Chapman and the thud on the fence

[mariab]

The question mark over expaining the thud arises if we go rather with the police pathologists TOD (which fit rather with Chapman's last known movements and Jack's MO).
I've never had a problem believing that the witnesses were honest. It's not even a case of proving them 'mistaken', since Cadosche never even claimed to have heard 'Annie'. It's more a case of suggesting that the coroner added 2+2 and made 5.

Hi Ruby. I definitely need to re-read the Vanderlinden article, as I've forgotten a few details. At this point I'd tentatively say that I'd go for Cadosh' testimony, with the possibility that Ms. Long saw someone else. There is NO doubt whatsoever in my mind that Cadosh witnessed Chapman with the Ripper.

[Rubyretro]

Considerable Doubt and the Death of Annie Chapman is the dissertation. Maria -I have never doubted Cadosche. He never said that the noises and the voice that he heard came from Chapman and the Ripper. If the police pathologists were correct, they couldn't have come from Chapman and the Ripper.

[Errata]

Considerable Doubt and the Death of Annie Chapman is the dissertation. Maria -I have never doubted Cadosche. He never said that the noises and the voice that he heard came from Chapman and the Ripper. If the police pathologists were correct, they couldn't have come from Chapman and the Ripper.

If she was covered with a mysterious sheen of water (or liquid) it may have been due to some of the rain the night before (before her death). There was about a 20 degree difference between day and night, and if she was already chilled from being wet in 40 degree weather while still alive, that could easily confuse time of death. As would the the opening of the abdomen, cooling the body far more rapidly than an intact corpse.

TOD back then was still an infant science. The accuracy of it could easily depend on who the attending was. If it was someone who does not often deal with violent death, it could easily have been badly botched. Even the most experienced pathologists of the day did not have any equations or measures for the variety of ways body temperature could be altered. We still haven't accounted for all the variables. Pathologist still occasionally throw up their hands and announce a 6-10 hour window in which someone could have been killed, because too many unknown factors are in play.

I think likely that all estimates of time were wrong. I think TOD is a little too early, I think the witness accounts are a little too late. I think the local clocks were each on a different time, and anyone with a watch was at the mercy of whoever set the clock they set their watch by. Typically people with watches set them at work, to avoid lateness and such. It was not at all uncommon for employers to set them a few minutes fast in the morning, then set them back a little during the day to get a little extra work out of people. If you set your watch by someone who does that, who knows how far off you are to actual time.

I would not be surprised at all if all of these inconsistencies were due to just enough error in time management to skew things in both directions. If the pathologist fails to take into account the likelihood of the victim being chilled before death, that could skew his TOD by about half an hour to an hour. Wrong clocks and the fact that nobody made a point to check the time at the time of seeing the victim could put them off by as much as half an hour.

My theory is, move the TOD forward maybe 45 minutes, and the witness testimonies back about 10 or 15 minutes, and things start making more sense.

[Phil H]

Errata

I would still argue that the murder can be pushed back. A killing when it was still dark makes much more sense in terms of the location and "Jack's" usual MO with Nichols and Eddowes.

If Cadoche heard what he heard, but it was others (i.e NOT "Jack" and Annie) and Mrs Long was mistaken, all the evidence remains valid only the interpretation changes.

Phil

[Wickerman]

... In a rarely reported comment from James Kent, he describes a sheen over the body that made it appear to him that the killer had sprinkled water over Chapman. I personally think it's possible he peed on her. But it could also have been the way the light gleamed on her bodily fluids.

Tom.
The smell of urine would be a reasonable tip-off to everyone who gathered over her body, whether in the yard or at the autopsy.
Thats one news report I don't remember reading, are you sure it wasn't "sheet over the body", not "sheen"?
Her apron had been pulled up over her and someone threw a cloth or sacking over her body if I recall correctly.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

From The Eastern Post & City Chronicle
Saturday, 15 September 1888.

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
RESUMED INQUEST.

