Chapman Timeline

[Doctored Whatsit]

Inquest testimony does not mention clocks out by 10 mins as far as I can see.

Coroner: "There was some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but that variation was not very great or very important."

So spoke a man of the Victorian era who was very experienced in judging estimated times. And once again, it has to be stressed that Long didn't see a clock. she heard it strike what she thought was the half hour, but which could have been quarter past. Quarter past, as has been previously pointed out, fits better with her stated time of leaving her house at 5 am.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why do you go on about what is already known herlock .?

If Cadosch claimed the "No" at his time of 5.20am being obviously Chapman, then Long is wrong at 5.30 with her identifying Chapman .

Inquest testimony does not mention clocks out by 10 mins as far as I can see.

Stick to what is known , not dodgy clocks. ,

If we decide to bring in unknowns to the table, anyone can make up anything to fit any theory. I'd rather we stick to the inquest evidence alone .
But you believe whatever makes you comfortable.

This is a very poor reading of the evidence Fishy. Please look again.

Cadosch said that he got up around 5.15 and 10 minutes later went into the yard.

I’m suggesting the very real possibly that he might have got up at 5.20

5.20 + 10 minutes = 5.30 when I went to school Fishy, I don’t know about you.

Then we have to factor in the time that he spent in the loo (because he heard the ‘no’ when he returned to the back door.) So how long? 1 minute, 2 minutes.

This would leave him hearing the ‘no’ at 5.31 or 5.32. A minute or two after Long saw the couple out on the street.

I realise that your error is embarrassing but an error is an error. Don’t worry though Fishy…I know that you never own up to errors so I fully expect silence on this point.

….

So, no problem Fishy. If you are happy to be the only human being in the world who believes that all clocks and watches are always synchronised; and have been since the Victorian era, I’m perfectly happy for you to hold to that fantasy.

….

So the only question now is, will you battle on with a totally lost point (Trevor-style), try to change the subject or completely ignore the point. I can’t quite decide which one my money would be on.

[FISHY1118]

Coroner: "There was some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but that variation was not very great or very important."

So spoke a man of the Victorian era who was very experienced in judging estimated times. And once again, it has to be stressed that Long didn't see a clock. she heard it strike what she thought was the half hour, but which could have been quarter past. Quarter past, as has been previously pointed out, fits better with her stated time of leaving her house at 5 am.

I'd say the coroner is being very generous with his "not very great or very important" quote. 5.20 to 5. 30 for the same woman to be in two places, seems important enough to me .

There no way Mrs long mistook the the 5.30 chime to be the 5.15 imo , there is no evidence of this happening, its pure speculation by some as to fit a particular theory i.e ....t.o.d.

[FISHY1118]

This is a very poor reading of the evidence Fishy. Please look again.

Cadosch said that he got up around 5.15 and 10 minutes later went into the yard.

I’m suggesting the very real possibly that he might have got up at 5.20

5.20 + 10 minutes = 5.30 when I went to school Fishy, I don’t know about you.

Then we have to factor in the time that he spent in the loo (because he heard the ‘no’ when he returned to the back door.) So how long? 1 minute, 2 minutes.

This would leave him hearing the ‘no’ at 5.31 or 5.32. A minute or two after Long saw the couple out on the street.

I realise that your error is embarrassing but an error is an error. Don’t worry though Fishy…I know that you never own up to errors so I fully expect silence on this point.

….

So, no problem Fishy. If you are happy to be the only human being in the world who believes that all clocks and watches are always synchronised; and have been since the Victorian era, I’m perfectly happy for you to hold to that fantasy.

….

So the only question now is, will you battle on with a totally lost point (Trevor-style), try to change the subject or completely ignore the point. I can’t quite decide which one my money would be on.

Do you ever discuss a topic without being condesending or patronizing ? Try it for once, it works wonders .

The fantasy here Herlock is people using dodgy clocks and speculation to change times as given by Long and Cadosch to establish a non existant theory , dont look now but your doing a ''TREVOR'' !!!!


''This would leave him hearing the ‘no’ at 5.31 or 5.32. A minute or two after Long saw the couple out on the street.''

At 5.32 then .......

