Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[Bridewell]

If as claimed the ''NO '' was the start of the attack on Chapman, it wouldnt have taken 3 to 4 minutes to lay her body on the ground in between Cadoschs back and forth .

Thus it wasnt Chapmans body hitting the fence as some suggest , nor was it the killers, as it has been shown all the injuries to her body were done from her right hand side. There was no need for the killer to be between her and the fence during the mutilations stage so that he could somehow brush up against the fence .

So as i suggested the noise cannot be proven to the killer in action at the time casdosh heard it .

It was just a noise the he heard as Chapmam was long dead already imo.

Like i said 3444 post that have alread cover this on the John Richardson thread ,so i dont see the need to go any further here , cheers .

So whatever fell against the fence wasn't Annie Chapman. That means it was something else - which someone must have moved before the body was discovered. That has to be the case because the only things found on the floor in that yard were Annie Chapman and her belongings. (Either that or Cadosch made the whole thing up which I concede is a possibility). I respect your desire not to comment further btw so won't take it amiss if you don't.

[Bridewell]

I should probably admit to playing devil's advocate here. I favour an earlier time of death for Chapman too. I think that Mrs Long, though truthful (and accurate in terms of the time) was probably mistaken (though sincere) in identifying Chapman as the woman she saw. A witness can be certain and still be mistaken, as I think she was. Eye witness identification is particularly problematic in terms of reliability (See R v Turnbull [1977]). Cadosch, I suspect, either heard nothing or exaggerated what he had heard. His evidence cannot be wholly discounted but I don't see him as a reliable witness.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The other conundrum is that at this point around five minutes have elapsed between the 'no' and the thud .
No talking heard , rustling
Are we to presume they stood there gazing into each others eyes and that our super smart elusive killer was happily standing there as this door at 27 swinging open rather frequently with someone walking up and down the yard .
Wouldn't it have spooked him somewhat ?

I recall typing a comment on another thread yesterday - which seems not to have been published - in which not only did I make a similar point to yours but I used the same estimate of a five-minute interval between the hearing of 'no' and the noise of something falling against the fence.

The point I made was that, from what we know of the murderer's Modus Operandi, what is the likelihood that he would have waited five minutes before striking his victim, especially as it was getting light and he was more and more likely to be disturbed while doing any mutilation and, consequently, to be caught in such a confined space.

I think you make rather a good point with which to finish.

If Cadoche could hear the murderer's movements, why could the murderer not hear Cadoche's?

[DJA]

I recall typing a comment on another thread yesterday - which seems not to have been published

[FISHY1118]

So whatever fell against the fence wasn't Annie Chapman. That means it was something else - which someone must have moved before the body was discovered. That has to be the case because the only things found on the floor in that yard were Annie Chapman and her belongings. (Either that or Cadosch made the whole thing up which I concede is a possibility). I respect your desire not to comment further btw so won't take it amiss if you don't.

Why would you assume someone moved something ?, ,Cadosch only mentioned a "noise" that sounded as if something brushed up against the fence .

He couldn't be sure where the "NO " came from ,nor does he say "someone" made the noise against fence so we are left with any number of other possibilities.

This was also covered in the John Richardson Thread.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It was you who suggested moving discussion to another thread.

I have done so.

If you want to post emojis instead of intelligible comments, perhaps you would be so good as to move them to a thread devoted to your special interest.

[DJA]

[JeffHamm]

Sorry, but this will be fairly long! (Pun not intended, but not avoided either! )

- Jeff

The testimony of Elizabeth Long:
Day 3, Thursday, September 13, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, September 14, 1888, Page 3)


Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased. I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark. He was wearing a brown low-crowned felt hat. I think he had on a dark coat, though I am not certain. By the look of him he seemed to me a man over forty years of age. He appeared to me to be a little taller than the deceased.
[Coroner] Did he look like a working man, or what? - He looked like a foreigner.
[Coroner] Did he look like a dock labourer, or a workman, or what? - I should say he looked like what I should call shabby-genteel.
[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.
[Coroner] Did they appear to be sober? - I saw nothing to indicate that either of them was the worse for drink.
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.
[Coroner] You are certain about the time? - Quite.
[Coroner] What time did you leave home? - I got out about five o'clock, and I reached the Spitalfields Market a few minutes after half-past five.
The Foreman of the jury: What brewer's clock did you hear strike half-past five? - The brewer's in Brick-lane.

https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/12397.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The testimony of Albert Cadosch:

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The testimony of Elizabeth Long, as given, tends to create some conflict with testimony given by Albert Cadosch. The focus tends to be on the fact that Long indicates that Annie is still alive and outside on Hanbury Street at 5:30 while Cadosch testifies that he hears someone say “No” around 5:20 and he’s of the belief it was from the backyard of #29. He returns 3 or 4 minutes later (so around 5:23-5:24ish), and hears something brush up against the fence, but doesn’t pay any heed. Based upon Cadosch’s testimony, it would appear that Annie is probably in the backyard of #29 around 5:20, and that she was attacked around 5:23ish type thing. Clearly, if that’s the case, she cannot be in the street at 5:30ish to be seen by Long.

