Time Factor

[Michael W Richards]

When it comes to sussing out between Cadosche and Long, I think its best to side with the person who says he heard a voice and a thud coming from the murder site itself rather than someone who estimated her time and saw someone at another location.

There isnt a swinging door to the front of the house leading to a long hallway that allows for traffic coming and going all through the night, .... in fact we hear people were sleeping in the yard before, which suggest trysting wasnt going on at the time.

The odds are that perhaps only Annie and her killer were in that yard that night, which would make the soft "no" heard by Cadosche, Annie last words.

Cheers

[Observer]

.

The sequence of her being taken down would have been this. (Assuming, of course, that I am right about Isenschmid.)

11. His delusion is now a sheep at his feet.

By jove I've got it! Might as well be hung for a sheep than a lamb! Also

Which element of his delusion compelled him to place Annie Chapmans meagre belongings in a neat pile by her feet?

I do believe the makers of" Ripper Street" are looking for scriptwriters for a new series. They could do a lot worse than to look in here for new recruits.

Regards

Observer

[Wickerman]

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.
Echo, 19 Sept.

The above wording suggests that Dr. Phillips and the police all agreed on the above three points. Specifically, that first point.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

contradiction

Hello Jon. Of course, "The Echo" report is at loggerheads with both Baxter's summary on the 27th and Swanson's report of the 19th.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy.
Echo, 19 Sept.

Just a note on how this often gets turned into "JTR was a doctor or med student," to the point that this is a common belief among people who know a little, but not a lot about the case: how much, generally, did someone in 1888 know about anatomy? particularly people who lived in a city? I know you could by birds whole in a market, but they were already dead, and dressing a bird to cook it wasn't usually something a man did, plus, bird anatomy doesn't translate as much as the anatomy of another mammal would, which is the kind of thing a slaughterer or butcher would know, but is it what just anyone would know?

In the US, a person with a high school diploma knows pretty much where all the major organs are located, and given a diagram of a human with the organs unlabeled, get most of them right. Not only does just about everyone learn this in school at some point, it gets reinforced when you read articles in Wikipedia, and People magazine, about what celebrity has cancer.

Would someone in 1888 have that much knowledge? I'm asking, because I don't know. Was that special knowledge only a tradesperson who needed it, or someone with a college degree would know? If it is, than that could be all that is meant by "knowledge of human or animal anatomy." The special knowledge of one time is the general knowledge of another. When my mother went to school, knowledge of the metric system was "special knowledge." It no longer is in the US, even if we don't use it for everyday measurements. By the time my son finishes high school, being able to write longhand ("cursive") will probably be special knowledge. So, when we, in 2013, think of JTR as having unusual knowledge of anatomy, we have to remember that this doesn't mean "better than the typical person in the 21st century."

[Wickerman]

Just a note on how this often gets turned into "JTR was a doctor or med student," to the point that this is a common belief among people who know a little, but not a lot about the case:

I would hope that most of us have successfully put an end to that line of thinking by now.

A common misunderstanding even today appears to be that when a doctor suggested the killer may have had anatomical knowledge, "they" (whom ever that may be) seem to confuse anatomical knowledge with surgical experience.
Which most surely was not the case.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Of course, "The Echo" report is at loggerheads with both Baxter's summary on the 27th and Swanson's report of the 19th.

Cheers.
LC

I can't imagine where they come up with that idea, Richardson specifically said it was getting light and he could see all over the place.

There was of course a tendency for the police to accept professional opinion even when contrary to a layperson's testimony.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

preference

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, I know what you mean. But Swanson did decide against Phillips. Seems he preferred John's testimony, possibly because he felt Long and Cadosch corroborated it.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

Yes, Swanson did indicate the police gave Richardson a thorough going over. Checking his clothes, his home, and grilled as to the statement he made. Swanson makes it clear their preference was to accept the evidence given by Phillips, so they had to find fault with Richardson's statement, but couldn't.

This is confirmed by the following sentence where he pits Longs evidence also against that of Dr Phillips, and regrets that Mrs Long must also be mistaken.

I'd say Swanson's instinct is still to lean towards Dr. Phillips though the apparent flip-flop through the paragraph makes his train of thought hard to follow.

Regards, Jon S.

[moonbegger]

Hello Lynn ,

i'm sure glad you cleared up that whole Cadosh and the murder malarkey for me

But on the subject of Long ..

"So Long leaves home a 5am and gets to the market at 5.32ish."

5.32ish? No, no. She fixes THAT time by her previous erroneous estimate at #29 Hanbury.

Ahh .. Two minutes after Cadosh leaves for work .. So Please explain to me how Long manages to see Annie in the street ten minutes or more after Cadosh hears her in the yard , and five or so minutes after she is murdered ? And still get to market just after 5.30am ?

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Hello Michael ,

The odds are that perhaps only Annie and her killer were in that yard that night, which would make the soft "no" heard by Cadosche, Annie last words.

What odds would they be then ? When all the witness testimony points albeit uncomfortably, very much towards another couple being in the yard of #29.. The SAME couple that Long may have witnessed outside #29 just after 5.30am ( after just leaving the yard ) The SAME couple that Cadosh heard at the Back of #29 at 5.20am (and the soft "No" on the discovery of the body, or possibly an uncomfortable "No" at the realisation that her man was going through the pockets of a dead woman ) The SAME couple that had one of them crouching down between Annie and the fence in order to wrench the rings off her left hand ( causing the Fall/touch against the fence that Cadosh hears at 5.23/4 ) .

All the time lines fit together like a glove , Cadosh ,Long, even Dr Phillips !!!

I don't bet too much these days , but i do know for sure where you would find the best odds ..

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[lynn cates]

Swanson

Hello Jon. Thanks. Yes, it looks like Swanson is thinking there. His conclusion seems to be the truism that both cannot be correct.

I wonder if Swanson changed his mind after Phillips put out his disclaimer at inquest?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

old theory

Hello MB. Thanks.

"I'm sure glad you cleared up that whole Cadosh and the murder malarkey for me."

Delighted so to do.

"So Long leaves home at 5am and gets to the market at 5.32ish."

No. Around 5.20, more like.

"Ahh .. Two minutes after Cadosh leaves for work .. So Please explain to me how Long manages to see Annie in the street ten minutes or more after Cadosh hears her in the yard, and five or so minutes after she is murdered? And still get to market just after 5.30am?"

Vide supra. She fixed her market arrival time by her supposed clock striking. "Let's see, it was just after 5.30 when I passed #29, so, given the short walk, I must have arrived at market shortly after 5.30."

Actually, what I am saying is old hat. I think David Yost had a dissertation on this. You might have a go at it to see the theory in its entirety.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks. Yes, it looks like Swanson is thinking there. His conclusion seems to be the truism that both cannot be correct.

I wonder if Swanson changed his mind after Phillips put out his disclaimer at inquest?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn.

I'm encouraged that you see it that way. I actually considered writing that to my mind Swanson is still thinking this through, that he had not arrived at a suitable conclusion.
He was still weighing the probabilities even a month after those witnesses gave their evidence.

Swanson is torn between his natural inclination to accept the professional estimates of Dr. Phillips, and the apparently unwavering testimony of Richardson. Coupled with the fact Mrs Long's evidence also disputes that of Dr. Phillips, yet also is incongruous with that given by Richardson.
I think it is clear that even by 19th Oct. Swanson cannot satisfy himself as to Chapman's actual time of death, though history has handed down 5:30 to us primarily via the press.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

thinking

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, that kind of thinking characterises his memos.

My kind of bloke.

Cheers.
LC