Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[JeffHamm]

Do we really have sufficient reason to think that Chapman, who was very cold and starting to stiffen, was found after a similar interval to Eddowes, who was warm and showing no signs of stiffening?

Yes, because the variation in both of those measures is large, and the circumstances of the victims (amount of clothing worn, duration of time outside, etc) are very different.

Do we have sufficient reason to think that Cadoche may have heard Chapman say one word and fall against the fence, without his hearing anything during the intervening minutes?

Given you said "may have heard", yes we do because that is what he testified and when his testimony is compared with the testimony of the other witnesses, including Dr. Phillips, there is nothing that indicates he was mistaken. That doesn't prove he wasn't mistaken, but it provides sufficient reason to think he may have heard Chapman say "No", and may have heard something brush up against the fence while Chapman was on the ground beside it (whether it was Chapman or JtR that brushed against the fence would remain unclear of course).

Do we have sufficient reason to think that Richardson was in a position to be aware of Chapman's presence in a yard which he did not actually enter?

Yes, given the presence of his legging spring, found in a position that would be consistent with his testimony of sitting on the steps with his feet on the flagstones while repairing his boot, there is reason to believe his testimony. From that position he could not have missed the body, and his testimony indicates he is confident she was not there. While confidence can be misplaced, all things combined give more than sufficient reason to think he was in a position to be aware of Chapman's body had she been there.

Do we have sufficient reason to think that Long saw Chapman with the murderer when all kinds of clocks need to be wrong by many minutes, quite apart from Phillips' estimate having to be way out?

We have sufficient reason to believe that Long saw a couple, and we have sufficient reason to be skeptical of the time she reports that sighting to have occurred. Based upon the various possible addresses that have been suggested for her, all tend to point to her passing Brick Lane and Hanbury Street closer to 5:15 than 5:30. Moreover, Cadosch's testimony has him leaving for work at the same time this sighting is supposed to have occurred, and his testimony points to the couple and Mrs. Long not being present. That too suggests that the couple and Mrs. Long have left the area by 5:30, although we must take into account the fact that Mrs. Long and Cadosch are setting their times by different clocks, which as we have seen, are likely to be reading different times. Moreover, Phillip's testimony is not way out. His estimate as stated differs by less than 1 hour (about 55 minutes), and the range of errors of estimation for ToD is much much larger than that +-3 hours, so +-180 minutes), as such the times do not conflict. Finally, Mrs. Long does not just testify that she recognized Annie, but states under oath she was sure the woman in the morgue was the woman she saw. Again, while confidence can be misplaced, it does tell us she was confident in her identification.

That all being said, identification can be quite unreliable, moreso depending upon the circumstances by which the identification is carried out (which we do not know). Therefore, in my opinion, we don't have sufficient reason to be overly confident that Mrs. Long saw Annie and her killer, but we do have sufficient reason to consider it as a reasonable possibility. We certainly have no reason to dismiss her outright.

And what would be the end result?

The end result of any of those witnesses being correct would point to a ToD after Richardson's visit, which falls within the range of times that are consistent with Dr. Phillip's estimated ToD, and so would point to a time that is consistent with both the witnesses and the medical testimony.

That the police should have been looking for a Jewish man about twice the age of Aaron Kosminski or David Cohen or Nathan Kaminski and maybe as much as ten years older than Hutchinson's suspect and even about twice the age of Seweryn Kłosowski.

And with no shortage of witnesses willing to accuse Jews, somehow the forty-something Jewish suspect does not attract the attention of Hutchinson or a pseudo-Hutchinson in or around Dorset Street nor anyone near Mitre Square around the time Lawende and friends walked down Duke Street.

The dark-haired middle-aged Jewish suspect somehow turns up out of nowhere and takes Eddowes' hand off the breast of a 30-year-old man with fair hair and murders her.

With regards to Mrs. Long description of the man seen with Annie, we have good reason to view that portion of her testimony with more caution. She herself states she only saw the man from behind, as such I would place little confidence on her description beyond his clothing and his relative height. We have no idea what it was that leads her to describe the man's age or why she thought him "foreign looking", and so we should treat those details as probably unreliable.

Is that not all considerably more farfetched than my theory that the 30-odd man with the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache met Chapman in or near Hanbury Street soon after she set off in that direction and murdered her shortly afterwards, and that that is why there were no further sightings of her and why she was so cold and starting to stiffen, and also why the murderer did not notice the water with which he could have cleaned his hands?

