Time Factor

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael ,



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 .

Hi Moonbegger,

I didnt realize that you were thinking that the voice and thud heard wasnt the commencement of the attack, an interesting take to be sure. And your source of the "no" is quite evocative.

I differ from that view though, I see the sounds Cadosche heard as the murder happening, and I believe Long was incorrect about her time and likely her ID of the dead woman. At dawn its very hard to identify clear and specific images and faces. And lets face it, its not like any of these street based women were wearing dramatically different ensembles and colors.

Cheers MB

[Bridewell]

"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?"

Should we not consider the possibility that Cadosch himself got the time wrong? He looked at the clock on the Spitalfields Church which was probably as reliable as any in the area, but he probably did that every morning as part of his daily routine. What reason did he have to remember the time at which he did so on this particular morning, many hours later when he was asked about it?

As for what Cadosch heard. He heard the sound of what appeared to be something falling against the fence which separated his yard from that of No.29. The yards were small and I think it far more likely that Cadosch heard the murder than that a man and woman, when it was getting light, walked into the yard (at its only access point) past a disembowelled body - and didn't notice it.

[Bridewell]

Hello Bridewell.


Why does a swift and efficient killing have to involve a violent struggle?

Erm .. Because Dr Phillips tells us it was ..

Hi MB,

Where does he tell us that?

From The Times report of his inquest testimony:

"There was no evidence about the body of the woman of a struggle having taken place", (my italics).

He did later say, in answer to a question from the coroner:

"He thought he himself could not have performed all the injuries he described, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour." (again my italics)

but we don't know what the question was to which he gave this response. Either he found no evidence of a struggle (as he originally stated) or the coroner asked a question which included reference to the possibility of a struggle - or he (Bagster Phillips) contradicted himself.

[moonbegger]

Hello Wickerman /Riv

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.

Yes , Most people that i know, working down the markets, in the pubs ,cab drivers , office workers , policemen , school teachers , builders , (ect) are all more than capable of whipping out the occasional organ if the needs must !
What was these silly Doctors and Coroners thinking of back in the day

[Coroner]
There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room.

Coroner /phillips .

[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge; but the incision of certain viscera conveyed to my kind a greater anatomical knowledge. It is only an inference, but I think I ought to mention it, that the early removal of the intestines in the yard was necessary to enable the operator to effect other incisions of certain organs.

Riv,

In the US, a person with a high school diploma knows pretty much where all the major organs are located,

I Know where the Moon is , But don't ask me to build a rocket and fly to it

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hello Bridewell ,

"The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat. The legs were wide apart, and there were marks of blood upon them"

Where does he tell us that?

Not sure what paper Bridewell.. i pulled it out of a press report ??
But i think the following quote from the Times, also backs it up...

[Coroner] Was there any evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman. You do not forget the smearing of blood about the palings.

"No , not about the body of the woman " Is he indeed saying there was a struggle , but there was no signs of it around her . if not then a plain "No" would have been suffice ? Phillips also leans the same way with ....

"He thought he himself could not have performed all the injuries he described, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour."

I personally think the press we do have, underlines the fact that Dr Phillips had reason to believe a struggle did take place regarding the actual murder of Annie .

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[RivkahChaya]

I Know where the Moon is , But don't ask me to build a rocket and fly to it

moonbegger .

The fact that he consistently took the one large organ that women have, and men don't, says more to me about his degree of anatomical knowledge, than whether or not it was removed efficiently.

My earlier point was, education in the US now includes knowing what organs look like, and where they are, so if I, who have never dissected anything (I was "sick" that week of biology), walked into an anatomy lab at a medical school, I could name the major organs.

Assuming that Polly Nichols was his first kill, ever, then yes, he probably had some dissection experience, as a butcher, or who knows what, but maybe she wasn't, and he has laid open animals before.

Conversely, someone who did not have that as part of his education, but had cut up lots of animals, and maybe a few other people, would know where all the organs were, and how many things connected them, and where, even if he did not know all the names of them. Although, "kidney" most people would know, since you eat those over there, don't you? I think all mammalian kidneys look pretty similar.

