Where Were They

[FISHY1118]

Now why didn't i think of that , it was so obvious , not much of a thinker hey ,

[Abby Normal]

Polly Nichols , 2.30am [ ten minute s from bucks row ] 3.45am found dead . 1 1/4 hours where was she?

Annie Chapman last seen 1.35 am, found dead 6.00am 4 hours no reported sighting, where was she ?

Catherine Eddows 1.00am [ten minutes from mitre sq] 1.44am found dead . no positive i.d since leaving police station, where was she ?

having tea and crimpets at the palace

[Cogidubnus]

It was just an exercise ... in what if we took Long and Codosch at their word with no if, buts ,or maybes ? . Then the murder of Chapman might have been a little more difficult to perpetrate. That what i was hoping to discuss but i think ill pass on it now.

Ok Peter...your call!

Dave

[FISHY1118]

It was just an exercise ... in what if we took Long and Codosch at their word with no if, buts ,or maybes ? . Then the murder of Chapman might have been a little more difficult to perpetrate. That what i was hoping to discuss but i think ill pass on it now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Dave for your comment, i appreciate it,, but as suggested this was about Long and Codosch being correct without any ifs, buts ,and maybe. then having a discussion as to how the murder might then have happened given the unusual set of circumstances . A Simple request but made very complicated . CHEERS

As far as I can recall, no poster has claimed that Long and Cadosch were undoubtedly correct. They might have been. They might not have been. We have no way of knowing for certain. You appear to think that everything is black and white. We cannot assume that Phillips was correct and that Richardson was wrong. Just as we cannot assume that Richardson was correct and that Phillips waswrong. Likewise with Cadosch and Long. Investigating an historical crime isn’t neat and tidy. We weigh up the pro’s and con’s of each point and yes we can come to different interpretations. But we cannot say for certain that one interpretation is correct and another is wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fascinating how your an expert on the habits and lifestyle of one albert codosch and what he did and didn't have i think you should seriously think about writing to scotland yard and asking them to remove all of long and codoschs inquest statments as they really mean jack sh..it according to you .

and again you missed the point of this thread as ususal .

I haven’t claimed to know anything for a fact Fishy. What I’ve merely stated is what we know to have been true due to the history that is available to us. We know that those that lived in that area were very poor. Very lowly paid. Surely you can not argue with this point? We also know that most wouldn’t have owned a watch or a clock. They simply couldn’t have afforded such a luxury item when it was a challenge to just pay the rent and put some meagre food on the table. Cadosch might have owned one though of course. We simply don’t know. So it’s sensible to apply a little caution to timings. Not to dismiss them out of hand but just to apply caution and to accept that we shouldn’t assume them always to have been exact. We also know about knocking up. It was an accepted part of police duties. This is a fact. If you disagree look at Buck’s Row and the actions of PC Mizen who was busy knocking up when he was approached by Lechmere and Paul.

Why is any of the above unreasonable?

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Dave for your comment, i appreciate it,, but as suggested this was about Long and Codosch being correct without any ifs, buts ,and maybe. then having a discussion as to how the murder might then have happened given the unusual set of circumstances . A Simple request but made very complicated . CHEERS

OK Peter, I did sort of grasp that, but you see if you were to take on all the witness statements, in every case, (and not just the well known ones either - check out the press section some time!), I think they'd all fall apart...on that one factor of time alone, where they tend to be contradictory...well, that and the fact that much of the detail we have left has been provided by the newspapers, and they're not renowned for their honesty in reporting the true facts very accurately...

I think it's a case of trying to make sense of the bare bones of what we've got, rather than just scrapping all of it and taking a wild guess spiced with invention...which is what some of the earlier authors seem to have done...

Dave

[FISHY1118]

Peter, I know you like absolute truths, and fixed facts...we all do...in a way they're our framework in life...but sadly the Late Victorian era is possibly the last one in the Western world when the absolute facts regarding timing just aren't there...

Like you, I believe Cadosche was a creature of habit, and having gone to bed when it got dark, easily woke early and pottered about until he heard the clock strike an hour, then started getting ready for work...a bit like you and I do (well I did until I retired but that's another story)...all well and good but what if he misheard a chime and went in an hour early? And yes, I've done that too even WITH a watch, (just after the clocks changed!)...So I can understand Mrs Long mishearing the chimes and going in early...

Thanks Dave for your comment, i appreciate it,, but as suggested this was about Long and Codosch being correct without any ifs, buts ,and maybe. then having a discussion as to how the murder might then have happened given the unusual set of circumstances . A Simple request but made very complicated . CHEERS

[FISHY1118]

In your world, being subjective means, agreeing with you. Every poster on this thread, apart from you, has been totally subjective and honest. Why can’t you grasp this very simple premise? One that everyone knows is a fact of history. That most working class people couldn’t have afforded to have owned a watch or a clock. Most people even relied on constable’s to get them up for work in the mornings. Are you even aware of knocking up?And so it’s a known fact that times have to be treated with caution. That’s not to say that if a witness said 7am that it could have been 8am it just means that it could have been 5 past or 10 past. This is to take reasonable caution under the circumstances. To deny this is to be dishonest.

Do we know Cadosch had a clock? No we don’t. He might have been knocked up by a Constable. That Constable might have knocked him and others up at around the same time everyday. But the fact of the matter is that a Constable couldn’t guarantee the exact same time. What if he had to stop on his round to deal with a problem? An unlocked gate, two people fighting, a drunk needing moving on, a call for help from a fellow officer. Any of these, or other things, could have meant that the Constable was 5 or 10 minutes or so later than usual knocking up Cadosch. And of course, without having a clock, Cadosch would just assume that it was the usual time. This is simply the truth. Without bias. He might have known the time pretty accurately or he might not have. Simple.