I'm unaware of any 30 year old male, with a fair moustache, with the appearance of a sailor being seen in the vicinity of Hanbury Street on the night in question. Given there is no evidence of such a man, to my knowledge, but there is testimony from Mrs. Long about her man, then yes, even though Mrs. Long's testimony pertaining to the description is very weak evidence, it is still infinitely more information than the alternative. Of course, if I'm mistaken, and there is a description of such a man, then that assessment would have to change accordingly.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my reply below.

Phillips ... did not discuss potential errors based on loss of blood and the morning cold air when he spoke to Chandler, did he? He was quite positive at the crime scene.


Unless you are referring to some testimony I have missed, the only time Phillips testified about the time of death, he said:

I should say at least two hours...

He did not say, I thought at least two hours, but now I think otherwise.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Is that not all considerably more farfetched than my theory that the 30-odd man with the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache met Chapman in or near Hanbury Street soon after she set off in that direction and murdered her shortly afterwards, and that that is why there were no further sightings of her and why she was so cold and starting to stiffen, and also why the murderer did not notice the water with which he could have cleaned his hands?

A problem that I have always had with proposals of a murder in that yard in the middle of the night is that the murder and such specific mutilations would have to have been carried out in pitch black darkness. I don't find that plausible. It would have been very possible in twilight.

Phillips is said to have revealed details of "the deliberate, successful, and apparently scientific manner" of the mutilations, and that he himself could not have done this in under 15 minutes. It is impossible to envisage this being done swiftly and in complete darkness. I can only believe that this murder was carried out with at least some early morning light.

[Doctored Whatsit]

His qualification of his estimate of the time of death was based on the weather conditions and loss of blood, both of which he observed prior to conducting the post-mortem.

Back to the question I asked some time ago - if Phillips was still standing firmly by his original ToD, why would he decide to advise the inquest "but it was right to mention" the coldness of the morning and the extreme loss of blood? This could only be interpreted as introducing a reason for possible error. He did not discuss potential errors based on loss of blood and the morning cold air when he spoke to Chandler, did he? He was quite positive at the crime scene. The reason for a little flexibility didn't get mentioned till the inquest, and it was totally voluntary. No-one was cross questioning him and doubting his word. He chose to introduce the doubt.

He decided to mention some reservations which he then had, and which he hadn't previously mentioned. What had happened in the meantime was the post mortem which identified several crucial and relevant issues not evident to him when he first examined the body. He made this very clear in his evidence. You are right that he didn't mention them as the reason for his change of heart, but they would have been very relevant reasons for expressing a reservation about his original ToD.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do we really have sufficient reason to think that Chapman, who was very cold and starting to stiffen, was found after a similar interval to Eddowes, who was warm and showing no signs of stiffening?

Do we have sufficient reason to think that Cadoche may have heard Chapman say one word and fall against the fence, without his hearing anything during the intervening minutes?

Do we have sufficient reason to think that Richardson was in a position to be aware of Chapman's presence in a yard which he did not actually enter?

Do we have sufficient reason to think that Long saw Chapman with the murderer when all kinds of clocks need to be wrong by many minutes, quite apart from Phillips' estimate having to be way out?

And what would be the end result?

That the police should have been looking for a Jewish man about twice the age of Aaron Kosminski or David Cohen or Nathan Kaminski and maybe as much as ten years older than Hutchinson's suspect and even about twice the age of Seweryn Kłosowski.

And with no shortage of witnesses willing to accuse Jews, somehow the forty-something Jewish suspect does not attract the attention of Hutchinson or a pseudo-Hutchinson in or around Dorset Street nor anyone near Mitre Square around the time Lawende and friends walked down Duke Street.

The dark-haired middle-aged Jewish suspect somehow turns up out of nowhere and takes Eddowes' hand off the breast of a 30-year-old man with fair hair and murders her.

Is that not all considerably more farfetched than my theory that the 30-odd man with the appearance of a sailor and a fair moustache met Chapman in or near Hanbury Street soon after she set off in that direction and murdered her shortly afterwards, and that that is why there were no further sightings of her and why she was so cold and starting to stiffen, and also why the murderer did not notice the water with which he could have cleaned his hands?

[JeffHamm]

Totally agree with your final sentence, Jeff.

All we can say for sure is that this woman died after she was last seen alive and before she was found dead.