This conflict in the testimony, as stated, needs to be resolved as otherwise there is a paradox; Annie is in two places at the same time, both dead in the backyard and alive in the street at 5:30.

To be clear, when I say “resolved”, I don’t mean we have to prove what the true situation had to have been, but rather “resolved” in the sense that when one offers their interpretation of the events this conflict must be dealt with. Because the statements, as given, create a paradox, any resolution will require identifying where the testimony is in error (something is said that is not accurate). There are a number of statements that could potentially be such an error.

1) Long did not see Annie Chapman

The first possibility is that the couple spotted by Elizabeth Long at 5:30ish simply was not Annie Chapman and JtR. If that part of her statement is an error, a simple case of mistaken identity, then that means while Annie was in the backyard with JtR and heard by Cadosch, there simply was another couple outside in the street.
This resolution leads to a couple of other issues that also need to be accounted for. Long says she saw the woman’s face, and testifies that she identified Annie at the mortuary as being the same woman. Also, the portion of the conversation she over hears (“Will you?” and “Yes”), is not inconsistent with what might be said between a prostitute and a client. It also sounds like a portion of the conversation that might occur shortly before they agree to move off to a more secluded location.
In short, the mistaken identity resolution requires that Long’s error lies in her identification of Annie at the mortuary, and that the conversation she overheard only coincidently sounds consistent with a prostitute and a client coming to an agreement. Obviously, the exchange of “Will you?” – “Yes”, could arise for many other reasons.
The mistaken identity resolution, however, in no way impacts upon Cadosch’s testimony, which in turn points towards the murder occurring around 5:23-5:24ish. If we set Long aside based upon mistaken identity, however, then her description of a 40 year old, dark, foreign looking, man wearing a low crowned brown hat, possibly a dark coat, looking “shabby gentile”, is of no value in terms of JtR as the man was not actually seen talking with Annie, and who by Cadosch’s testimony appears to be in the backyard of #29 already.

If, however, she is not mistaken in her identification, then the error in her testimony must be with regards to the timing of this event relative to the timing of the events described by Cadosch, which leads to the second way in which the paradox tends to get resolved. If she is accurate in her identification, then obviously the murder must occur after she saw Annie alive. If that is the case, then her sighting must have been before 5:23-24 ish (when Cadosch’s testimony points to Annie being in the backyard).

Resolution of the time paradox tends to follow a few different lines of possibility.

2) Long and Cadosch are referencing different clocks, which are not in sync.

Clocks in Victorian London were not synchronized, and so different clocks often indicated different times. Cadosch’s only reference to a clock is when he passes the Spitalfields’s clock at 5:32 on his way to work. I believe, but could be mistaken, that the Spitalfields’s clock would be at the Christ’s Church (rectory), which is located on Fournier Street (indicating that Cadosch was heading to the south east corner of the market for work). That would require him walking roughly 669 ft (as per the map below), which at an average walking speed of 3.2 mph, would require 2m 23sec to traverse.



Working backwards, therefore, Cadosch appears to have left for work between 2:29 and 2:30ish (according to that clock). The other times he gives, however, are unclear upon what he basis them on. He doesn’t testify as to how he determined what time it was when he got up, etc, and it is possible he’s working backwards from this time point, but it is also possible he had some other way of determining what time it was. We simply don’t know.
What we do know, however, is that at the same the same time Cadosch leaves for work Long claims she is passing by #29 and sees the couple standing in the street. However, Cadosch specifically says he did not see any man and woman in the street when he left for work, which would suggest that the couple seen by Long are no longer there.

But we have to take into account that Long has set her time based upon a different clock than Cadosch, as she indicates she set the time by the chime of the brewer's clock located on Brick Lane and Cadosh has set his time based upon the Spitalfields’s clock. If the brewer’s clock and Spitalfields’s clock are reading different times, then Long’s 5:30 and Cadosch’s 5:30 are not the same point in time. For example, if the Spitalfields’s clock is slow by 10 minutes relative to the brewer’s clock, then when Cadosch says it was 5:32 when he passed it, the brewer’s clock would read 5:42. That means Long’s 5:30 is Cadosch’s 5:20. The entire conflict between the times could very easily be nothing more than due to the variability between clocks in Victorian London.

Unfortunately, we do not know if the police checked the two clocks to determine if they were or were not in sync. As such, while we must consider this as a possible explanation (we cannot rule it out), it is a shame that this information was either never recorded, or if it was, is now unavailable to us as it would be a very simple thing to adjust the testified times.