[RivkahChaya]

I posted this

Well, no, I'm sure they stood, but the police probably still thought of it as a "standing missionary."

How would a tall man do that with a short, overweight Chapman? I wonder if that's where the steps came in.

Also, that can't have been a place she routinely took tricks, or Cadosche would be accustomed to hearing banging on the fence. Does that mean that going there was the killer's idea?

in the "right- or left-handed" thread. I was just sort of thinking out loud, but then when I got to the end, even though, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, I realized there might be some truth in it.

If 29 Hanbury was JTR's choice, and not Chapman's, is that meaningful to anyone? It isn't to me, but I don't know London, and nothing about the residents of Hanbury at the time is registering.

[Chava]

Apparently prostitutes had been using 29 Hanbury Street for some time. Richardson (I think) makes that point at the inquest. It's certainly possible that either Annie Chapman or the Ripper had used it for the purposes of prostitution before. Although for reasons I'm not going to go into here, and have to do with what I believe triggered the Ripper from a punter to a killer, I think it's unlikely that the Ripper suggested the location.

That having been said, any butcher would know the basic anatomy of a human. And any kosher butcher would know how to cut an animal's throat quickly with an exceptionally sharp knife. The 'maybe it's a doctor or a medical student' theory which was so current at the time had more, in my opinion, to do with a kind of circular thinking which went like this: 'he's getting away with it so he must be smart and if he's smart he's not from the East End where people are stupid and if he's not from the East End where people are stupid he's from a better area where people are smart and if he's from a better area he is from a higher level of society but the injuries suggest someone with a knowledge of mammalian anatomy and that can't be a butcher because he's not from where butchers live so it must be a doctor or a medical student...'

[Bridewell]

Hello Bridewell ,

"The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat. The legs were wide apart, and there were marks of blood upon them"

Not sure what paper Bridewell.. i pulled it out of a press report ??
But i think the following quote from the Times, also backs it up...

"No , not about the body of the woman " Is he indeed saying there was a struggle , but there was no signs of it around her . if not then a plain "No" would have been suffice ? Phillips also leans the same way with ....

I personally think the press we do have, underlines the fact that Dr Phillips had reason to believe a struggle did take place regarding the actual murder of Annie .

cheers ,

moonbegger .

The way I see it, then, given the nature of the first press report which you quote, either Bagster Phillips was misreported or he contradicted himself.

[moonbegger]

Hello Bridewell ,

The way I see it, then, given the nature of the first press report which you quote, either Bagster Phillips was misreported or he contradicted himself.

Being from the East End , i guess i must be really stupid because i am struggling to see how Bagster Phillips comes across as either contradictory or misreported ?? Bridewell , is there some report where Phillips states there was definitely no struggle between the killer & Annie ?
and a simple "No;not about the body", really doesn't not cut it one way or tother .

There are many independent reports , that clearly state Dr Phillips was under the impression that a Struggle had taken place, even though there was no evidence of a struggle about the body .

morning advertiser ,14 sept..

Was there evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman, but I am positive that a struggle took place in the yard.

evening news 14 sept ..

Was the whole of the body there?-No. The absent portions were from the abdomen. I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge. I am positive there were indications of a struggle in the yard.

( cant be assed to dig it out)

"The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat. The legs were wide apart, and there were marks of blood upon them"

(Times)

"He thought he himself could not have performed all the injuries he described, EVEN WITHOUT A STRUGGLE , under a quarter of an hour."

Bridewell , throw me a bone here , What am i missing ? is there a report out there , where Phillips categorically denies a struggle took place ?

cheers

moonbegger .

[Bridewell]

Hello Bridewell ,

Bridewell , throw me a bone here , What am i missing ? is there a report out there , where Phillips categorically denies a struggle took place ?

cheers

moonbegger .

What I posted was:

The way I see it, then, given the nature of the first press report which you quote, either Bagster Phillips was misreported or he contradicted himself.

According to The Times, which is the source used in The Ultimate, Bagster Phillips said, as I posted earlier:

"There was no evidence about the body of the woman of a struggle having taken place"

Some reports may have reported the testimony differently, but there was only one inquest; hence my suggestion that Bagster Phillips either contradicted himself or was misreported.