Its seems very unlikely the killer doing all the mutilations to Chapman in ''not shorter'' than 15 mins according to Dr Phillipps in daylight

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour.





1. 5.32 to 5.47am Daylight. problem . ... 2 . 43 mins later Dr Phillipps pronounces his ''2 hours problably more'' estimate . Problem .




Id say, and its just my opinion ,that .t.o.d was much earlier than 5.30 am .

[FISHY1118]

Coroner: "There was some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but that variation was not very great or very important."

So spoke a man of the Victorian era who was very experienced in judging estimated times. And once again, it has to be stressed that Long didn't see a clock. she heard it strike what she thought was the half hour, but which could have been quarter past. Quarter past, as has been previously pointed out, fits better with her stated time of leaving her house at 5 am.

[John Davies] I was awake from three a.m. to five a.m. on Saturday, and then fell asleep until a quarter to six,'' when the clock at Spitalfields Church struck''. I had a cup of tea and went downstairs to the back yard. The house faces Hanbury-street, with one window on the ground floor and a front door at th

Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street.



It has to be stressed that John Davies didnt see a clock either .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you ever discuss a topic without being condesending or patronizing ? Try it for once, it works wonders .

Then stop denying something that’s a 100% cast-iron fact. Can’t you understand the frustration of discussing the case with someone who denies reality? Stop doing it and I’ll stop being irritated. All that I ask is straight answrs to straight questions and everyone on here knows that I never get that from you. Ever.

The fantasy here Herlock is people using dodgy clocks and speculation to change times as given by Long and Cadosch to establish a non existant theory , dont look now but your doing a ''TREVOR'' !!!!

I haven’t mentioned dodgy clocks. In fact I haven’t even attempted to change Long’s time. All that I’m suggesting is that Cadosch (who, from his own lips, was just estimating his times) might have actually got up at 5.20 instead of 5,15. I’m hardly changing the day or claiming that he’d actually got up at 2pm. A mere 5 minutes Fishy (which for some utterly bizarre reason you are trying to suggest is impossible) is all that we need to accept the possibility of, that’s all. So no, we cannot dismiss Long based on given times if we are being honest.


''This would leave him hearing the ‘no’ at 5.31 or 5.32. A minute or two after Long saw the couple out on the street.''

At 5.32 then .......

Its seems very unlikely the killer doing all the mutilations to Chapman in ''not shorter'' than 15 mins according to Dr Phillipps in daylight

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour.

Not relevant. A distraction from you which has no bearing on clocks. This is all that we are discussing…clocks and whether or not they can be poorly synchronised.



1. 5.32 to 5.47am Daylight. problem . ... 2 . 43 mins later Dr Phillipps pronounces his ''2 hours problably more'' estimate . Problem .




Id say, and it’s just my opinion ,that .t.o.d was much earlier than 5.30 am .

So of the three options you chose to change the subject and obfuscate (and without answering the questions of course, but that’s standard practice)

You have proven that you really aren’t offering a considered opinion on the topic of clock synchronisation (which is the subject of this particular discussion) you are simply re-stating your opinion that Chapman died earlier. I have merely mentioned that the times are not an issue problem. I’m not suggesting as a FACT that Long saw the ripper. I’m suggesting as a FACT that nothing makes it impossible.

Your use of the phrase ‘dodgy clocks’ shows a thorough misunderstanding of the point that is being made.

…….

Are you of the belief that all clocks and watches in the Victorian era were synchronised?

It’s a perfectly simple yes or no question Fishy. It requires no specialist knowledge and it’s not a trick question. Any adult (and many children) could answer it without a problem and without hesitation. Why are you refusing to do so? One word….yes or no?

On with the options…..a) ignore, b) change the subject, c) say that you’ve already answered or d) try to twist the meaning of some part of the discussion?

I’ll guess at option b)…..possibly a)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can I again stress that I began this thread to discuss the Chapman Timeline until it was sidetracked. There is a Chapman ToD Thread where anyone is free to air their fantasies that John Richardson missed seeing a horribly mutilated corpse, with entrails strewn and with splayed legs in red and white stockings just a foot from his left boot if they wish until their hearts content.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So of the three options you chose to change the subject and obfuscate (and without answering the questions of course, but that’s standard practice)

You have proven that you really aren’t offering a considered opinion on the topic of clock synchronisation (which is the subject of this particular discussion) you are simply re-stating your opinion that Chapman died earlier. I have merely mentioned that the times are not an issue problem. I’m not suggesting as a FACT that Long saw the ripper. I’m suggesting as a FACT that nothing makes it impossible.