That's not a criticism of Dr. Phillips, but a fact of life and death, better understood today than in 1888, that ToD is a very inexact science indeed, and still relies on witness testimony to set the parameters. These days, CCTV or phone records can help set those parameters in stone, but it can still prove impossible to pinpoint the moment of death within those parameters using science alone.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Exactly! It's not a put down of Dr. Phillip's to point out that the estimation of ToD is highly imprecise, it's acknowledging the limits of the tools we have to make that type of estimate. And the limits are such that, in the case of Annie Chapman, the estimated ToD of 4:30 creates a time window wider than that created by when she left the doss house until she was found dead. As such, in this particular case, we learn nothing new from estimating the ToD. It's too inexact to narrow our focus.

It is clear that many are having a hard time with the notion of variation, and how that gets factored in when evaluating a predicted value (in this case, the predicted value is the estimated ToD), but the variation reflects the error of that prediction. We tend to hone in on the singular value, because that's easy to think about, but it is a will-o-the-wisp and will lead you astray if you don't consider the range of values that go with it; which in this case is a range spanning +-3 hours (again, I've previously presented a number of different research articles on this where +-3 hours is given as today's "gold standard").

This is why I keep saying, there is no conflict between the medical estimate and the witness statements! The witnesses place the ToD around 5:25, and the medical estimates create a time window that includes 5:25, therefore there is no conflict to resolve.

That doesn't meant the witnesses shouldn't be scrutinized, and it doesn't mean the witnesses have to be correct, but it does mean that one cannot say the witnesses are likely to be wrong because it conflicts with the medical testimony. Again, because there is no conflict.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I would think we could give Dr Phillips a bit more credit as a doctor and his ability to give a more accurate t.o.d than that which you mentioned Jeff.

I just don't think he would have been that blazay about Chapmans t.o.d as to leave us to believe she was killed between 1.50 am and 6.00 am .

I imagine he would have seen his fair share of dead people, and would no doubt have been asked to give an estimate on t.o.d in more than one occasion.
We just can't nor should we discount his estimate about Chapmans death that easily imo.

Hi Fishy,

I'm not critizing Dr. Phillips, nor questioning his skills. I'm pointing out that ToD estimation is simply something that is highly inexact in terms of it's accuracy - even today when we have 130+ more years of research trying to improve the precision. Estimates made today, even by the very best medical professionals, still have a +-3 hour range around the estimated ToD. It was not better in 1888; that's not Dr. Phillip's fault, it is just what happens when you have to make an estimate without knowing some very important values (like the person's temperature at the time of death, which obviously Dr. Phillip's cannot know, so if he did any calculations he would use 98.6, and already we have something that will result in a range of error from the true ToD depending upon how much, and in which direction, Annie's actual body temperature differed from that value).

It's not Dr. Phillip's fault that estimating ToD is simply a highly inexact estimate. To give him "credit" would be to suggest that he was capable of something that he has no reason to be capable of.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Good stuff as usual Jeff.

If it was the earlier ToD (and I mean when still fully dark) do we know anything about lighting in back yard? We know there was enough light for him to be able to see what he was doing in Mitre Square, but wouldn't a back yard have been very dark. Would it make a difference to the appearance of her injuries (e.g. preceived skill on some level) if he had full daylight to work in?

Hi Aethelwulf,

I haven't seen anything about the lighting conditions prior to Richardson's visit, where he indicates he could see easily. There's no mention of any lighting in the backyard, and I wouldn't expect there to be. So we can't be sure as to how dark it would be as that would be situational, but I suspect it was very dark when there was no moon light.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Of course he must have considered the post mortem results. There was little point in doing a post mortem if he ignored his own findings, having discovered significant fresh information. So you believe his qualification "but it is right to mention...", which caused the coroner to accept genuine doubt as to accuracy, was based on his initial observation, and nothing else? He didn't qualify his ToD when advising Chandler.

His qualification of his estimate of the time of death was based on the weather conditions and loss of blood, both of which he observed prior to conducting the post-mortem.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I think that's wrong.

Phillips never said that he thought Chapman had been dead for two hours and probably more but that after conducting her post-mortem, a reservation occurred to him.

He did not testify that (1) his estimate was based on his initial examination of her but that (2) his qualification was an afterthought resulting from a later examination.

His estimate and qualification of it were based on his initial examination and the conditions that morning and not on the post-mortem at all.

Of course he must have considered the post mortem results. There was little point in doing a post mortem if he ignored his own findings, having discovered significant fresh information. So you believe his qualification "but it is right to mention...", which caused the coroner to accept genuine doubt as to accuracy, was based on his initial observation, and nothing else? He didn't qualify his ToD when advising Chandler.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Trev,

Your argument might have worked better if Chapman and Eddowes had been identical twins, with identical health issues, and if their killer had inflicted identical injuries to both their bodies, resulting in identical blood loss.

