Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Did not one of the Drs say he knew the square well and there was certainly enough light - or something along those lines?

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"

As to what deed, certainly, not enough light to remove organs but enough light to simply murder and mutilate

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But the injuries were identical both had their throats cut and both had their abdomens ripped open

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 Nicholls, 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

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

I think you are wrong about the light in Mitre Square the murder spot was described as the darkest part of the square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Did not one of the Drs say he knew the square well and there was certainly enough light - or something along those lines?

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

I think you are wrong about the light in Mitre Square the murder spot was described as the darkest part of the square

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Well a good guide is to compare the medical examinations by the doctors who attended the crime scenes of both Chapman and Eddowes and how they found the bodies and what they observed as far as the onset of rigor, after all the weather conditions were very similar and both victims had their abdomens opened and almost identical time gaps between doctors attending those crime scenes and what they observed. All we can do is assess and compare and that comparison in my opinion favours an early time of death

Of course, the witness testimony is unsafe Mrs Long is all over the place, Cadosh hears a bump which could have come from anywhere

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is really all about how you interpret what Phillips said. He was giving evidence at an inquest. That evidence had to include his original observation "when he first saw her", and then he added his more up-to-date view, ie after performing a post mortem which collected far more relevant information, hence his addition of "but it was right to mention..."...

Phillips said at the inquest that Chapman had been dead "at least two hours .... when he first saw her". That was him telling the coroner what he said when he first viewed the body. This was relevant evidence. It was not necessarily what he decided after the post mortem. Indeed, we all know that after the post mortem he felt he had to give the inquest a little more information that could only serve to cast some doubt on his first observation. Why did he do this if he wanted to stand firmly by his original ToD?

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.

[Aethelwulf]

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

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?

[Doctored Whatsit]

I have read Dr Phillips' evidence as it was reported at the time.

I do not see any comment by him to the effect that he changed his mind about how long Chapman had been dead based on observations made during the post-mortem.

He said: The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

If Chapman was in such poor physical condition as to cause her to have a lower body temperature than others', why was there a certain remaining heat?

Phillips gave his opinion about Chapman's having been been dead for two hours or more after conducting the post-mortem, not before it.

If he had changed his mind about Chapman's having been dead for at least two hours, then why did he nevertheless state it at the inquest?

If he thought she might have been dead for only an hour, why did he give it as his opinion that she was probably dead for more than two hours?

It is really all about how you interpret what Phillips said. He was giving evidence at an inquest. That evidence had to include his original observation "when he first saw her", and then he added his more up-to-date view, ie after performing a post mortem which collected far more relevant information, hence his addition of "but it was right to mention...". Clearly Phillips thought it was necessary to add this further information. He then neither repeated his original observation nor changed it. He was a very experienced doctor, and he appears to have deliberately introduced his reservation about the time of death without qualifying it. "But it was right to mention..." can only be interpreted as second thoughts, or the possibility of error. The coroner clearly believed he was leaving the "door open" to allow the witness statements to be potentially accepted.

As to your two points about body heat and mind changing, firstly, I think there can be no doubt that there would still have been "a certain remaining heat", if the murder had been very recent, no matter what Chapman's physical condition.

Secondly, and repeating myself somewhat, Phillips said at the inquest that Chapman had been dead "at least two hours .... when he first saw her". That was him telling the coroner what he said when he first viewed the body. This was relevant evidence. It was not necessarily what he decided after the post mortem. Indeed, we all know that after the post mortem he felt he had to give the inquest a little more information that could only serve to cast some doubt on his first observation. Why did he do this if he wanted to stand firmly by his original ToD?

[FISHY1118]

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.

[JeffHamm]

I have read Dr Phillips' evidence as it was reported at the time.

I do not see any comment by him to the effect that he changed his mind about how long Chapman had been dead based on observations made during the post-mortem.

He said: The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

If Chapman was in such poor physical condition as to cause her to have a lower body temperature than others', why was there a certain remaining heat?

Phillips gave his opinion about Chapman's having been been dead for two hours or more after conducting the post-mortem, not before it.

If he had changed his mind about Chapman's having been dead for at least two hours, then why did he nevertheless state it at the inquest?

If he thought she might have been dead for only an hour, why did he give it as his opinion that she was probably dead for more than two hours?