Your use of the phrase ‘dodgy clocks’ shows a thorough misunderstanding of the point that is being made.

…….

Are you of the belief that all clocks and watches in the Victorian era were synchronised?

It’s a perfectly simple yes or no question Fishy. It requires no specialist knowledge and it’s not a trick question. Any adult (and many children) could answer it without a problem and without hesitation. Why are you refusing to do so? One word….yes or no?

On with the options…..a) ignore, b) change the subject, c) say that you’ve already answered or d) try to twist the meaning of some part of the discussion?

I’ll guess at option b)…..possibly a)

It was a) ..ignore.

[GBinOz]

It was a) ..ignore.

Huh...What???

[GBinOz]

Further comment on my last post, while it is undeniable that clocks were unsynchronised, there exists both compensating and accumulative errors. Time intervals are also subject to observational errors as defined by Jeff in his posts.

I seem to have persuaded myself that Herlock's solution my have much to commend itself, although "ignore" may be a step too far??

[Herlock Sholmes]

Further comment on my last post, while it is undeniable that clocks were unsynchronised, there exists both compensating and accumulative errors. Time intervals are also subject to observational errors as defined by Jeff in his posts.

I seem to have persuaded myself that Herlock's solution may have much to commend itself, although "ignore" may be a step too far??

My “it was a) ignore,” was after my last post when I ended by asking Fishy a simple, straightforward question and wonder if a) ignore, b) change the subject etc. He opted for a).

…..

Thanks for making the very valid point about estimating time intervals George. One of the things that I can’t understand about Fishy’s position is that it’s still possible to accept the obvious fact that the given times in no way preclude Long’s seeing the couple and to suggest that it still might not have been them. It’s also possible to accept the proposition about timings whilst still sticking to the belief in an earlier ToD. The point was solely about allowing for poor synchronisation and for the allowing of a margin for error. I realise that I’m a broken record on this point but i just find it strange in the extreme when someone rejects such an obvious point. To reject it is to assume that all clocks were synchronised and that no one ever estimated a time or a time period incorrectly. If it happens in 2025 (and it does) then we know that it happened in 1888 (more so in fact) Fishy won’t accept this though.

In the case of Chapman we can still have Mrs Long passing at 5.30 as stated. Cadosch estimated that he got up at 5.15 and went into the yard 10 minutes later, used the outside loo then heard the ‘no’ as he arrive at the back door. So

Gets up at 5.20 - goes into the yard at 5.30 (10 mins) - uses loo (2 mins) and back to the door 5.32
Gets up at 5.18 - goes into the yard at 5.28 (10 mins) uses loo (3 mins) and back to the door at 5.31
Gets up 5.17 - goes into the yard at 5.27 (10 mins) - uses loo (4 mins) and goes back to the door at 5.31
Gets up at 5.16 - goes into the yard at 5.26 (10 mins) - uses loo (5 mins) and goes back to the door at 5.31
Gets up at 5.15 - goes into the yard at 5.26 (11 mins) - uses loo (5 mins) and goes back to the door at 5.31
Gets up at 5.16 - goes to the yard at 5.28 (12 mins) - uses loo (3 mins) and goes back to the door at 5.31

Obviously we could give numerous other variants that would work too without ‘changing’ Long’s time. Why would anyone deny these very obvious and entirely reasonable possibilities?

[C. F. Leon]

…

Are you of the belief that all clocks and watches in the Victorian era were synchronised?
...

Herlock, is your question meant for Fishy ONLY, or can Anyone join in?

MY answer is that, although Victorian clocks were NOT synchronized in the sense that we mean in the 21st Century (we have GPS and All That), there was an EFFORT to do so. Most people are going by the local church clock, although certain particular ones may have had priority with the populace. And they are setting THEIR clocks/watches by those clocks. The problem is that doing it this way often introduces errors in those secondary sources.

