Time Factor

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"If I really had to choose I'd tend to err towards your view on both counts."

Thank you. In which case I'll reciprocate and say I, too, have to be careful as to their credibility.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

This view gives an idea regarding Cadosch's route. Christs Church in the distance. 27 Hanbury street is to the left about 30 seconds away, or less. I realise it belongs in photos and drawings, but it gives viewers of this thread a bit of idea of the layout.

Observer

[Simon Wood]

Hi Colin,

Well done.

Sad? Not at all. I call it intrepid.

Regards,

Simon

PS. Nice pic.

[Bridewell]

However we interpret this, if we are to harmonize the claims by both Cadoche and Long (which must surely be the first objective) we are required to have the Brewers clock striking 5:15, not 5:30?

Agreed. I don't see how they can be harmonised any other way, (I suspect that was what Wynne Baxter was driving at, but he got it wrapped round his neck when he tried to explain it! It was certainly Long's evidence which seems to have impressed him most, judged by the wording of his summary))

[Bridewell]

It was about 250 yards from 27 Hanbury Street [via the corner of Wilkes Street and Church Row] to Spitalfields Church. This would have taken Cadosch around two to three minutes at a regular walking pace,

Hi Simon,

Sad act that I am, I actually timed the walk about 18 months ago. From 27, Hanbury Street along Wilkes Street to the junction of what is now Fournier Street takes a few seconds + or - 2 minutes, depending on how quickly he walked.



It's not that easy to note the exact time from that angle (it is 5.32) but I suspect that Cadosch had noticed that the minute hand had passed the vertical. It seems strange that he noted the time so exactly, but perhaps he did so every morning on his way to work.

Following up on an earlier point, Cadosch said that, when he left the house he "did not see any man or woman in Hanbury-street. He did not see Mrs Long". Does he mean he didn't notice anyone or that, categorically, they weren't there? Personally I think either is possible.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see these times as mutually exclusive. If the clock struck the half hour just before she got to Hanbury Street, it would have been just after that time (i.e. a few seconds later) when she passed the couple near No.29. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Hi Colin.
If the clock struck 5:30 "just before" she approached Hanbury St. it will be a minute or more before she passes No. 29, but Cadoche is already passing the Spitalfields church at 5:32, or thereabouts.

Certainly, we can't put a time on the suggested distance involved when she say's "just before". Does "just before" mean a few yards, or a few hundred yards, before she came to the corner? - thats debatable.

Cadoche is claiming his first indication of people nearby in the next yard was "about" 5:20 am.
Which requires us to have Mrs Long already past No. 29 before that time. I think you would admit it is not possible if we take the Times version of events.
Theoretically then, Mrs Long must have passed No. 29 about 5:16-5:18?, if, we are required to have her still back on Brick Lane when the clock last struck, and that makes the last strike at 5:15 am.

It is workable with the Daily Telegraph version, but not with the Times version.
However we interpret this, if we are to harmonize the claims by both Cadoche and Long (which must surely be the first objective) we are required to have the Brewers clock striking 5:15, not 5:30?

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Phillips and Long

Hi Lynn

So far as it goes, If I really had to choose I'd tend to err towards your view on both counts...but as I'm just a little dubious (for various reasons) of all three major witnesses, (Long, Cadosche and Richardson), and fully understand Phillips own reservations on timing, I'm perhaps something of a nativist

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Daily T:
"... I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street."

Times:
"...She was certain of the time, as the brewers' clock had just struck that time when she passed 29, Hanbury-street."

Hi Jon,

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see these times as mutually exclusive. If the clock struck the half hour just before she got to Hanbury Street, it would have been just after that time (i.e. a few seconds later) when she passed the couple near No.29. That's the way I see it, anyway.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Colin,

It's definitely not Swanson's 19th October report.

The statement is written in the third-person in a very neat cursive hand.

Perhaps Mrs Long couldn't write.

The source was Stewart Evans, so he's the go-to guy on this for more information.

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

Do we know what was wrong with Annie Chapman, or have any good theories? Diabetes and hypothyroidism can both cause a person to have a lower than normal internal body temperature-- and that's really a low core body temp, not just cold extremities.

If Annie Chapman's normal temp was, say, 97.4'F, rather than 98.6, would that account for the problem with the coroner's TOD estimate?

[Bridewell]

The Document

Hi Jon,

"5.30 am, 8th September, Mrs Long of 32 Church Street stated that she saw a man and woman talking near to No. 29 Hanbury Street . . ." etc etc.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

If that's the document I think it is, it's Swanson's report to the |Home Office, dated 19th October 1888.
It may have been compiled using her statement as a reference, but it's not the statement itself, because witness statements, then and now, are written in the first person. The same document also allocates times to Cadosch's two visits to the yard of No.27 (5.25am & 5.28am), which Cadosch himself doesn't do in his evidence.

Apologies if I've misunderstood your source.

[lynn cates]

worth the price of admission

Hello Colin.

"Bagster Phillips accepted that he could have been in error. I don't see how anyone can now argue, given that admission, that he couldn't."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

assumption

Hello Jon.

"If Long heard the Brewers clock strike as she passed it (per Daily T) on Brick Lane, and it was the quarter-hour chime, not the half-hour chime, then this would be more consistent with the statement given by Cadoche."

This is my assumption.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Tod

Yes like i mentioned on a previous thread , i believe what Cadosh heard may well have been someone else discovering Annies body .. maybe even the couple Long said she witnessed a few yards from 29

So you're prepared to accept that Mrs Long did get the day right then?

.. there are a multitude of possibilities

A multitude? You've suggested one possibility, which is rather less likely than the more obvious solution - that what Cadosch heard falling against the fence where Chapman's body was found, was the one thing we know did fall against that fence on that morning - the body of Annie Chapman. There has to be an awful lot of error in the combined evidence of Cadosch and Long for Bagster Phillips to be right. For Cadosch and Long to be right there need only be an error of 50 minutes to an hour in Bagster Phillips' estimate of the TOD. Bagster Phillips accepted that he could have been in error. I don't see how anyone can now argue, given that admission, that he couldn't.

You may be right. Of course you may be right, but it's nothing like a certainty, given Bagster Phillips' own uncertainty.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

"5.30 am, 8th September, Mrs Long of 32 Church Street stated that she saw a man and woman talking near to No. 29 Hanbury Street . . ." etc etc.

Regards,

Simon

Thankyou Simon.

So it doesn't actually state her location when the clock struck?, hence our quandry...

I thought as much, so, the dilemma does rest in deciding which report, the Times or the Daily Telegraph is correct. The impact on Cadosch's testimony is considerable.

Theoretically, if Long heard the Brewers clock strike as she passed it (per Daily T) on Brick Lane, and it was the quarter-hour chime, not the half-hour chime, then this would be more consistent with the statement given by Cadoche.
Neither of the alternate scenario's seem satisfactory.

Regards, Jon S.