This is a fact Fishy. It’s also very simple. It’s also dishonest to try and claim otherwise.

Fascinating how your an expert on the habits and lifestyle of one albert codosch and what he did and didn't have i think you should seriously think about writing to scotland yard and asking them to remove all of long and codoschs inquest statments as they really mean jack sh..it according to you .

and again you missed the point of this thread as ususal .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I guess asking people to be subjective for the purpose of the exercise was bound to fail . Ahh well have it your way.

But ill bet my bottom dollar codosch knew exactly what time he got up, he did it every morning six days a week probably for years and im sure he went to the privy every morning too like most people do, and that he also had a fair estimate of how long that took him as well. As for long Is concerned i wonder how many times she passed the brewers clock on her way to the market and heard it strike 5.30 only to mistake it for 5.15 seriously?. But then the clock was probably wrong wasn't it .

In your world, being subjective means, agreeing with you. Every poster on this thread, apart from you, has been totally subjective and honest. Why can’t you grasp this very simple premise? One that everyone knows is a fact of history. That most working class people couldn’t have afforded to have owned a watch or a clock. Most people even relied on constable’s to get them up for work in the mornings. Are you even aware of knocking up?And so it’s a known fact that times have to be treated with caution. That’s not to say that if a witness said 7am that it could have been 8am it just means that it could have been 5 past or 10 past. This is to take reasonable caution under the circumstances. To deny this is to be dishonest.

Do we know Cadosch had a clock? No we don’t. He might have been knocked up by a Constable. That Constable might have knocked him and others up at around the same time everyday. But the fact of the matter is that a Constable couldn’t guarantee the exact same time. What if he had to stop on his round to deal with a problem? An unlocked gate, two people fighting, a drunk needing moving on, a call for help from a fellow officer. Any of these, or other things, could have meant that the Constable was 5 or 10 minutes or so later than usual knocking up Cadosch. And of course, without having a clock, Cadosch would just assume that it was the usual time. This is simply the truth. Without bias. He might have known the time pretty accurately or he might not have. Simple.

This is a fact Fishy. It’s also very simple. It’s also dishonest to try and claim otherwise.

[Cogidubnus]

I guess asking people to be subjective for the purpose of the exercise was bound to fail . Ahh well have it your way.

But ill bet my bottom dollar codosch knew exactly what time he got up, he did it every morning six days a week probably for years and im sure he went to the privy every morning too like most people do, and that he also had a fair estimate of how long that took him as well. As for long Is concerned i wonder how many times she passed the brewers clock on her way to the market and heard it strike 5.30 only to mistake it for 5.15 seriously?. But then the clock was probably wrong wasn't it .

Peter, I know you like absolute truths, and fixed facts...we all do...in a way they're our framework in life...but sadly the Late Victorian era is possibly the last one in the Western world when the absolute facts regarding timing just aren't there...

Like you, I believe Cadosche was a creature of habit, and having gone to bed when it got dark, easily woke early and pottered about until he heard the clock strike an hour, then started getting ready for work...a bit like you and I do (well I did until I retired but that's another story)...all well and good but what if he misheard a chime and went in an hour early? And yes, I've done that too even WITH a watch, (just after the clocks changed!)...So I can understand Mrs Long mishearing the chimes and going in early...

Dave

[FISHY1118]

I guess asking people to be subjective for the purpose of the exercise was bound to fail . Ahh well have it your way.

But ill bet my bottom dollar codosch knew exactly what time he got up, he did it every morning six days a week probably for years and im sure he went to the privy every morning too like most people do, and that he also had a fair estimate of how long that took him as well. As for long Is concerned i wonder how many times she passed the brewers clock on her way to the market and heard it strike 5.30 only to mistake it for 5.15 seriously?. But then the clock was probably wrong wasn't it .

[Cogidubnus]

As suggested lets not assume the witnesses may or may not have been mistaken , based on what they said at the inquest . lets try and accept what they said as true in there minds and try and work to that . it then forces us to try and figure out other ways in which the crime may have been committed . . .

Why not? In an age where most working folk couldn't afford watches, and many homes didn't have a clock...and many folk don't even have a home to go to, time as a concept, and peoples' perception of it, has to be a good deal more fluid...In terms of time, what they perceived was true in their minds may easily have been out...even at it's simplest, if something happened about halfway between the hour and quarter past, then it might've been at five past, or ten past...and who sets the clock anyway, and how, unless he can hear Big Ben, does he know?

This was an era when it took until 1880 for the government to legislate on the establishment of a single Standard Time and a single time zone for the country...The railway companies started it, but they had an extensive private telegraph system...the local verger didn't...To deny this fluidity of time is to assume every person on the street knew instinctively exactly where they were to the minute at any time of day...which is self-evident nonsense...sorry Peter, but that doesn't wash...

Dave

[drstrange169]

>>One must not assume clocks or watches were wrong .. .<<

Given the technology, it is an almost certainty that people did not have access to the exact time. The question we don't knows how inaccurate their times were.

With doctors statements, with have to interpret them through modern advances in medicine.

[FISHY1118]

One must not assume clocks or watches were wrong or peoples habits differ or change the times to suit another narrative .

As suggested lets not assume the witnesses may or may not have been mistaken , based on what they said at the inquest . lets try and accept what they said as true in there minds and try and work to that . it then forces us to try and figure out other ways in which the crime may have been committed . . .