3 and a half missing hours...

[DJA]

Remember what Phillips said at the inquest. He examined Chapman at around 6.30, and stated that he was of the meaning that she had been dead AT LEAST two hours, and PROBABLY MORE.

So that should take perhaps three hours of that "lost" time, if Phillips was on the money. My own feeling is that he was.

Agreed.

Anyone read "The Blackest Streets" by Sarah Wise?

10% of the old houses around the Old Nichol had underground passages.

Note the "cellar" near Chapman's corpse.

Might the same passages have existed under Hanbury Street?

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Packers,

We don't know why Schwartz didn't testify. He could have nicked off so he couldn't be found, told the police privately that he'd made a mistake (or more likely the police found out what he witnessed had been a simple domestic argument) the police may have found him unreliable in the end, he may have been very ill and unable to turn up to testify. We simply don't know.

Lots of things about East End life seem weird to us now, including a propensity to use nicknames or two surnames. I don't happen to ascribe sinister motives to this, unlike many on the forum, maybe because I come from a small place in Norfolk where several people had nicknames and some women were still known informally by their maiden names.

Long was apparently Elizabeth Durrell's married name. Maybe Durrell was her maiden name and somehow it got muddled. That doesn't mean that automatically her testimony or that of Cadosch is worthless, simply because it doesn't fit a current theory.

ROSELLA. After reading the Mary Kelly inquest, i get this impression that the purpose of these inquests wasn't to solve the mystery of whodunnit. It seemed like they were establishing that she was the victim of a homicide, and didnt commit suicide. Schwartz doesnt really push that point, but he reads well from a newspaper.

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,

We don't know why Schwartz didn't testify. He could have nicked off so he couldn't be found, told the police privately that he'd made a mistake (or more likely the police found out what he witnessed had been a simple domestic argument) the police may have found him unreliable in the end, he may have been very ill and unable to turn up to testify. We simply don't know.

Hi Rosella
Sorry,but that just doesn't hold water at all.No reason whatsoever to doubt him, he should have been called to the inquest. The reasons he wasn't are known only to the police furthermore I seem to remember seeing somewhere that it was illegal for them not to call him,I may be wrong.I'll have to try to remember what the source was. You're incredibly trusting of the officials Rosella,precisely the attitude required to enable cover ups to be perpetrated

Long was apparently Elizabeth Durrell's married name. Maybe Durrell was her maiden name and somehow it got muddled. That doesn't mean that automatically her testimony or that of Cadosch is worthless, simply because it doesn't fit a current theory.

What Cadosch heard doesn't back up Long anymore than the idea that the body was dumped there I'm afraid.He heard a thud and voices... Nothing more,nothing less

[lynn cates]

refuge

Hello Packer. Interesting question.

What if we suppose she saw the futility of her mission at that late hour and sought #29 as a place of refuge? After all, the place was known to her.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

passageway

Hello Abby.

"My guess is she wasn't wandering but laid down somewhere quiet and out of the way to sleep/rest for those hours she wasn't seen."

Good. Passageway of #29, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
It makes sense. Also the remains of undigested food, baked potato, at the lodging house would suggest the same. What do we make of someone who can sit on a step cutting leather off his boots and miss a body a couple of feet away though?

Well, we need to turn him into either

-a not very observant man
-a man who in that backyard had a focus to his right
-an attention-seeker
or
-a man who did not want to tell his mother that he had neglected his duties

[Fisherman]

Hi packers

First of all she was seen alive around 5:30 in front of the murder scene talking to the man who was probably her killer. a neighbor heard voices in the back yard around the same time and then her body was discovered shortly thereafter.

My guess is she wasn't wandering but laid down somewhere quiet and out of the way to sleep/ rest for those hours she wasn't seen.

To be perfectly correct, she was CLAIMED to have been seen at 5.30. Then again, Kelly was claimed to have been seen out and about at around 8 AM on the morning of the 9:th, and more or less all of the inhabitants of Millers court claimed to have heard the "Murder!" outcry, albeit at different hours...

