Chapman time of death poll

[lynn cates]

answers, part 2

Hello Greg. Thanks.

"That's all well and good Lynn, but it seems that Mr. Woods' times should be reversed then, doesn't it?

Dawn: 04.51 A.M.
Sunrise: 05.25 A.M."

Don't think so. At 4.51 would would see faint traces of light in the eastern sky. As time progressed, it would become lighter and lighter. Finally, around 5.25, one could see the sun upon looking east--provided there were no clouds, buildings, etc. to obstruct its view.

"I can live with this and yes I did read your JI article....a lovely one it was..."

Thank you.

"This also confuses me Lynn, if you believe the murder occurred at 5:30 and going by our times and dawn/sunrise discussion, there would certainly be some light at that time. So in this light and looking down a couple of feet to one's left, nothing would be visible?"

Richardson was there about 45 minutes before. So, no cadaver.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Sunrise

I think Mrs. Long said 'over 40' so certainly not a young man, especially in the 19th century.

"He looked to be over 40" but "she did not see the man's face except to notice that he was dark".

I think her estimate of the man's age has to be treated with caution in the circumstances..

As for the poll, the more logical time to kill would be during the hours of darkness. Having said that, the killer didn't choose logical places, so what reason is there to suppose that he chose logical times? I, too, think the TOD was at or about 5.30am.

Regards, Bridewell.

[GregBaron]

Brain malfunction...

Good points Dark one but I'm not sure all the investigators agreed.

I must apologize Lynn, I had a bit of a brain aneurysm, I forgot what time Richardson claimed to be in the yard. With that in mind, I agree that in that darkness, even if he looked that way, he may not have seen or smelled anything unusual...

Of course the issue is whether the ripper would have ripped in the dawn light, I know your JI answer to this. It seems this time-frame would be different than all the other murders in question, of course whether this is significant or not is debatable.

If the Ripper is a clever one he probably ripped at 3:30 in the morning. If a delusional schizophrenic, a dawn ripping comes into play...


My confusion persists...


Greg

[RavenDarkendale]

Problem:

The place she died is long gone, so we really have little idea of how risky it really was for JtR to kill Chapman there at the canonical time. How shadowy was it, what could he have used for cover, could he have perhaps left the yard over a fence or something, was there a place he could hide until he could slip out unnoticed? These questions being unlikely to be answered, there is no real reason to argue with the time stated by investigators on the spot.

God Bless

Darkendale

[GregBaron]

Dawn of the Dead...

Thanks for your replies Lynn. Now let me further muddy the waters...

Dawn is when it first becomes noticeable that the sky is no longer black--it is beginning to get light. Sunrise is when the sun first "comes up."

That's all well and good Lynn, but it seems that Mr. Woods' times should be reversed then, doesn't it?

Dawn: 04.51 A.M.
Sunrise: 05.25 A.M.

Old man?

We've had this discussion before, let's just say he wasn't young by any stretch....

I found out that a newly opened corpse does not have a strong smell.

I can live with this and yes I did read your JI article....a lovely one it was...

Indeed! I think the issue is WOULD he have seen Annie had he looked. My current answer, "No."

This also confuses me Lynn, if you believe the murder occurred at 5:30 and going by our times and dawn/sunrise discussion, there would certainly be some light at that time. So in this light and looking down a couple of feet to one's left, nothing would be visible?


Please enlighten me...


Greg

[lynn cates]

answers

Hello Greg.

"First off, can someone tell me the difference between dawn and sunrise?"

Dawn is when it first becomes noticeable that the sky is no longer black--it is beginning to get light. Sunrise is when the sun first "comes up."

"Secondly, what does someone seeing a young man run off have to do with Mrs. Long's sighting of an old man?"

Old man?

"who thinks it likely that Richardson would have been overwhelmed by the smell of an eviscerated corpse a couple of feet to his left?"

I found out that a newly opened corpse does not have a strong smell. (See my Isenschmid piece in "Rip 125.")

"I also agree with those who find Richardson less than a reliable witness."

Indeed! I think the issue is WOULD he have seen Annie had he looked. My current answer, "No."

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Who you calling old...

40 isn't "old".
Interestingly though, forty is described as "young" elsewhere.

The reason a corpse begins to smell is due to decomposition, the body had not been dead long enough for that.

Thanks Wickerman. I think Mrs. Long said 'over 40' so certainly not a young man, especially in the 19th century.

You may be right about decomposition but of course the intestines might have had an unpleasant smell, it's all quite a puzzle for sure...


Greg

[Chris]

Interesting that you defer to the medical examiner's opinion for Eddowes, but not Chapman. I suppose you have an extra leg to stand on because of eyewitnesses who contradict the evidence.

The problem with Phillips's opinion is that we know in scientific terms that even in the most favourable circumstances and with the benefit of precise measurements of body and ambient temperature, time of death estimates have a wide margin of error. In this case there were no actual measurements of temperature and the circumstances were about as far as they could be from ideal. Phillips's opinion could reflect nothing more than a guess about the time of death.