Bagster Phillips was a medical man who was qualified to express a medical opinion about the body because that (and that alone) was his field of expertise.

The expert, (insofar as there was one!), on crime scene analysis would be Inspector Chandler:

"He could not detect any evidence of a struggle having taken place".

About the body - Bagster Phillips' field of expertise - there was, in his opinion, no evidence of a struggle having taken place. Bagster Phillips was not qualified to give evidence of opinion about anything other than medical matters, which may be why (according to The Times report) he worded his testimony as he did.

Like everything else, it's open to interpretation, but, on the basis of what we've posted between us, I perceive some contradiction and/or misreporting of what he actually said. Your opinion's as valid as mine though, so I don't want to derail what's meant to be a thread about timings.

[Wickerman]

Hello Bridewell ,

"The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat. The legs were wide apart, and there were marks of blood upon them"

Hi Moonbegger.
That quote is actually attributed to witness, James Kent.


Dr. Phillips said there was no evidence of a struggle.

Coroner: "Was there any evidence of any struggle?"

Phillips: - "No; not about the body of the woman. You do not forget the smearing of blood about the palings."

Although, her fingernails were described as turgid, swollen, which could be an indication that she fought back.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

There are many independent reports , that clearly state Dr Phillips was under the impression that a Struggle had taken place, even though there was no evidence of a struggle about the body .

Even though the police and coroner may not have used the term "defensive wounds," Phillips was probably familiar with the concept. Maybe what he was saying was that there were not bruises on forearms, or cuts on the hands or forearms, as though she had fought off the knife, but there may have been mud kicked up, as though once they entered the yard, Chapman changed her mind, or didn't want to go to the corner by the steps, and had to be forced into the corner. Maybe she was forcibly turned around, when she wouldn't voluntarily permit a back-to-front position.

If she lived long enough to realize what was happening, she may have put her hands to her throat to stop the bleeding (and the killer then moved them). Some people might call that "struggling," and some might not. Or Phillips may have been explaining that blood on her hands resulting from that act was not a result of a struggle with the killer, but there might be other signs, like a broken fence post, that were not his to comment on.

I realize a lot of that is speculation: I'm just suggesting that there are clearly ways to reconcile the quotes from Dr. Phillips without saying he is contradicting himself.

[moonbegger]

Hello Wickerman ,

Hi Moonbegger.
That quote is actually attributed to witness, James Kent.

Ahhh.. Thanks for that Jon .. it was driving me mad, that i was unable to find it again . Sorry for any added confusion ! If there is one thing this case does not need , and that is most definitely any unnecessary confusion .. thanks again .

I do however think the other press coverage that i mentioned , was a little more attentive and on the ball than the Times regarding this particular instance . Why would other papers include it , and the Times exclude it ?
Dr Phillips must have made mention of the struggle he thought may of occurred , for all the other press men to note it down .

cheers

moonbegger .

[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

Hi Lynn.
Just briefly returning to this earlier point...(in which you commented, above)

"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. 1888.

It would appear Sugden also caught this inconsistency. His opinion is that Insp. Chandler had misunderstood Richardson's earlier comment on the morning of the murder.
Apparently, Chandler and Richardson had exchanged brief comments as they passed in the passage of 29 Hanbury St.
This may be evident in Chandler's testimony at the inquest, where he met Richardson in the passage:

He (Richardson) told witness (Chandler) he had been to the house about a quarter to five that morning, that he went to the back door and looked down at the cellar to see that all was right. He then went away to his work in the market.."

This gave Chandler the impression Richardson may not have seen the body behind the door to his left, if he did not open the door fully.

Sugden writes:
"Their faith in Dr. Phillips, and Chandler's dismissal of Richardson alike led the police to attach little significance to Mrs Long.."

Chandler admits to not knowing about the cutting of the boot, where he concludes..
"He (Richardson) did not say anything to witness (Chandler) about cutting his boot, but said he was sure the woman was not there at the time."

So, given the "dead 2 hrs" estimate by Dr. Phillips, and the misunderstanding between Chandler and Richardson, the temporary inclination was to believe the two professional opinions being offered against those of ordinary citizens.

Confusion explained..

Regards, Jon S.