[Fisherman]

Well, Mrs Long/Durrell and Albert Cadosch did see/hear what they believed was Annie with a male between the time of approximately 5am and 5:30 am. The police believed them and they themselves were convinced enough to go and appear at Annie's inquest and give testimony. That's more than many witnesses that we've discussed on the forum managed, (Schwartz, Hutch for instance.)

The police did not believe them as such - they were not able to prove them wrong, and so they belonged to the inquest. But Swanson said afterwards that if Phillips was to be believed, then the trust put in Long was in vain.

[Fisherman]

Agreed.

Anyone read "The Blackest Streets" by Sarah Wise?

10% of the old houses around the Old Nichol had underground passages.

Note the "cellar" near Chapman's corpse.

Might the same passages have existed under Hanbury Street?

Yes, I read it. My impression was that these passages were a feature that was typical of the Old Nichol only.

[John G]

The police did not believe them as such - they were not able to prove them wrong, and so they belonged to the inquest. But Swanson said afterwards that if Phillips was to be believed, then the trust put in Long was in vain.

Hi Fisherman,

Presumably this was based on Dr Phillips' estimate of time of death. However, Dr Biggs has pointed out that such estimates are little more than guesswork, even for a modern pathologist (temperature readings can only narrow things down to within a few hours). In fact, such an analysis is so subjective and widely variable the official guidance from the Forensic Science Register states that a pathologist shouldnt even attempt to estimate post mortem interval: see Marriott, 2013.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Presumably this was based on Dr Phillips' estimate of time of death. However, Dr Biggs has pointed out that such estimates are little more than guesswork, even for a modern pathologist (temperature readings can only narrow things down to within a few hours). In fact, such an analysis is so subjective and widely variable the official guidance from the Forensic Science Register states that a pathologist shouldnt even attempt to estimate post mortem interval: see Marriott, 2013.

Yes, I am quite aware of this - Trevor seems to think that all medical work was guesswork in those days.

Of course, even today it can be hard to determine a TOD.

But in the Chapman case, those who want to believe Long and Cadosh etc, need to have the TOD down to under an hour - and since Phillips said at least two hours but probably more, we are looking at something like perhaps a third of the time Phillips opted for. And much as medicos can go wrong on things like these, they are less likely to do so catastrophically.

Chapman was all cold to the touch, but for some little remaining warmth under her intestines.
Eddowes was still "quite warm" (I believe this was how it was worded) around 40 minutes after her death.
Plus there will have been other parameters to go by too, like the blood, the eyes, rigor mortis, lividity etcetera. As for rigor, we know it was consistent with Chapman having been dead for a couple of hours, for example.

I stick with my ordinary remedy: If professional witnesses disagree with amateur ones, go with the professionals!

[John G]

Yes, I am quite aware of this - Trevor seems to think that all medical work was guesswork in those days.

Of course, even today it can be hard to determine a TOD.

But in the Chapman case, those who want to believe Long and Cadosh etc, need to have the TOD down to under an hour - and since Phillips said at least two hours but probably more, we are looking at something like perhaps a third of the time Phillips opted for. And much as medicos can go wrong on things like these, they are less likely to do so catastrophically.

Chapman was all cold to the touch, but for some little remaining warmth under her intestines.
Eddowes was still "quite warm" (I believe this was how it was worded) around 40 minutes after her death.
Plus there will have been other parameters to go by too, like the blood, the eyes, rigor mortis, lividity etcetera. As for rigor, we know it was consistent with Chapman having been dead for a couple of hours, for example.

I stick with my ordinary remedy: If professional witnesses disagree with amateur ones, go with the professionals!

Yes, but if modern day pathologists can only narrow down the time of death to within a few hours then surely we should take Dr Phillips estimate with a pinch of salt. I would just add that, like temperature, rigor mortis is an unreliable indicator because of the variability of factors that can effect conditions of rigor. A general estimate is that rigor first manifests itself 1 to 6 hours after death, but even that very wide estimate spectrum isn't applicable to every case: see Mauriello, Criminal Investigation Handbook.