James Kent, packing-case maker, residing at Shadwell, said he worked for Mr. Bailey, 23a, Hanbury Street, Spitalfields. He usually began work at 6 o'clock. Last Saturday morning he arrived at 10 minutes or a quarter past 6. The gate of his employer's place was open, but he waited outside a minute or two to see whether any fellow workman would come up. While he was waiting an old man named Davis (the one who discovered the body) ran out of the house where he lived in Hanbury Street and cried, "Men, come here." The witness and a man with him named James Green went up and entered the house out of which Davis had come. They passed along the passage to the back door.
The Coroner: Did you see the body of a woman?
The Witness: I did. She was lying in the yard between the back door steps and the fence. Her head was towards the house, but not against it. She was lying flat on the ground. Her clothes were thrown back, and you could see her knees. Her face was visible. I did not go into the yard, but I went to look at her twice. I do not think anybody went into the yard until the inspector (Chandler) arrived.
Could you see she was dead? - Yes; she had some kind of handkerchief round her neck which seemed "soaked" into her throat. Her face and hands were smeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She looked as if she had been sprinkled with water or something. I did not touch her.
What do you mean by a struggle? Well, she looked as if she had fought with her hands while lying on her back - as if she had fought for her throat. Her arms were bent with the hands towards the upper part of her body. There were marks of blood on her legs, but I did not see any running blood.
Was there running blood on her clothes? - Well, sir, I did not notice. I was too frightened to look very particularly.
Did you go for the police? - I went to the front of the house to look for a policeman, but could not find one. After that I got some brandy, and then went into the workshop for some canvas to throw over the body. When I returned to the house a mob had assembled, and the inspector was in possession of the yard. Everyone that looked at the body seemed frightened as if they would run away. We could see the place out of our shop yard.
Does anybody reach the shop before you? - Yes; the foreman, about 10 minutes to 6 o'clock.

[Errata]

Errata

I would still argue that the murder can be pushed back. A killing when it was still dark makes much more sense in terms of the location and "Jack's" usual MO with Nichols and Eddowes.

If Cadoche heard what he heard, but it was others (i.e NOT "Jack" and Annie) and Mrs Long was mistaken, all the evidence remains valid only the interpretation changes.

Phil

I agree it still could be pushed back. But if pushed forward by half an hour, it would still be dark. It wasn't even light at 5:30.

It's not the testimony of Cadosch that really begs for altering the timeline, it's the testimony of Richardson. I do not believe that Richardson could sit a couple of feet away from a dead woman and not see her.

TOD was estimated initially at 4:30 am. Now with the Nichols murder, there is quite a bit of mutilation, but none immediately purposeful. Chapman's uterus is removed. So there is an argument for a learning curve. So Jack kills her at 4:30, and then proceeds to cut her open and remove the uterus. Now had he the ability, it would be logical he would have done that to Nichols. So this is probably a new skill. And even if he practiced, this is still the first time he is doing it on a human. The leg positioning of the victim and the fact it was dark argues for him locating the uterus by feel. All things considered, I don't think he could have accomplished this and gotten away in 15 minutes.

Which would mean Richardson is casually sitting a few feet from a corpse, AND a man hiding somewhere in the yard, though not the cellar because Richardson checked there. The yard just isn't big enough or furnished enough for there to be two people in it that a man simply doesn't see.

As for a later kill not being his Jack's MO I agree, it does not seem ideal. But we don't know if he had to wait for his landlord to go to sleep, or if his access to streetwalkers was limited because of the rain, or there were a couple of botched attempts to solicit. Or even if he ran into someone he knew and couldn't get away earlier. There are too many factors that could alter the pattern schedule wise.. And I think unless the time of the murder was somehow significant to him, he would have to adaptable on it.

[Rubyretro]

Errata -have you actually read this dissertation ? Because the pathologist
certainly took into account the coldness of the night, and the digestion of Annie's baked potato. It is pointed out that they (the police doctors) had to have been right about the cases which we can know with certainty the TOD from independant corroboration.

It is interesting to note that Swanson and McNaughten both continued to believe the pathologist above the coroner's verdict, in the case of Chapman.

