AC and TOD

[Fisherman]

I would also like to point out that even when the outer surface of a body has taken on the surrounding temperature, that does not mean that the inner body temperature as such has done the same. The outer layer of the body works as an insulation, and the outer and inner temperature therefore differ.
Which of course means that much as the inner temperature will normally fall at a relatively predictable rate, the outer surface of the body will react to the exposition to the elements in another manner. Here, my guess is that we should not expect a 1,5 degrees per hour fall at an even pace.

And if we disagree, that´s fine, Chris. I think that YOU may have misinterpreted what Phillips said and meant, so it´s no big deal.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Another point (less directly related to the finer points of body temperatures):

As I´ve said before, is not Cadosch a bit too good to be true?

To improve on his testimony, he´d need to have a knifeblade shoved through one of the boards as Cadosche passed, or the woman crying out "Please no, Mr Ripper!".

The loo was at the far end of the small backyard of 27 Hanbury Street. This means that Cadosch had a march of, say, ten seconds to clear before he passed in through the backdoor of his house.

Does anybody think that the Ripper, if he was in the backyard of No 29, missed that Cadosch opened the door and went out, for the second time, to visit the loo?

Not really, eh? He would have noticed it. And then, he would equally have noticed when Cadosch opened the loo door and started to walk back to the house.
So what does the Ripper do? He stays completely silent during this process, up til the exact moment when Cadosch passes on the other side of the fence. At that stage, he let´s go of the freshly strangled Chapman and allows her to fall into the fence..?

Too good to be true. Not impossible, but very, very rich.

Both Long and Cadosch are much the same in this respect, to my mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Here, my guess is that we should not expect a 1,5 degrees per hour fall at an even pace.

That is what I have been trying to impress upon you all along.

In words of as few syllables as possible - people used to believe you could estimate time of death accurately using formulae like these, but now we know they involve large errors, even in normal circumstances when proper measurements are made.

[Fisherman]

Chris:

That is what I have been trying to impress upon you all along.

Then I´m afraid you have laboured unnecessarily, since I´ve known it all along.

In words of as few syllables as possible - people used to believe you could estimate time of death accurately using formulae like these, but now we know they involve large errors, even in normal circumstances when proper measurements are made.

Yes, there are built-in difficulties and - just like you have said before - even today specialists are sometimes baffled by their finds. If you feel that you have gone through very much trouble to impress this too on me, the same as above applies: You could have done something more useful of that time, since I know this too.

But it also applies that people go cold when they die.
And it also applies that they do so in a fairly regular manner.
And it also applies that even if Phillips got it a bit wrong on this parameter, he would reasonably not have gone as far astray as a TOD of 5.30 would involve.
And it also applies that even if temperature TOD establishment by means of touch is tricky business, Phillips STILL had many other parameters to go by.
And it also applies that he was a very seasoned man, with heaps of experience on each of these parameters.
And, finally, it also applies that he, in corroboration with the police, decided that Richardson spent his Saturday morning in that yard together with a corpse.

If you think he could have been wrong on all counts and that Chapman could have died 5.30, I am not specialist enough to decidedly establish that you must be wrong. But I do put my faith in Phillips, who WAS just such a specialist, albeit a late 19:th century one, and he would have sneered at the mere suggestion.

And that´s perfectly enough for me to make my call.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Fisherman

Fine. Believe what you want to believe.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

Fine. Believe what you want to believe.

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

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.

[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]

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]

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

[sdreid]

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

[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...

[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

[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.

[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.