Annie Chapman’s ToD

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest, I’ve no desire to go over this subject again as it’s it’s been done to death in recent times but as someone has derailed the Chapman Timeline thread with stuff relating to the ToD I thought that it was an idea to resolve the problem by creating a thread so that the person in question (and anyone else) has a location to continue that line of discussion. And here it is, so can we keep the other thread free for purely timeline discussion please.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I agree. There is little point in pursuing the ToD yet again, but if it has to happen it can be here, and not where it doesn't belong.

[Lewis C]

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

(Italics added)

I posted a question about this in another thread, but it didn't get a response, maybe because no one knew what I was referring to. So I'll try to be more explicit here. If it is true that Chapman saying "no" at 5:32 means that the mutilations would had to have continued until at least 5:47, why is this a problem? That is, why should we consider it unlikely that Chapman was still being mutilated until at least 5:47?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi LC,

The letter I have quoted previously from an experienced butcher/slaughterer stated that the mutilations would have taken about one third of the time estimated by the doctors, but in reality we have no evidence to contradict whatever time it took. There was an unnamed dustman who saw a man with what seemed to be blood on his clothes, rushing away from the scene, but we have no exact time quoted for this. As far as I know, he is only mentioned once and briefly. So, no this isn't a problem.

[Herlock Sholmes]

(Italics added)

I posted a question about this in another thread, but it didn't get a response, maybe because no one knew what I was referring to. So I'll try to be more explicit here. If it is true that Chapman saying "no" at 5:32 means that the mutilations would had to have continued until at least 5:47, why is this a problem? That is, why should we consider it unlikely that Chapman was still being mutilated until at least 5:47?

You won’t get an answer Lewis, or at least not one to that particular question or a direct answer either. Dr Phillips opinion about an hour keeps getting quoted but it’s obvious nonsense. The murder, mutilation and organ removal on Eddowes didn’t take anywhere near that length of time and her body was in an even worse condition.

The other issue is that Fishy assumes (for convenience of making a point and nothing more) that the “no” was the point at which Annie was first attacked but this is an unfounded assumption. Firstly, the word wasn’t shouted out or screamed. It was just spoken and was the word that Cadosch caught jest prior to going back indoors so it was probably just Chapman saying “no” in response to a question from the man with her. Perhaps he was asking, in the passage, if someone might come into the yard while they were doing the business and as Annie opened the door she said “No.”

Then he repeatedly tries to make this false point - how could she have been attacked at 5.30 (the ‘no’) and yet she only fell against the fence 3 or 4 minutes later?

So a) we can’t say that the ‘no’ was the beginning of the attack, indeed reason tells us that it probably wasn’t, and b) the noise against the fence didn’t have to be Annie falling against it. It could have been the killer moving her leg or arm which fell against the fence, it could have been the killer brushing against the fence as he changed positions. What we can dismiss are dogs, cats, aardvarks, gibbons, horses, antelopes or big mice. We can dismiss falling packing cases which weren’t in the yard either (although still desperately suggested not long ago) We can also dismiss a blind man going to the outside loo.

So what we have is a) someone ‘innocently’ moving around in a back yard where there is allegedly a horribly butchered woman lying, b) Cadosch hallucinating or making things up (and this is a man honest enough to admit to the possibility that the ‘no’ could potentially have come from elsewhere - so not someone rigidly pursuing a lie) or c) a man murdering a woman in a yard where there is 30 minutes later a woman’s body is found.

I don’t know why so much effort is made to dismiss this. If it walks like a duck etc…

[FISHY1118]

(Italics added)

I posted a question about this in another thread, but it didn't get a response, maybe because no one knew what I was referring to. So I'll try to be more explicit here. If it is true that Chapman saying "no" at 5:32 means that the mutilations would had to have continued until at least 5:47, why is this a problem? That is, why should we consider it unlikely that Chapman was still being mutilated until at least 5:47?