Personally, whilst I'm very well aware that pathology was in it's infancy in 1888, neither do I take the doctor's as complete fools who we can just discount if their opinions don't fit our preconcieived ideas.

edit; Oh, sorry ! that sounds a bit 'ratty' and I don't mean to be ! I'm tired from a day at work on a Sunday !

[mariab]

Thanks, Hunter, for posting the neswpaper report for James Kent.

In a rarely reported comment from James Kent, he describes a sheen over the body that made it appear to him that the killer had sprinkled water over Chapman. I personally think it's possible he peed on her. But it could also have been the way the light gleamed on her bodily fluids.

The smell of urine would be a reasonable tip-off to everyone who gathered over her body, whether in the yard or at the autopsy.

That's exactly what I thought myself when I read Tom's post.

[Errata]

Errata -have you actually read this dissertation ? Because the pathologist
certainly took into account the coldness of the night, and the digestion of Annie's baked potato. It is pointed out that they (the police doctors) had to have been right about the cases which we can know with certainty the TOD from independant corroboration.

Personally, whilst I'm very well aware that pathology was in it's infancy in 1888, neither do I take the doctor's as complete fools who we can just discount if their opinions don't fit our preconcieived ideas.

I have read the dissertation, and I don't think the doctor was a fool or incompetent. I'm not even sure he was wrong. I think that a few factors may not have been taken into account. I do not disagree with the assumptions made about the condition and appearance of her body after death. I absolutely believe they took into account the coolness of the evening, and the fact that the body would cool faster in a colder environment, and with great blood loss. The way the equations work, The assumption is that a time of death, the body's internal temperature is 98.6. It's why viruses can easily muddle TOD, because viruses are typically accompanied by a high fever.

If Annie Chapman was cold and wet while still alive, her core body temperature at time of death could easily be a degree or so lower. So then you have to apply the equations to an initial temperature of 97.6. Which alters time of death. Being chilled also alters digestion, slowing it down considerably.

And the doctor would have known this. I mean, they knew that core temperatures drop in chilled patients. But knowledge effortlessly applied in a living patient does not necessarily show up on cue for an examination of a corpse. If he had considered a lower core temperature at time of death, I would have thought he would say so, firstly to explain his conclusions, and secondly because he might well have been the first person to put those two things together, and he could justly take a bit of pride in that.

Or he absolutely took it into account. I don't know. But he didn't say he did, and he was under some scrutiny given his testimony contradicted 3 witnesses.

Randomly:
In the dissertation, a doctor stated that it would take two or so hours to digest the potato. I think that may be wrong, although I say this with the full knowledge that he was a doctor and I am not. I learned that high starch/high fiber foods of sensible proportions can easily take as long as meat to break down in the stomach, and that is at least 5 hours. It's not really so much a size issue as a degree of difficulty issue. Potatoes, celery, cabbage sort of rank a 9 in degree of difficulty. Something about a high cellulose content. But my Google Fu is failing me today, and I cant find how long it takes to digest a potato. So I am unsupported in my claim.

[mariab]

culinary and postmortem observations

Errata -have you actually read this dissertation? Because the pathologist certainly took into account the coldness of the night, and the digestion of Annie's baked potato. It is pointed out that they (the police doctors) had to have been right about the cases which we can know with certainty the TOD from independant corroboration.

Time of death is a super complex/tricky process to be established “with certainty“, Ruby, even with today's advanced medical technology. What is an “independent corroboration“? Even a doctor's opinion on time of death can be highly subjective.

I'm not necessarily convinced by the arguments expressed by Wolf Vanderlinden in this specific dissertation. Several of the medical details he brings forward are not correct, as in:
- The doctor who told Mr. Vanderlinden that a baked potato can be digested “in about an hour“ was ludicrously wrong. An apple can be digested in about an hour an a half. A potato would require at least 4-5 hours. Of course, it all depends on the person's metabolism, particularly on how often Annie Chapman ate.
- Mr. Vanderlinden mentions the fact that exposure to cold temperatures delays the rigor mortis process. This pertains to REALLY cold temperatures, close to refrigeration. I very much doubt that the rainy weather of early September London would be lower than, say, 10°C/50°F. Which is nothing close to refrigeration.

