Chapman Timeline

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

That may be one reason. Another may be that if both Lawende and Long saw the Ripper, Lawende's sighting seems to offer more useful clues to the Ripper's identity. This gives people more of a motivation to believe Lawende than to believe Long.

Hello Lewis,

Yes, Long provides nothing useful about the man.

[Lewis C]

I’ll just make one point. Why does pretty much everyone accept that Joseph Lawende saw Catherine Eddowes from around 10 feet away and at night and yet Elizabeth Long saw a woman the she believed was Annie Chapman after passing right next to her in broad daylight but people assume that she was mistaken? I think that it’s because until recently no one considered clock synchronisation as the factor that it undoubtedly is. So they just assumed that her sighting was after the events that Cadosch heard.

Hi Herlock,

That may be one reason. Another may be that if both Lawende and Long saw the Ripper, Lawende's sighting seems to offer more useful clues to the Ripper's identity. This gives people more of a motivation to believe Lawende than to believe Long.

[Lewis C]

Long didn't even see a clock, she heard one striking. It is perfectly possible that she heard it strike quarter past, and thought "Oh it's half past already".

Agreed, and she said that she left her house at about 5:00. IIRC, it has been established that 15 minutes is about how long it would take for her to get from her house to Hanbury Street, unless she stopped along the way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll just make one point. Why does pretty much everyone accept that Joseph Lawende saw Catherine Eddowes from around 10 feet away and at night and yet Elizabeth Long saw a woman the she believed was Annie Chapman after passing right next to her in broad daylight but people assume that she was mistaken? I think that it’s because until recently no one considered clock synchronisation as the factor that it undoubtedly is. So they just assumed that her sighting was after the events that Cadosch heard.

[Abby Normal]

Long didn't even see a clock, she heard one striking. It is perfectly possible that she heard it strike quarter past, and thought "Oh it's half past already".

exactly Dr!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again though, this thread is about the timeline and nothing else. It’s not for picking an unrelated argument.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you have any proof both long and Cadoschs testimonies in regards to "Times" are incorrect? Or is it just your opinion of fast/ slow clocks based on you wanting them to be out with their timing to suit your t.o.d theory? Genuine question btw.

What I’ve said is an absolute fact. We have to accept the possibility of poor clock synchronisation. To refuse to do so is to deny reality. I haven’t said that Cadosch or Long’s time was ‘wrong.’ Why is this so difficult for you Fishy? If you looked at your phone now and I looked at mine and Abby looked at his and Doc looked at his, then we all looked at the clocks on our living room walls is it your considered opinion that they would all give the same time?

If the answer is no (and it has to be) why would you assume that this problem didn’t occur in the Victorian era?

As I see it, they are both just as likely to be correct as what your suggestion is they are not . If thats the case, one of them is Wrong. It can't be any more simpler than that .

And they might not have been. Therefore logic tells us that it’s entirely feasible that Long could have seen the person that Cadosch heard in the yard. You are arguing that 1+1=3.

In my opinion there is too big a time gap from The "No" to Longs sighting of Chapman to be blamed on dodgy clocks.

No, you are saying that because I go with a later time of death (as shown by the evidence) and your natural agenda is to disagree with me no matter what. When you talk of ‘dodgy clicks’ you are simply displaying an ignorance of the subject.

Remember I was talking about the "No" at 5.20 which we agree was Chapman do we not ? In regards to the 10 min gap.

Fishy this isn’t difficult stuff. Just read the evidence, consider what happens in the real world and think. Here are some questions for you to ignore and then later claim to have answered as usual...

When Cadosch said that he got up around 5.15..

1. How did he arrive at that time?
2. How do you know how it compared to the one that Long used?
3. How long was he in the outside toilet?
4. How long was his estimated period of time between him getting up and first going to the yard?

You were clearly there so you should know all of these. I, however, wasn’t there…so I do the logic thing…I allow for the various possibilities.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Long didn't even see a clock, she heard one striking. It is perfectly possible that she heard it strike quarter past, and thought "Oh it's half past already".

[Abby Normal]

Do you have any proof both long and Cadoschs testimonies in regards to "Times" are incorrect? Or is it just your opinion of fast/ slow clocks based on you wanting them to be out with their timing to suit your t.o.d theory? Genuine question btw.

As I see it, they are both just as likely to be correct as what your suggestion is they are not . If thats the case, one of them is Wrong. It can't be any more simpler than that .

In my opinion there is too big a time gap from The "No" to Longs sighting of Chapman to be blamed on dodgy clocks.


Remember I was talking about the "No" at 5.20 which we agree was Chapman do we not ? In regards to the 10 min gap.

its not just dodgy clocks, its dodgy memories too. Long was probably mistaken.

[FISHY1118]

We’ve been through this Fishy. You appear to doing the same thing that Trevor has been doing recently. He says “if the killer was harvesting organs then why didn’t he take organs from….” As we don’t know why the killer took organs we can’t assume to know in an attempt to make a point.

