, only to retract this in the next sentence and open up for her having been dead only an hour or even less).

That would make Bagster Phillips look a complete idiot, of course, but you seem to buy this anyway.

... against my version ...

(Phillips was sure that two hours was the absolute minimum she had been dead, and he stated that the time was probably more like three hours or even longer, but he was not willling to put his reputation on the line by saying that she must have been dead for such a long time, since he felt that the chill in the wind and the extensive mutilation may have meant that she could have gone as cold as she had in two hours only).

That would make him look like a discerning medico, giving a minimum of time of two hours that had passed as a time he would be able to put his reputation on line for, but not being willing to say that she MUST have been dead longer - only that he THOUGHT that this was the case.

Quite a battle? No. Sadly (for you) and luckily (for me), I have the evidence that goes to show that I am right and you are wrong. Itīs in the post I started out with, post 100:

"... from the Echo, September 19th:

"Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy."

This is a week after Phillips witnessed and gave his estimations as to the time of death."

Now, Lynn, if the good doctor had accepted that Chapman could well have died at 5.30, then what business does he have consulting with the police and agreeing that Richardson must have missed Chapmans dead body as he sat on that step?

I thought he had agreed that he could have been wrong on the TOD? That he had had a total change of heart in front of the coroner?

Richardson was in place at around 4.45. That means that he was there one hour and fortyfive minutes before Phillips! The same Phillips, that is, that you claim was willing to accept 5.30 as the TOD.

Here, however, we can see that he has no intention at all to accept one hour and fortyfive minutes! It falls within Phillips no-no stretch of time during which he KNEW that Chapman MUST have been dead. 4.45 was as impossible as 5.30. Phillips would have nothing of it.

And the police agreed with him! Swanson, in a report from the 19:th of October: "He (Phillips) was called and saw the body at 6.20 (sic), and he then gives as his opinion that death occurred two hours earlier, viz: 4.20 a.m. Hence the evidence of Mrs Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

Guess who he supports; the coroner or Phillips? Correct - Phillips, which tallies well with the article I qouted.

From the same report: "... it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 a.m. ..."

Note that Swanson does not say that it is difficult to understand how he could have missed the body - he says it is difficult to understand how it was that he did, since he knows it was there, courtesy of Phillips.

Thatīs Swansons view, Lynn: Long is not to be trusted and Richardson missed the body. What these two parameters mean for Cadosch and his testimony is something I will leave for you to suss out.

Make no mistake: just like the Echo article from the 19:th says, the police and Phillips were in total accordance that Chapman was dead before Richardson saw her and that Longīs and Cadosches testimony were useless red herrings.

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

opportunity knocks

Hello DLDW. I think that #3 is PRECISELY what had happened--at least in Annie's mind.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

love

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"What is necessary is to consider that a professional has voiced legitimate doubts, and, as a professional he is the most informed person, and best educated to make this observation.

As Phillips claims he may be wrong, for reason's he described, then it does no-one here today any good to try to second-guess the 'professional' opinion of a man who was there."

Say, this really MAY be love.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Little Kipper Annie

Hello Errata.

"Like why would Chapman be soliciting at 5 in the morning?"

Don't think she was. Likely threw up the sponge a good bit earlier and opted to snit round to #29 for a bit of kip.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

warm regards

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Stop the semantics? Delighted to. Of course, you are the one using unauthorised adjectives.

Yes cold is cold. But there was warmth yet--as you yourself admit. Let's let Bagster be Bagster.

"Then show me where a murder victim has had all the same three parameters work together the way you claim they worked in Chapman. Please."

Not even if you beg. (heh-heh) I detest statistics and, if you have indeed gone over to that dark side, then even Obi-Wan cannot redeem you. (heh-heh)

"And when she offered sex instead of money, he blew his top?"

Actually--if you'll forgive my way of putting it--he nearly blew HER top.

"If a packing crate was leaning against the palings and the wind or Cadosch's march past the fence brought it out of balance, then why won't it do?"

Because it would have been noted by the inspector.

As for warmth, see my last post--again.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Long could well have seen a couple in Hanbury Street. That does not mean that they were THE couple, as she admits herself by acknowledging that she would not be able to ID her people.

That does not make her a liar.

Cadosh could have heard or imagined he heard something. The conversation could have come from elsewhere than No 29 - he admits that himself. And the bump - described as it was as either a heavy fall or as somebody touching the fence - could have been a rat hoping to fins itīs way to Mrs Hardimanīs layer.

That does not make him a liar.

Richardson may have missed Chapman, as outlined by the police at the time.

That does not make him a liar either.

Conversely, they may all have lied to a smaller or greater extent. They may have embellished, looked for fame, been ashamed to tell the truth etcetera.

Finally, Chapman may have been killed at 5.25, making them all good, reliable witnesses, more or less.

My money is on them being bad witnesses, all three. That has happened before.

All the best,
Fisherman

Thanks fish
We will just have to disagree then. I just don't see how all three could be wrong.

[Hunter]

As Phillips claims he may be wrong, for reason's he described, then it does no-one here today any good to try to second-guess the 'professional' opinion of a man who was there.

Thanks in part to Wynne Baxter, much about Bagster Phillips is misunderstood.

[Hunter]

2. To secure the next evenings doss money so as to NOT end up on the streets again.

I doubt she would have been concerned with that. These women usually didn't think that far ahead. If she'd made any money, she would have spent it.

The other options may be possible.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

reasons to still be soliciting

1. Food.

2. To secure the next evenings doss money so as to NOT end up on the streets again.

3. The oportunity presented itself.

Sure there are more, but I think the idea is clear enough and not too unreasonable?

Many blessings everyone.

[Wickerman]

One point of view I think is necessary in this case is to uphold the conclusions given by professionals, whether it be the police or the medical men.

In trying to rationalize an assumed time of death for Annie Chapman it is not a case of upholding the opinions of layperson's against that of a professional. What is necessary is to consider that a professional has voiced legitimate doubts, and, as a professional he is the most informed person, and best educated to make this observation.

As Phillips claims he may be wrong, for reason's he described, then it does no-one here today any good to try to second-guess the 'professional' opinion of a man who was there.

Had Dr Phillips maintained 'no doubt' (thankyou Lynn), then the argument would be completely different.

[Jon Guy]

I'm just going to throw this out there. It can't all be forensics and witnesses. Some of this is going to come down to simple behavior. Like why would Chapman be soliciting at 5 in the morning? I'm not saying she wouldn't, but I am saying she would need a damn good reason, because even without doss money there comes a time when she would just settle down in a doorway or something to sleep. And getting doss money at five in the morning doesn't make sense, because places turned people out pretty early. So she would have maybe 15 minutes of sleep in a bed before getting rousted out. So if she was killed that late (in terms of typical work hours) why was she still working?

I will say that backyard would not be a terrible place to sack out for awhile, assuming no one cares what goes on back there, which apparently they didn't. But if she was doing that, no one saw her with her killer. He found her back there.

I'm just saying consider behavior in all this. Sometimes that gets a little lost.

In Rumbelow and Evans`s "Scotland Yard Investigates" a press snippet of the Long incident has the extra bit of detail that the man approached the woman. So maybe she was just going with the flow?
But yes, she could have been kipping on the stairs or had nipped in the yard for a pee and was spotted as she stood outside no. 29.