The point has also already been made that if Chapman could have been wandering the early morning streets, very unwell and exhausted, for considerably longer than Eddowes did after she left the warmth of the police station and soon encountered her killer, that could have made a difference too.

Chapman was killed just a week after Nichols, so there is also the possibility that the ripper had to spend longer trawling the streets before encountering this poor desperate soul and going with her to Hanbury Street.

Love,

Caz
X

The fact that Chapman was reported to have been involved in two fights during the last eight days of her life suggests she may not have been in as weakened a state as you imagine.

The last reports we have of their last intakes of nourishment have Chapman eating a baked potato and Eddowes drinking alcohol.

The mortuary photograph of Eddowes' whole body does not appear to suggest that she was well-nourished.

I would add that if Chapman could have been wandering the early morning streets, very unwell and exhausted, for several hours after leaving Dorset Street, one might have expected someone to have reported seeing her somewhere.

[caz]

I guess you have never been in a police cell, even today when prisoners are locked up for any length of time in a police cell they complain of the cold despite being given blankets.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The injuries, however similar, were not identical.

A police cell late at night - with or without a blanket - is still going to feel less cold than out facing the elements in the early hours, Trev. A poor state of health and nutrition will only add to the chill factor for anyone unlucky enough to be outdoors.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

His estimate and qualification of it were based on his initial examination and the conditions that morning and not on the post-mortem at all.

If you are correct, PI, then maybe Dr. Phillips should have taken into account his findings at the post-mortem. They were surely relevant!

[caz]

Dr. Phillips gave his estimate, but indicated that he was open to it being wrong when he said "..."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". This is noted by the coroner during his summing up when he says "...It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces. But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed the man and woman cannot have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, close by where she was last seen by any witness. ..." Basically, the coroner is indicating that the medical estimate for the ToD should not be viewed as automatically over-ruling the witnesses.

A big part of Dr.P's estimate would be based upon the body temperature. In his testimony he never indicates he took any actual temperature readings, and the only thing he states is how the body felt to the touch (cold). Some have argued that it seems highly probable that he would have taken a temperature reading with a thermometer, though (but given the gut cavity has been opened and emptied, even this might lead to an overestimation as the formulas in use are based upon how the internal temperature of intact bodies change over time). While that is an assumption, for the sake of argument, let's say that he did, giving him some objective value to work with.

Even today, estimates of the ToD based upon taking temperature readings, and factoring in body mass, the external temperature, and other factors, the accuracy of the estimate is only within +-3 hours (I've presented various research articles on this in the past, so the information is already on the boards, and there were lengthy discussions on this already so there's no point in going over the same thing again). But in short, in order for 5:25 to be considered inconsistent with Dr. Phillip's estimate, his estimate for Annie's murder would have to be 2:24 am or earlier. His estimate of 4:30ish means she was likely killed between 1:30am and 7:30 am. We can rule out some of that time because she was found dead at just before 6am, and we know she was in the doss house until 1:45am. And that is based upon the assumption that he took an actual temperature reading, recorded the temperature at the scene, and factored in things like her body mass, and so forth because that is what is done now, and even now the estimates are associated with +-3 hours. In the studies that I found looking at short post-mortem intervals, the error was, if anything, even worse (even wider margins of error). Adding rigor mortis information doesn't narrow this error window either.

In short, all Dr. Phillip's estimate tells us is that Annie was killed sometime after she left the doss house and before the time she was found. The estimation for ToD is a very very crude estimate, and in this case, even today, it is too imprecise to provide us with any useful information.

- Jeff

Totally agree with your final sentence, Jeff.

All we can say for sure is that this woman died after she was last seen alive and before she was found dead.

That's not a criticism of Dr. Phillips, but a fact of life and death, better understood today than in 1888, that ToD is a very inexact science indeed, and still relies on witness testimony to set the parameters. These days, CCTV or phone records can help set those parameters in stone, but it can still prove impossible to pinpoint the moment of death within those parameters using science alone.

Love,

Caz
X

[Aethelwulf]

Dr Sequeira

"I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed"

So yes, as I said, it was considered light enough. 'Darkest part of the sqaure' is relative, not an absolute measure of how dark it was. So it could still be the darkest part of the square and light enough.

certainly, not enough light to remove organs

Certain means you know unequivically. Clearly you do not.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Back to Chapman, what was the lighting situation do we know?