3) Long has the time wrong for her sighting

Another aspect that needs to be considered is that Long has misremembered the time. When considering any witness’s testimony, we must keep in mind that a witness like Long is not taking notes of things at the time, but rather well after the fact has to go back and recall events that otherwise were not remarkable because they are not seeing a crime in progress, so it’s just the same old same old daily activities. Cadosch reports looking specifically at the Spitalfields’s clock, noting the time as 5:32, as the precision of that time, and the fact he specifically looked at on his way to work, and that he gave his statement to the police that very evening, points to his testimony as being reliable as to the time on that particular clock.

Long, however, does not report looking at the brewer’s clock, but basing the time upon the chimes. Chimes rang every 15 minutes, and the 5:15 and 5:30 chimes would sound different. Long’s time, therefore, is based upon her recalling that she heard the chimes. If, at the time she’s recalling the events, she misrecalls the 5:15 chimes as being the 5:30 chimes, then her reported sighting didn’t occur at 5:30is but at 5:15ish (time according to the brewer’s clock).

We have another time reported by Long as well, which is that she left home to go to the market at around 5:00 am. We also have her address as being in Church-row, Whitechapel. There are a number of reports with regards to the house number (32 and 198 I think they are). The problem is, there isn’t a Church-Row in Whitechappel (there is a Church Lane that connects Whitechapel to Commerical Road, and Church Passage, but that’s to the west of the market so she wouldn’t pass Brick Lane or be on Hanbury Street and is in Spitalfields. There was a Church Street in Whitechapel, now named Fournier Street, but going to the market from there would not take her passed Brick Lane, nor would it make sense to even head up to Hanbury Street at all.

Interestingly, Hanbury Street used to be a bunch of different streets, and the east end was known as Church Street up until 1876 (that would place it in “Miles End New Town”). I suppose it is possible that those who lived there still called it Church Street? If so, then it would make sense for Long to pass Brick Lane, while walking along Hanbury Street and going to the market. However, it should only take her about 7m 26sec to walk even the entire length, and if she left home around 5:00, she should have been well passed #29 by 5:30. Given the vagaries of “about 5:00”, this would point more towards her hearing the 5:15 chimes. While it is often assumed she walked down Brick Lane, unless there are different wordings elsewhere (not impossible), or I'm just overlooking something (also not impossible), she doesn't actually say in her testimony that she walked down Brick Lane, only that she hears the chimes as she nears the Brick Lane/Hanbury intersection. So, if she was coming from the east end of Hanbury Street (formerly Church Street), then that would be consistent with her testimony, so it needs to be considered.



On the other hand, there is a Church Row in Bethnal Green. And a walk from there to the Spitalfields’s market would take her down Brick Lane itself.



I don’t have the housing numbers, though, but it’s not a long street. So, starting in the middle of Church Row (Bethnal Green), it would take about 11m 23sec to get to the market, but only about 7 m 31s to get to the Brewery. And again, this tends to point towards hearing the 5:15 chimes, if she did indeed leave at close to 5:00 am. In the older thread looking into where Long lived (see link below), a family by the name of Long did live in Church Row in both the 1881 census and during the 1891 census (at #17 and then later at #31), and if they were relatives than it’s possible Elizabeth and her husband were residing with them in 1888 (the 31 Church Row is awfully close to some reports that place Elizabeth Long at 32 Church Row after all).

Now, for one to assert that no, she did not mis-remember the chime and she heard the 5:30 chime, then one has to assert that she misremembered the time she left home (swap one memory error for another).

Alternatively, one has to argue she was just a very slow walker.

Alternatively, one has to assume she did some things on the way to the market that used up some time (nowhere in her testimony, though, is there any hint of her stopping along the way, but then, she also doesn’t state specifically that she walked directly on the whole time, so we really don’t know what she did – and anything is possible.).

Of course, it’s also possible that neither of the two possible locations reflects where she actually lived! There’s an old thread that looks at trying to locate her address, and while not completely successful, there was another suggestion that perhaps her address was on Blythe Street (based upon some possible matches in the census records), and perhaps her address was being withheld.



From there (starting at the furthest end of Blythe Street), it would require 17m and 15s to reach the corner of Brick Lane and Hanbury Street, which would fit with hearing either the 5:15 chime (if her departure “around 5:00” means leaving 2 or three minutes before 5), or possibly the 5:30 chime (if her departure “around 5:00” means leaving around thirteen minutes after 5:00; up to about 3 minutes less if she lived at the south end of Blythe; up to 2m 54s).

In all cases, though, we have to try and sort out what appears to be an error in regards to her actual address. There is no Church Row in Whitechapel, there are various forms of Church somethings in the area, with the nearest Church Row being in Bethnal Green. Many of the alternatives would not have her pass by #29 Hanbury Street, and those that remain, tend to suggest if she departed home around 5:00 am she should have passed #29 around 5:15 rather than 5:30.