When Something happens, the officials (usually Whomever is what we would call the First Responders- coppers, medical men) are going by their watches. The coppers set their watches at the station so they are, in theory, synchronized with each other. How do the medical men set THEIR watches?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, is your question meant for Fishy ONLY, or can Anyone join in?

MY answer is that, although Victorian clocks were NOT synchronized in the sense that we mean in the 21st Century (we have GPS and All That), there was an EFFORT to do so. Most people are going by the local church clock, although certain particular ones may have had priority with the populace. And they are setting THEIR clocks/watches by those clocks. The problem is that doing it this way often introduces errors in those secondary sources.

When Something happens, the officials (usually Whomever is what we would call the First Responders- coppers, medical men) are going by their watches. The coppers set their watches at the station so they are, in theory, synchronized with each other. How do the medical men set THEIR watches?

Anyone can answer CF.

Im not suggesting that no two clocks were ever the same or that people didn’t set their clocks/watches by others that they felt were more reliable. A few months ago when I had visitors in the house I asked everyone to check their phones for times as we were discussing this subject on here (a bit nerdy? Guilty as charged) I can’t recall the exact results but in 2025 using around 5 smart phones (maybe one iPhone) the time on my iPad, the wall clocks in the living room and kitchen plus the clock on the microwave we came up with a range of 8 minutes. So what I can never understand is when people express outrage when I suggest that this could happen in 1888. An allowance has to be made for poor synchronicity and errors of judgment when estimating times and periods of time.

[FISHY1118]

So of the three options you chose to change the subject and obfuscate (and without answering the questions of course, but that’s standard practice)

You have proven that you really aren’t offering a considered opinion on the topic of clock synchronisation (which is the subject of this particular discussion) you are simply re-stating your opinion that Chapman died earlier. I have merely mentioned that the times are not an issue problem. I’m not suggesting as a FACT that Long saw the ripper. I’m suggesting as a FACT that nothing makes it impossible.

Your use of the phrase ‘dodgy clocks’ shows a thorough misunderstanding of the point that is being made.

…….

Are you of the belief that all clocks and watches in the Victorian era were synchronised?

It’s a perfectly simple yes or no question Fishy. It requires no specialist knowledge and it’s not a trick question. Any adult (and many children) could answer it without a problem and without hesitation. Why are you refusing to do so? One word….yes or no?

On with the options…..a) ignore, b) change the subject, c) say that you’ve already answered or d) try to twist the meaning of some part of the discussion?

I’ll guess at option b)…..possibly a)

How does any of what you suggest change the fact what cadosh and long testified to ? Your inventing something that 'you dont know'' was wrong or right [.i.e clocks ] to try and suggest a different outcome /theory on T.OD !! . See how simple i made it for you ? You have your answer/s , so now you can stop ranting on how you think im ignoring you .


''This would leave him hearing the ‘no’ at 5.31 or 5.32. A minute or two after Long saw the couple out on the street.''

At 5.32 then .......

Its seems very unlikely the killer doing all the mutilations to Chapman in ''not shorter'' than 15 mins according to Dr Phillipps in daylight

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour.

Not relevant. A distraction from you which has no bearing on clocks. This is all that we are discussing…clocks and whether or not they can be poorly synchronised.



You bet its Relevant , You have Annie Chapman alive saying ''NO'' at your 5.32 am and then being Mutilated for the next 15mins to 5.47 am in the daylight


The ''Overwhelming inquest'' evidence suggest she was dead long befor that . Evidence trumps speculation theory everytime . Lets stick to that and leave the dodgy clock theories to the nutters

[FISHY1118]

Can I again stress that I began this thread to discuss the Chapman Timeline until it was sidetracked. There is a Chapman ToD Thread where anyone is free to air their fantasies that John Richardson missed seeing a horribly mutilated corpse, with entrails strewn and with splayed legs in red and white stockings just a foot from his left boot if they wish until their hearts content.

I also suggest that anyone is free to checkout my ''John Richardson'' thread, where in reality not fantasy, they will see evidence presented from the inquest that he missed seeing the body of Annie chapman lying dead, as he only went to the back door to check the lock of the cellar door then turned back inside and went to work.