A single fronted, three-storey dwelling situated on the north side of the street, approximately half way between Commercial Street and Brick Lane. Believed to have been built c.1740 along with adjacent properties by carpenter Daniel Marsillat. There were two rooms on each floor and like many houses owned by weavers had an attic or garret, effectively creating a fourth storey. The floors were reached via a staircase on the left side of the property which itself was accessible from a passageway which led from the front of the house to the rear. The house was refronted in December 1849^[1], possibly as part of converting the lower front room into a business premises. The house also retained its traditional shutters on the ground floor.

''In 1888, No.29 consisted of eight rooms with a total of seventeen people living inside.'' The ground floor was occupied by Mrs. Harriet Hardiman and her 16 year old son. Both of them slept in the front room which doubled as a shop where they sold cat's meat. The rear room was used as a kitchen.

The first floor front room belonged to Mrs. Amelia Richardson and her 14 year old grandson. She had lived here for 15 years. Her business was making packing cases, employing her son, John, who did not live on the premises. She also rented the cellar, which was used in manufacturing, and the yard. The first floor back room was shared by a Mr. Waker, a maker of tennis boots, and his retarded adult son.

The second floor front room contained a family consisting of a carman named Thompson who worked at Goodson's in Brick Lane, his wife and adopted daughter. The back room was shared by two unmarried sisters named Copsey who worked in a cigar factory.

The third floor attic front room was occupied by an elderly man, John Davis (who was also a carman) and his wife and three sons. the attic rear belonged to Sarah Cox, an elderly woman whom Mrs. Richardson kept out of charity.<sup>[2]


17 people ! if albert cadosh got up to get ready for work to then go outside and use the loo ,how unlikely is it some of the 17 didnt do the same between 5.32 and 5.47 ? dont forget it was daylight well after 5.32 am , thats a big negitive .</sup>

[FISHY1118]

You won’t get an answer Lewis, or at least not one to that particular question or a direct answer either. Dr Phillips opinion about an hour keeps getting quoted but it’s obvious nonsense. The murder, mutilation and organ removal on Eddowes didn’t take anywhere near that length of time and her body was in an even worse condition.

The other issue is that Fishy assumes (for convenience of making a point and nothing more) that the “no” was the point at which Annie was first attacked but this is an unfounded assumption. Firstly, the word wasn’t shouted out or screamed. It was just spoken and was the word that Cadosch caught jest prior to going back indoors so it was probably just Chapman saying “no” in response to a question from the man with her. Perhaps he was asking, in the passage, if someone might come into the yard while they were doing the business and as Annie opened the door she said “No.”

Then he repeatedly tries to make this false point - how could she have been attacked at 5.30 (the ‘no’) and yet she only fell against the fence 3 or 4 minutes later?

So a) we can’t say that the ‘no’ was the beginning of the attack, indeed reason tells us that it probably wasn’t, and b) the noise against the fence didn’t have to be Annie falling against it. It could have been the killer moving her leg or arm which fell against the fence, it could have been the killer brushing against the fence as he changed positions. What we can dismiss are dogs, cats, aardvarks, gibbons, horses, antelopes or big mice. We can dismiss falling packing cases which weren’t in the yard either (although still desperately suggested not long ago) We can also dismiss a blind man going to the outside loo.

So what we have is a) someone ‘innocently’ moving around in a back yard where there is allegedly a horribly butchered woman lying, b) Cadosch hallucinating or making things up (and this is a man honest enough to admit to the possibility that the ‘no’ could potentially have come from elsewhere - so not someone rigidly pursuing a lie) or c) a man murdering a woman in a yard where there is 30 minutes later a woman’s body is found.

I don’t know why so much effort is made to dismiss this. If it walks like a duck etc…

There you go , one for you too . You can come up with all the speculation and theories you like herlock, it wont change the Evidence and the Facts of the case as ...well i/ we all know them . Not sure what your looking at tho


A single fronted, three-storey dwelling situated on the north side of the street, approximately half way between Commercial Street and Brick Lane. Believed to have been built c.1740 along with adjacent properties by carpenter Daniel Marsillat. There were two rooms on each floor and like many houses owned by weavers had an attic or garret, effectively creating a fourth storey. The floors were reached via a staircase on the left side of the property which itself was accessible from a passageway which led from the front of the house to the rear. The house was refronted in December 1849^[1], possibly as part of converting the lower front room into a business premises. The house also retained its traditional shutters on the ground floor.