In fact, the 1 to 6 hour estimate is based upon average environmental conditions: " Like almost all the events that occur in the body after death, rigor depends on temperature. The reason is that the rates of the complex physiochemical changes that lead to stiffening of muscle are themselves limited by molecular activity. In "average" environmental conditions-though what people consider as average varies widely from Aberdeen to Abadan-rigor starts to set in within 1 to 6 hours after death and commonly spreads to all muscles within 4 to 10 hours." ( New Scientist, 29 May, 1986)

[DJA]

Yes, I read it. My impression was that these passages were a feature that was typical of the Old Nichol only.

And Mitre Square.....

[Fisherman]

John G: Yes, but if modern day pathologists can only narrow down the time of death to within a few hours then surely we should take Dr Phillips estimate with a pinch of salt.

Well, John, that would depend on the time perspective as such, to some extent.
If we find a dead person who has been lying undiscovered for a long time, then we should not expect any doctor to be able to come very close to the TOD. Maybe one expert will say fifteen hours and another will say twenty, and we have a gap of five hours.

But with Chapman, it was suggested that she had been dead for less than an hour! And that adds a number of parameters that will not be there with a long dead body. Body temperature not least. A body that has been dead for less than an hour will not have gone totally cold in that space of time, not will rigor mortis have set in.
Both of these parameters were there for Chapman.

I would just add that, like temperature, rigor mortis is an unreliable indicator because of the variability of factors that can effect conditions of rigor. A general estimate is that rigor first manifests itself 1 to 6 hours after death, but even that very wide estimate spectrum isn't applicable to every case: see Mauriello, Criminal Investigation Handbook.

It is unreliable to a large extent, yes. But this is what is said about it generally:
At the moment of death, the muscles relax completely—a condition called "primary flaccidity." The muscles then stiffen, perhaps due to coagulation of muscle proteins or a shift in the muscle's energy containers (ATP-ADP), into a condition known as rigor mortis. All of the body's muscles are affected. Rigor mortis begins within two to six hours of death, starting with the eyelids, neck, and jaw. This sequence may be due to the difference in lactic acid levels among different muscles, which corresponds to the difference in glycogen levels and to the different types of muscle fibers. Over the next four to six hours, rigor mortis spreads to the other muscles, including those in the internal organs such as the heart. The onset of rigor mortis is more rapid if the environment is cold and if the decedent had performed hard physical work just before death. Its onset also varies with the individual's age, sex, physical condition, and muscular build.


So we are - accdording to most judges - looking at a two to six hour interval. Plus Chapman died in cool conditions, and that slows the process down. Plus Chapmans limbs were affected by rigor as Phillips examoned her - and that is not where rigor first sets in.
Weighing it together, Chapman should not have developed rigor 50-55 minues after death. The ones where we DO see rigor setting in after an hour only, are those found in really warm conditions, and where rigor has set in in the eyelids, neck and jaw. And who are predisposed to a quick rigor.

In fact, the 1 to 6 hour estimate is based upon average environmental conditions: " Like almost all the events that occur in the body after death, rigor depends on temperature. The reason is that the rates of the complex physiochemical changes that lead to stiffening of muscle are themselves limited by molecular activity. In "average" environmental conditions-though what people consider as average varies widely from Aberdeen to Abadan-rigor starts to set in within 1 to 6 hours after death and commonly spreads to all muscles within 4 to 10 hours." ( New Scientist, 29 May, 1986).

And the temperature conditions were not average - it was a cool night, so it would have slowed down the process.

This can - and has - be discussed forever. I remain where I always was in the errand.
But I would love to learn more from experts - it is very interesting.

[Ginger]

Agreed.

Anyone read "The Blackest Streets" by Sarah Wise?

10% of the old houses around the Old Nichol had underground passages.

Note the "cellar" near Chapman's corpse.

Might the same passages have existed under Hanbury Street?

I hadn't known, and I'm fascinated to find out. I'll be getting that book.

That being said, remember that the #29 cellar was Mrs. Richardson's workshop where she built packing cases. She'd recently had tools stolen out of there, which is why John came by to check the door that morning. If there was an underground passage leading to the cellar, I can't imagine that she'd have felt safe leaving tools and supplies in there, even with the outside door locked. To get to the postulated tunnel entrance in the cellar, the killer would have had to unlock the padlocked cellar door, which can't happen from the inside. He couldn't have locked it after himself, either.