What you are doing is assuming that the noise against the fence was Annie’s body falling against it. In attempting to portray this as such you create a gap. The fact is that it didn’t have to be Annie’s body, it could have been the killer brushed against the fence as he was performing the mutilations. So a gap cannot be assumed.

I realise that you aren’t keen on answering direct questions Fishy (another trait that you have in common with Trevor) but can you really be the only person alive who believes that all clocks and watches are synchronised? This isn’t the case in 2025 and we all know that the situation was worse in 1888. Remember Chris McKay (posted by George) who said that you would be lucky to find clocks within 10 minutes of each other? Remember the complaints at railways about clocks giving different times? Remember the talk of clock towers showing different times on different faces of the same clock?

All we have to consider is Cadosch being around 5 minutes out and Long around a minute. This is an acceptance of the reality of the time…not a plot to prove something.

Remember, Cadosch was only estimating his times:

“I got up about a quarter past five in the morning.”

When he went into the yard: “It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think.”

Note that he doesn’t mention how long he was in the loo.

Then: “I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards.”

Again, he doesn’t mention how long he was in the loo.

Elizabeth Long said that she had seen the couple at 5.30.

So what if Cadosch’s time was just 5 minutes out and that when he got up it was actual 5.20. He then went into the yard 10 minutes later…so 5.30.

Can we really think it unlikely that the clock that Long heard was a minute fast? She passed the couple at 5.29. They head inside and Cadosch hears the ‘no’ at 5.30.

Even if we don’t question Long’s clock then we only have to consider Cadosch’s being 6 minutes out rather than 5 and…don’t forget that we don’t know how long he was in the loo.

There is no issue with Long’s testimony. What we need to ask ourselves is…what are the chances of (all at the right time) Long seeing a man with a woman who looks like Chapman near to the door of number 29, just when a neighbour hears sounds from an otherwise deserted yard. Then just to top it off we would have to convince ourselves that a man looking out into a yard, who could see all around it, missed seeing a splayed and horrendously mutilated corpse. How far can we stretch credulity?

Anyway….this isn’t a thread for discussing ToD.

Do you have any proof both long and Cadoschs testimonies in regards to "Times" are incorrect? Or is it just your opinion of fast/ slow clocks based on you wanting them to be out with their timing to suit your t.o.d theory? Genuine question btw.

As I see it, they are both just as likely to be correct as what your suggestion is they are not . If thats the case, one of them is Wrong. It can't be any more simpler than that .

In my opinion there is too big a time gap from The "No" to Longs sighting of Chapman to be blamed on dodgy clocks.


Remember I was talking about the "No" at 5.20 which we agree was Chapman do we not ? In regards to the 10 min gap.

[Herlock Sholmes]

c5.20 - Cadosch goes into the yard to use the outside toilet and when he returned to the back door he heard a “no.”

c5.23-5.24 - Cadosch goes back into the yard to use the toilet. When he returns he hears something brush against the fence.

c5.30 - Mrs Long sees Annie Chapman talking to a man just a few yards from number 29 Hanbury Street.







Thats a big gap if indeed it was Annie Chapman saying 'No'' to the Murderer ? from Mrs Long identifying the women she saw as Annie Chapmam outside No 29 Handbury st. !

IF Cadoschs ''NO'' person is Annie Chapman , then Longs testimony is WRONG. Thus it is useless .

I guess we could always blame the clocks back then being 10 mins out .

We’ve been through this Fishy. You appear to doing the same thing that Trevor has been doing recently. He says “if the killer was harvesting organs then why didn’t he take organs from….” As we don’t know why the killer took organs we can’t assume to know in an attempt to make a point.

What you are doing is assuming that the noise against the fence was Annie’s body falling against it. In attempting to portray this as such you create a gap. The fact is that it didn’t have to be Annie’s body, it could have been the killer brushed against the fence as he was performing the mutilations. So a gap cannot be assumed.

I realise that you aren’t keen on answering direct questions Fishy (another trait that you have in common with Trevor) but can you really be the only person alive who believes that all clocks and watches are synchronised? This isn’t the case in 2025 and we all know that the situation was worse in 1888. Remember Chris McKay (posted by George) who said that you would be lucky to find clocks within 10 minutes of each other? Remember the complaints at railways about clocks giving different times? Remember the talk of clock towers showing different times on different faces of the same clock?

All we have to consider is Cadosch being around 5 minutes out and Long around a minute. This is an acceptance of the reality of the time…not a plot to prove something.

Remember, Cadosch was only estimating his times:

“I got up about a quarter past five in the morning.”

When he went into the yard: “It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think.”

Note that he doesn’t mention how long he was in the loo.

Then: “I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards.”

Again, he doesn’t mention how long he was in the loo.

Elizabeth Long said that she had seen the couple at 5.30.

So what if Cadosch’s time was just 5 minutes out and that when he got up it was actual 5.20. He then went into the yard 10 minutes later…so 5.30.

Can we really think it unlikely that the clock that Long heard was a minute fast? She passed the couple at 5.29. They head inside and Cadosch hears the ‘no’ at 5.30.

Even if we don’t question Long’s clock then we only have to consider Cadosch’s being 6 minutes out rather than 5 and…don’t forget that we don’t know how long he was in the loo.