''In 1888, No.29 consisted of eight rooms with a total of seventeen people living inside.'' The ground floor was occupied by Mrs. Harriet Hardiman and her 16 year old son. Both of them slept in the front room which doubled as a shop where they sold cat's meat. The rear room was used as a kitchen.

The first floor front room belonged to Mrs. Amelia Richardson and her 14 year old grandson. She had lived here for 15 years. Her business was making packing cases, employing her son, John, who did not live on the premises. She also rented the cellar, which was used in manufacturing, and the yard. The first floor back room was shared by a Mr. Waker, a maker of tennis boots, and his retarded adult son.

The second floor front room contained a family consisting of a carman named Thompson who worked at Goodson's in Brick Lane, his wife and adopted daughter. The back room was shared by two unmarried sisters named Copsey who worked in a cigar factory.

The third floor attic front room was occupied by an elderly man, John Davis (who was also a carman) and his wife and three sons. the attic rear belonged to Sarah Cox, an elderly woman whom Mrs. Richardson kept out of charity.<sup>[2]


17 people ! if albert cadosh got up to get ready for work to then go outside and use the loo ,how unlikely is it some of the 17 didnt do the same between 5.32 and 5.47 ? dont forget it was daylight well after 5.32 am , thats a big negitive .</sup>

[Herlock Sholmes]

Response to Fishy’s post #106 from the Timeline thread:

“Thats simple not correct , there are muliple pieces of evidence provided during the inquest by Inspector Chandler and Dr Phillips that overwhelmingly point to an earlier T.O.D. Its there , its been reposted many times , it exist , your just chooseing to ignore it .”

No Fishy, you think that just because someone puts words on a forum it constitutes evidence. All that you have is the fact that Chandler said that Richardson hadn’t bothered mentioning his boot cutting. Why did he need to mention it. He might have been smoking at the time, would he have needed to mention that too? He told Chandler that he had been to the backdoor, had been able to see all of the yard, was in sufficient light, saw no body and couldn’t possibly have missed it had it been there. This is rock solid evidence. Despite the embarrassing efforts to try and discredit him. Strange how efforts to discredit the witnesses tend to come by those that are determined to support Dr Phillips clearly inaccurate ToD estimate (for which pages and pages of expert document ent evidence has been provided - and not your imaginary kind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Response to Fishy’s post # 107 on the Timeline thread:

”Why did he feel the need to invent the boot story at the inquest ? , he could see all around the yard from the position he was standing in the back door entrance looking to his right to check the lock.”

If you tell someone something but leave out a detail which you feel is unimportant and doesn’t require mentioning but then later, when discussed further, you mention that detail, do you deserve to be accused of invention? You have the weirdest concept of what is or isn’t perfectly normal behaviour.

You should perhaps consider that this wasn’t an in-depth, sit down interview. It was a short Q & A which took place in the busy passage way of number 29. Inspector Chandler spoke to Richardson at about 6.45 (and as, according to you, all clocks were perfectly synchronised and accurate and no one ever mistook a time when they were estimating, I’m assuming you will want to set that in stone?) Chandler then got to the mortuary twenty minutes later at 7.05.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Response to Fishy’s post # 108 on the Timeline thread:

“As i said ,it was a stupid question that proves nothing in relation to the topic at hand , you only asked it to bait me for your own self benefit just so you can crow about how i cant answer a yes/no question . Its clever tactic youve been using for years , but i think you over do it at times .”