It is interesting to note that Swanson and McNaughten both continued to believe the pathologist above the coroner's verdict, in the case of Chapman.

Macnagthen was too far from the case to be counted as an informed opinion. And Swanson simply and carefully expresses doubts, instead of “believing the pathologist“:
Again, if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m., then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. {sic} and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m.. Hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted.

Randomly:
In the dissertation, a doctor stated that it would take two or so hours to digest the potato. I think that may be wrong, although I say this with the full knowledge that he was a doctor and I am not. I learned that high starch/high fiber foods of sensible proportions can easily take as long as meat to break down in the stomach, and that is at least 5 hours. It's not really so much a size issue as a degree of difficulty issue. Potatoes, celery, cabbage sort of rank a 9 in degree of difficulty. Something about a high cellulose content.

You're absolutely correct, Errata, except for the sellery. :-) Further, if one is attentive to their bodily functions, it's pretty clear to notice when ingested food got digested. One clearly feels the lightness in their stomach. Potatoes are super hard to digest, more than other starches, like, say, pasta. That's why eating baked/cooked potatoes keeps one warm in the winter. (For some reason, French fries are quicker to digest than cooked/baked potatoes. Maybe because they absorbe air, like popcorn?)

To Ruby: I'm sure you've eaten tartiflette, Ruby. Even a small portion goes down like rocks and makes one sluggish, and this due to the potatoes being the main/the sole ingredient. Compared to that, one can eat the hugest portion of raclette (which is just cheese) and remain light as a feather, go do sports/swim immediately afterwards, whatever.

It's not the testimony of Cadosch that really begs for altering the timeline, it's the testimony of Richardson.

Precisely. It would be tempting to assume that Richardson got the time wrong or self-inflated his testimony, but he was seen by another neighbor checking the basement door. Still, Cadosh' testimony convinces me, because it fits with the evidence in situ.

[Bridewell]

As the houses on the north side of Hanbury Street were only demolished in the 1960's there must still be people who remember them. It would be useful to have the original architect's drawings, to determine exactly how the buildings were laid out and where the possible hiding places might have been.

[Phil H]

As the houses on the north side of Hanbury Street were only demolished in the 1960's there must still be people who remember them. It would be useful to have the original architect's drawings, to determine exactly how the buildings were laid out and where the possible hiding places might have been.

What hiding places?

We know the layout of No29 - we have photographs of the corridor between the front and back doors (looking both ways) and of the yard, and we also have the "London Nobody Knows" footage shot in the yard. (OK it might have changed a tad between 1888 and the mid-60s but clearly not that much). That information is SPECIFIC to No 29. So why ask for non-relevant plans and why are you seeking a hiding place anyway?

On a separate issue, there is no question of Richardson "missing" the body if it was there - I assume that the smell alone would have called his attention to what was there.

But I think we have enough points from the dissertation to establish at least a question mark over whether he did what he said he did. If he just briefly poked his head through the yard door, looking to his right to peek at the lock of the cellar door, he MIGHT not have seen Annie's corpse.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

Oh, dear back to this thread -I say 'oh, dear' because people constantly came back to the fact that they 'believed Cadoshe's testimony' as if I didn't; I did and do.

Only Cadoshe never said that he heard JTR and Annie. He couldn't say that, as he didn't have x-ray eyes to see through the fence, and couldn't guess that anyone would be murdered in the neighbours yard.

With hindsight the inferrence was that he heard Annie being killed by JTR.
Maybe he didn't, though.

[K-453]

I’m going with the doctor’s estimated time of death also.

Some thoughts:

If it was the door which caused the “bang”, Cadosh must have seen the upper part of it moving and somebody coming out or going in.

Could the door really have sheltered an outstretched body completely from Mr. Richardson’s view? He must have seen at least its legs.
And about the darkness then – remember, it was pitch black in Dutfield’s Yard, yet Diemschutz spotted “some unusual object”, which was enough to make him get off his barrow and strike a match.
(Well, he noticed it only because his pony shied, but still!)

I wonder if the “bang” could be caused by some animal tampering with the body.