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have read Dr Phillips' evidence as it was reported at the time.

I do not see any comment by him to the effect that he changed his mind about how long Chapman had been dead based on observations made during the post-mortem.

He said: The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

If Chapman was in such poor physical condition as to cause her to have a lower body temperature than others', why was there a certain remaining heat?

Phillips gave his opinion about Chapman's having been been dead for two hours or more after conducting the post-mortem, not before it.

If he had changed his mind about Chapman's having been dead for at least two hours, then why did he nevertheless state it at the inquest?

If he thought she might have been dead for only an hour, why did he give it as his opinion that she was probably dead for more than two hours?

[Doctored Whatsit]

It seems that in this case, the best medical evidence - that of the only person who actually examined the victim - is being rubbished (though not by Jeff) in order to accommodate the witness testimony with which it conflicts.

Long is often reported to have seen the murderer and Chapman in front of number 29, but it seems that whomever she saw were standing in front of number 31.

Cadoche is reported to have heard the murderer conversing with Chapman and then attacking her, but he heard no conversation between them nor any activity during the intervening five minutes or so.

Richardson never even entered the yard and we have to rely on his claim that he sat on the second step in order to prove Phillips wrong.

Long did not see the couple enter number 29 and Cadoche did not see anyone at all.

No-one saw Chapman after 1.50 a.m., even though, we are told, she was wandering the streets for hours.

Phillips' evidence should have been treated with more respect by the coroner and should be treated more respectfully now.

It was, of course, Phillips himself who cast doubt on his original time of death. He felt that "the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her." However, after conducting the post mortem, he was now aware of much more than he was at the murder scene. The cutting at the neck seems to have been more than he originally thought, and he referred to an apparent attempt to sever the neck. Then there were massive abdominal mutilations beyond those he noticed initially, and furthermore the body being "far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain". Also "there were signs of great deprivation, and he should say she had been badly fed". All of these were items of fresh evidence, and all would contribute to a quicker cooling of the body, and indeed quite possibly a lower body temperature when alive. He chose therefore to add in his evidence "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".

It was Phillips' evidence that caused the coroner to rethink the time of death.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for reminding everyone about this issue which seems to be misunderstood or ignored.

We covered the issue of unreliable clock evidence in some detail in "A question of time", a thread which didn't last long, and seems to have been overlooked by many. It demonstrated very clearly that time in London in 1888 was very approximate at best. A witness was likely to say it was 8. 20 am because that was what the nearest clock showed, but another clock nearby might record 8. 30 or 8.10, and neither were likely to agree with GMT. Two different sources indicated that one London borough had clocks 20 minutes off GMT. I believe that the police and the railways used GMT but virtually no-one else.

When dealing with times quoted by witnesses we must not expect them to tally accurately because they probably won't.

Hi all,

The thread Dr. Whatsit mentions can be found here. Just a brief (9 or 10 posts) discussion on clock accuracy, similar to what we're covering here. In it I allude to an historical article, which is the same one I mention in this thread. Just posting this to provide the links between the two threads.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I've alluded to this before but we don't know which witnesses or in fact if any saw the Ripper. And also considering witness testimony's are notoriously unreliable. It is unsafe to rely too heavily on any witness statements in this case.

It seems that in this case, the best medical evidence - that of the only person who actually examined the victim - is being rubbished (though not by Jeff) in order to accommodate the witness testimony with which it conflicts.

Long is often reported to have seen the murderer and Chapman in front of number 29, but it seems that whomever she saw were standing in front of number 31.

Cadoche is reported to have heard the murderer conversing with Chapman and then attacking her, but he heard no conversation between them nor any activity during the intervening five minutes or so.

Richardson never even entered the yard and we have to rely on his claim that he sat on the second step in order to prove Phillips wrong.

Long did not see the couple enter number 29 and Cadoche did not see anyone at all.

No-one saw Chapman after 1.50 a.m., even though, we are told, she was wandering the streets for hours.

Phillips' evidence should have been treated with more respect by the coroner and should be treated more respectfully now.

[John Wheat]

I've alluded to this before but we don't know which witnesses or in fact if any saw the Ripper. And also considering witness testimony's are notoriously unreliable. It is unsafe to rely too heavily on any witness statements in this case.