There is no issue with Long’s testimony. What we need to ask ourselves is…what are the chances of (all at the right time) Long seeing a man with a woman who looks like Chapman near to the door of number 29, just when a neighbour hears sounds from an otherwise deserted yard. Then just to top it off we would have to convince ourselves that a man looking out into a yard, who could see all around it, missed seeing a splayed and horrendously mutilated corpse. How far can we stretch credulity?

Anyway….this isn’t a thread for discussing ToD.

[Kattrup]

It was suggested in the other thread that perhaps it was Vallance's duty, or custom, to attend the mortuary when a murder victim's body was received. You will recall that Mann and Hatfield stripped Nichols body at the same mortuary, which was done against the specific orders by Sgt Enright not to touch the body. Was Vallance there and countermanded Enright's order? Having been raised at the Nichol's inquest it would be difficult to believe that Vallance would still think he was doing the right thing by interfering with police procedures.

It certainly is odd that that in both cases, the body was stripped against the wishes of the police. How to explain this?

Looking for info on Vallance, I got the impression that he had a reputation as a stickler for regulations and procedure.

One speculative explanation may be that the mortuary had written instructions and procedures for handling corpses, and that these may have included stripping and washing the body as soon as possible.
Vallance seems too competent to not recognize the need to deviate from procedure, but still one may wonder if it could have been a factor that business as usual in the mortuary was to strip and wash the body quickly.
All speculation, of course.

[FISHY1118]

c5.20 - Cadosch goes into the yard to use the outside toilet and when he returned to the back door he heard a “no.”

c5.23-5.24 - Cadosch goes back into the yard to use the toilet. When he returns he hears something brush against the fence.

c5.30 - Mrs Long sees Annie Chapman talking to a man just a few yards from number 29 Hanbury Street.







Thats a big gap if indeed it was Annie Chapman saying 'No'' to the Murderer ? from Mrs Long identifying the women she saw as Annie Chapmam outside No 29 Handbury st. !

IF Cadoschs ''NO'' person is Annie Chapman , then Longs testimony is WRONG. Thus it is useless .

I guess we could always blame the clocks back then being 10 mins out .

[GBinOz]

I’m beginning the think this way George.

Mann opens the mortuary and allows the ambulance inside
The nurses arrive and strip the body at Chandler’s order
Chandler leaves.
Vallance arrives.
Thinking that he’s doing right gets the nurses to wash the body.

Hi Herlock,

I am having difficulty entertaining your sequence of events, as they don't appear to fit the testimony at the inquest.

Chandler arrived at the mortuary only two minutes (approx) after Mann received the body. At that time the body was inside the mortuary and fully clothed. Chandler testified that he did not order the body stripped, and the Coroner's officer confirmed Chandler's testimony saying it was done by order of the clerk to the guardians. We don't know when the nurses arrived, and Chandler's only reference to them was his statement that he did not give said order, which doesn't necessarily mean that they did not arrive when he was there. When Chandler left only minutes later the body was dressed, on the ambulance IN the mortuary under lock and key with the key being in the possession of PC Barnes. Mann testified that he was in the locked mortuary with the body the whole time until the Doctor arrived, except he was not present when the nurses stripped the body, but Simonds testified she found the body on the ambulance in the yard - not inside, and perhaps this is erroneous testimony, and her mistaking Chandler for Vallance, that gives rise to this controversy.

It was suggested in the other thread that perhaps it was Vallance's duty, or custom, to attend the mortuary when a murder victim's body was received. You will recall that Mann and Hatfield stripped Nichols body at the same mortuary, which was done against the specific orders by Sgt Enright not to touch the body. Was Vallance there and countermanded Enright's order? Having been raised at the Nichol's inquest it would be difficult to believe that Vallance would still think he was doing the right thing by interfering with police procedures.

It's probably just me, but I still have an uneasy feeling that there is something not quite right with this situation.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks to you for the request for info thread, and to Kattrup for the answer - William Vallance who was sufficiently eminent at the time as to have Baker's Row renamed to Vallance Road. His name immediately rang a bell when I saw it, but my recollection of his being involved in corruption appears to be off the mark as he apparently was a man of unblemished character. Thus I will change my description from "suspicious" to "curious". Why would such an eminent person, a man who gave evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Poor Law Relief in London, have been at the mortuary so early in the morning, and why would he have involved himself in the mundane medical procedures involved in this murder? Should not Simonds have known her eminent superior to the extent that she would not mistake Chandler for Vallance? There was apparently some discussion as to whether some body parts may have been thrown away with the clothing that the nurses removed:
"Mary Elizabeth Simonds, a nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, described the clothes worn by the deceased, which she assisted to take off.

No portion of the body was thrown away with the clothes as far as she knew."

Source: St James's Gazette, Friday, 14th September, 1888.

I’m beginning the think this way George.

Mann opens the mortuary and allows the ambulance inside
The nurses arrive and strip the body at Chandler’s order
Chandler leaves.
Vallance arrives.
Thinking that he’s doing right gets the nurses to wash the body.