[Wickerman]

40 isn't "old".
Interestingly though, forty is described as "young" elsewhere.

The reason a corpse begins to smell is due to decomposition, the body had not been dead long enough for that.

[GregBaron]

A State of Confusion...

Sorry to be a dweeb you all, but I'm a little confused.

First off, can someone tell me the difference between dawn and sunrise?

Secondly, what does someone seeing a young man run off have to do with Mrs. Long's sighting of an old man?

Thirdly, I'm afraid I haven't made up my mind about a T.O.D but I'd like to offer a thought.

I know 29 Hanbury was probably a very stinky place, but who thinks it likely that Richardson would have been overwhelmed by the smell of an eviscerated corpse a couple of feet to his left?

I also agree with those who find Richardson less than a reliable witness..

What do y'all think?



Greg

[Wickerman]

I'm with Lynn on that, Mrs Long misheard the clock strike, Chapman died sometime between 5:30-6:00 am.
And, we also have Thimbleby who saw a young man fleeing Hanbury St. about 6:00 am who's description is consistent with what is read elsewhere.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Behold, the Bagster.

Hello Damaso. Thanks.

“It's quite clear that the perpetrator(s) of the Whitechapel killings were willing to take major risks, whether because of insanity, natural nerves of steel, or heavy drinking before going out a-ripping.”

Let’s emend that to, “did take major risks.” I don’t think the will was involved in Polly and Annie’s cases.

“Interesting that you defer to the medical examiner's opinion for Eddowes, but not Chapman.”

In a way, I do. Bagster later backed off slightly from his initial pronouncement citing atmospheric conditions. Believe me, there are few people I trust more that the good doctor. He was a precise, meticulous and conscientious man.

“I suppose you have an extra leg to stand on because of eyewitnesses who contradict the evidence.”

You mean Long and Cadosch? Yes, they saw something. But perhaps not the main event? As of now, I am inclined to think they did. Perhaps I mistake?

“In any event, accepting an earlier time for Chapman and accepting Schwartz would both further your core theory, but you deny both.”

I agree with you about Schwartz, but I don’t see the application to Chapman?

“A remarkable feat of intellectual honesty in this day and age, for which I commend you.”

I thank you. As I say, I have no book to promote.

Cheers.
LC

[Damaso Marte]

Hello Damaso. Some time ago I held out for a 4.30 time. That was because I believed in a cunning serial killer who offed the unfortunates of Whitechapel and then taunted the police.

It's quite clear that the perpetrator(s) of the Whitechapel killings were willing to take major risks, whether because of insanity, natural nerves of steel, or heavy drinking before going out a-ripping.

But once freed from that extravagant notion, I saw no reason to impugn Long and Cadosch--except to say that Long misheard the clock striking.

I think I've said before that threads on this forum would should be a lot shorter if everybody did not make the assumption that Victorians could infallibly tell the time with precision down to the minute.

Annie died around 5.30.

Interesting that you defer to the medical examiner's opinion for Eddowes, but not Chapman. I suppose you have an extra leg to stand on because of eyewitnesses who contradict the evidence.

In any event, accepting an earlier time for Chapman and accepting Schwartz would both further your core theory, but you deny both. A remarkable feat of intellectual honesty in this day and age, for which I commend you.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Saturday 8th September 1888—

Dawn: 04.51 A.M.
Sunrise: 05.25 A.M.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

I think the body may well have been there when Richardson "looked in", but he did so cursorily and missed it. His testimony changed (or at least developed) and I think it shows him trying to ret-con (as the saying goes) his behaviour.

Yes I agree Richardson's testimony seems to have been built on brick by brick...my initial suspicion was that he'd lied to his mother about looking in every day, felt committed to the lie, perpetuated it and then got himself into deeper and deeper trouble as the lies built up...culminating of course with the knife....

However, Debs' discovery that Richardson might've been discharged from the army with epilepsy could possibly lead to other scenarios...

So perhaps he suffered a petit mal type event and lost some period of time...or maybe (and just conceivably) worse...

I'm personally aware of at least one person in my past whose otherwise harmless epilepsy on occasion triggered violent episodes...the poor chap in question was resident in what could only (in the 70's) be described as a Mental Hospital (Haywards Heath) ... and as a casual visitor frankly one generally wondered why...he was a gentle and genial soul, a little confused sometimes, with a love of railway history...It was only after a couple of unfortunate events (one of which involved the attempted strangulation of a minibus driver taking him and others out for the day - during which incidentally he decked the attendant - me - with a single blow to the temple) that it emerged that his home prior to Haywards Heath had been Rampton...something which the authorities had chosen not to disclose to the charity I was working for!

I don't want to unjustly accuse John Richardson of something for which he might well've been totally innocent...but I'm keeping a very much open mind on the subject...particularly considering Colin's revelations regarding Cadosche and the possibly dubious nature of the Long sighting

All the best

Dave