You are just using accusations to avoid responding. The question was a simple, straightforward, non-trick one. The purpose of it was to try to get you to give a straight answer for once on whether you believe that all clocks in Victorian London were synchronised with each other. You either do or you don’t. Which is it? Like Trevor, to avoid answering a question you attack the question itself. Everyone can see that it’s an entirely valid question and everyone can see that you are deliberately avoiding answering and everyone knows why.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Response to Fishy’s post # 109 on the Timeline thread:

”What you get from ''Fishy'' Herlock is evidence from the inquest that enables me to form an opinion as to Chapmans time of death . What we get from you time and time again is conjucture , circumstancial contradictory evidence , unproven theories , dodgy clocks , expert medical opinion that was incorrect without knowing for a fact it was

. I could go on, but its boring me . Funny how reliable and almost to the minute other Dr T.O.D estimates were, but Dr Phillipps was way out !”

It’s boring us too Fishy, believe me!

Yes, you have formed an opinion, but it’s based on a poor understanding of the evidence. Basically, your position is that you feel that your opinion on the medical science to do with the estimation ToD and its methods and drawbacks trumps that of the world’s authorities. You, Fishy, no more about this apparently than all of these. Every single expert, every single medical textbook or academic paper, every scientist, Doctor etc. None of there opinions count against your ‘opinion’ that just because a Victorian doctor might get a ToD correct on occasion then this means that they were totally accurate. I can only suggest Fishy that you do the world of medical science a favour and contact these highly respected men and women and esteemed bodies and inform them that everything that they have published is completely flawed…because Fishy says so.

I’d respond to you other points individually but there is no point because history tells us that you can’t debate. We’ve seen this on many threads. Debate requires a back and forth, question and response, point and counter point approach which you always avoid like the plague. Ducking and diving is what you do. It’s just a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Response to Fishy’s post # 111 on the Timeline thread:

” You see Doc thats were people like you make your mistake , Phillips testimony in regards to T.o.d was ''TWO HOURS '' , that stands alone as his estimate . Only ''after'' he added the ''Probably more'' should that part become a debatable issue as to the cold morning . I hope ive cleared up your misunderstanding of the evidence.

As for Chandler, youll also find more evidence in regards to Richardsons testimony that comes into question as to its accuracy , like i said there is much overwheming evidence when one choose to look for it .”

I’m glad that you posted this because it saves other people from the effort of trawling through lots of posts to be able to get to the laughable weakness of your argument. Here it is though writ large. Our Victorian superman Dr Phillips simply cannot be wrong. His estimate must be true. Perhaps you believe that the doctors that recommended ‘bleeding’ for everything were correct too? Or that the womb cause insanity in women? Phillips touched the body and made a best guess based on the knowledge at the time. There are factors contributing to ToD that Phillips would have been clueless about because they have only been discovered in the ensuing years and yet Phillips knows about them. You really shouldn’t bother on this subject Fishy. It’s embarrassing.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Fishy,

This has been done to death so many times, but at least we are now on the correct thread!

Dr Phillips is quoted as saying, "He should say that the deceased had been dead for at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

He clearly does not state a usable ToD. We have "should say .... when he first saw her." A positive statement would be "I believe", or "it is my opinion", but "should say", coupled with "when he first saw her", is a re-stating of his first quoted ToD. "Should say" implies a vagueness, a less than positive opinion, which is explained by the rest of his statement, "but it was right to mention...". This is a clear statement of a reservation about his original ToD. He clearly expresses a reservation, and then totally avoids giving a revised opinion.

If Phillips wasn't qualifying his initial statement, what on earth was the point of saying, "but it was right to mention ..."

The Coroner fully understood the meaning of Phillips' comment, on a query as to the ToD, he said, " Dr Phillips had since qualified his statement".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for info, and my apologies for repetition as I’ve posted these and more many times…just a few experts telling us about ToD estimating:


From: Forensic Biology For The Law Enforcement Officer by Charles Grady Wilber,1974

'The stiffening of the body or rigor mortis develops usually within an hour or two hours after death.'

………

From: EstimationOf Time Of Death by Ranald Munro and Helen M.C. Munro.

"The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2-4 hours) after death.'

…..


"Francis E. Camps stated that ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."

….

"Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."

……

Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."

…….

From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'

…..

Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short".The paper alsostates that,according to W.G. Aitcheson Robertson, author of 'Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', in "death followed by convulsions, muscular exertion, racing, the rigor mortis will appear earlier". We are told thatMason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat. Then what about the physical condition of the deceased? Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"

…….

What does Fisherman's own favourite expert, Jason Payne James, have to say about using rigor to estimate the time of death? Well let's have a look in Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor.

……

Mason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat

……..

From the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology:

The time of onset and duration of Rigor is varied by multiple factors as will be discussed shortly but in general it is likely to be apparent in about 1-2 hours after death,

……

From Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition (updated by Jason Payne James and others)

'...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'

…….

The examples given of factors affecting the rate of cooling of a body are:

1. Mass of the body
2. Mass surface area
3. Body temperature at time of death
4. Site of reading of body temperature
5. Posture of the body - extended or in a fetal position
6. Clothing - type of material, position on body - or lack of it
7. Obesity - fat is a good insulator
8. Emaciation - lack of muscle bulk allows a body to cool faster
9. Environmental temperature
10. Winds, draughts, rain, humidity


And yet Dr Phillips touches Annie Chapman and gives a set-in-stone, spot on, indisputable ToD according to Fishy.

…….

Phillips only felt the body for warmth using his hand when he should have taken the temperature rectally using a thermometer. But we have no mention from him of doing this or of temperatures.

……

All of the above are wrong. None of them know what they are talking about but Professor Fishy does. Ignore the legendary names like Camps, Simpson, Knight. Ignore those that edit the standard textbook on the subject of forensic medicine. Fishy knows best. Our miracle worker Dr Phillips, 137 years ahead of his time couldn’t have been wrong.

I’ll leave everyone to arrive at their own conclusions.

[Lewis C]

A single fronted, three-storey dwelling situated on the north side of the street, approximately half way between Commercial Street and Brick Lane. Believed to have been built c.1740 along with adjacent properties by carpenter Daniel Marsillat. There were two rooms on each floor and like many houses owned by weavers had an attic or garret, effectively creating a fourth storey. The floors were reached via a staircase on the left side of the property which itself was accessible from a passageway which led from the front of the house to the rear. The house was refronted in December 1849^[1], possibly as part of converting the lower front room into a business premises. The house also retained its traditional shutters on the ground floor.

''In 1888, No.29 consisted of eight rooms with a total of seventeen people living inside.'' The ground floor was occupied by Mrs. Harriet Hardiman and her 16 year old son. Both of them slept in the front room which doubled as a shop where they sold cat's meat. The rear room was used as a kitchen.

The first floor front room belonged to Mrs. Amelia Richardson and her 14 year old grandson. She had lived here for 15 years. Her business was making packing cases, employing her son, John, who did not live on the premises. She also rented the cellar, which was used in manufacturing, and the yard. The first floor back room was shared by a Mr. Waker, a maker of tennis boots, and his retarded adult son.

The second floor front room contained a family consisting of a carman named Thompson who worked at Goodson's in Brick Lane, his wife and adopted daughter. The back room was shared by two unmarried sisters named Copsey who worked in a cigar factory.

The third floor attic front room was occupied by an elderly man, John Davis (who was also a carman) and his wife and three sons. the attic rear belonged to Sarah Cox, an elderly woman whom Mrs. Richardson kept out of charity.<sup>[2]


17 people ! if albert cadosh got up to get ready for work to then go outside and use the loo ,how unlikely is it some of the 17 didnt do the same between 5.32 and 5.47 ? dont forget it was daylight well after 5.32 am , thats a big negitive .</sup>

So I guess what you're saying now is that the issue isn't that the killer couldn't have been in the yard at 5:47, but rather that it's highly unlikely that the killer could have been in the yard for 15 minutes at that that time of the morning without anyone else entering the yard. What I would say to that is that whether you believe the murder took place at about 5:30 or much earlier, it seems very unlikely that anyone did enter the yard at any time between 5:30 and 6:00, because no one said they saw a body in the yard prior to when Davis said he saw her there at about 6:00.