Without clarification of her actual address, of course, all we can do is consider as many of the possibilities as we can come up with. And overall, none of the addresses apart from maybe Blythe Street, really tend to point to her hearing the 5:30 chime, and most suggest she was likely to have passed by #29 closer to 5:15 than 5:30.
However, there are always ways to explain why it may have taken her longer than the distances would suggest. She’s a slow walker, she did things on the way, her memory for when she left was wrong rather than her memory for when she was at #29, etc. Regardless, all of these are just more assumptions, and one could easily make a different set of assumptions (she was a typical walker, she misremembers the chime not when she left, and so forth).

As with so many things JtR, we are missing critically important information. Long’s testimony and Cadosch’s testimony with regards to the time of the events they report conflict when taken exactly as stated. That conflict must be resolved in order to make sense of the rest of their testimony, which one must do in order to try and work out what happened. The problem is, we do not have enough information, and it is possible to resolve things in different ways by making different assumptions.
It is possible to resolve things such that Long’s testimony is unrelated to the case (did not see Annie, it was a mistaken identity). While that allows for a dismissal of Long’s statements, it does not in any way remove the testimony of Cadosch and his hearing of people and activity that he believed came from the backyard of #29. To remove Cadosch, one has to dismiss him on the grounds that he too was mistaken, and the sounds did not come from #29 but from elsewhere, again, making them unrelated to the case. And while I’ve not gone into Richardson, one also has to presume that he too was mistaken, and that when he testifies that Annie Chapman’s body was not there when he checked the backyard of #29, he too was mistaken.

On the other hand, as Richardson and Cadosch’s testimonies are separated enough in time that we need not concern ourselves with the exact stated times, Long’s and Cadosch’s stated times are close enough that we must concern ourselves with the fact they are basing things on different clocks. That alone is more than sufficient to account for the discrepancy, and so we cannot reject her based upon this conflict alone. Moreover, Long’s time is based upon recalling that she heard the chimes. Based upon a number of suggestions as to the location of her residence, though, the distances involved combined with her testified time as to leaving home, tend to suggest the very real possibility that what she recalls as being the 5:30 chimes might very well have been the 5:15 chimes. And if that were the case, then that one error alone would resolve the entire conflict in the testimonies (and of course, clock sync could still remain a concern, but now the differences between the clocks could be a matter of a couple minutes rather than something closer to 10 minutes).

And, in closing, it is important to note I am not saying that Long must, therefore, have misremembered the chimes. I am only saying that is one very real possibility, and if one does not accept that possibility on the grounds that it requires making an assumption that she did so, then whatever alternative is put forth will have to make some other, equally unsupported, assumption or be left with a paradox.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry, but this will be fairly long! (Pun not intended, but not avoided either! )

- Jeff

The testimony of Elizabeth Long:
Day 3, Thursday, September 13, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, September 14, 1888, Page 3)


Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased. I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark. He was wearing a brown low-crowned felt hat. I think he had on a dark coat, though I am not certain. By the look of him he seemed to me a man over forty years of age. He appeared to me to be a little taller than the deceased.
[Coroner] Did he look like a working man, or what? - He looked like a foreigner.
[Coroner] Did he look like a dock labourer, or a workman, or what? - I should say he looked like what I should call shabby-genteel.
[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.
[Coroner] Did they appear to be sober? - I saw nothing to indicate that either of them was the worse for drink.
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.
[Coroner] You are certain about the time? - Quite.
[Coroner] What time did you leave home? - I got out about five o'clock, and I reached the Spitalfields Market a few minutes after half-past five.
The Foreman of the jury: What brewer's clock did you hear strike half-past five? - The brewer's in Brick-lane.

https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/12397.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The testimony of Albert Cadosch:

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The testimony of Elizabeth Long, as given, tends to create some conflict with testimony given by Albert Cadosch. The focus tends to be on the fact that Long indicates that Annie is still alive and outside on Hanbury Street at 5:30 while Cadosch testifies that he hears someone say “No” around 5:20 and he’s of the belief it was from the backyard of #29. He returns 3 or 4 minutes later (so around 5:23-5:24ish), and hears something brush up against the fence, but doesn’t pay any heed. Based upon Cadosch’s testimony, it would appear that Annie is probably in the backyard of #29 around 5:20, and that she was attacked around 5:23ish type thing. Clearly, if that’s the case, she cannot be in the street at 5:30ish to be seen by Long.

This conflict in the testimony, as stated, needs to be resolved as otherwise there is a paradox; Annie is in two places at the same time, both dead in the backyard and alive in the street at 5:30.

To be clear, when I say “resolved”, I don’t mean we have to prove what the true situation had to have been, but rather “resolved” in the sense that when one offers their interpretation of the events this conflict must be dealt with. Because the statements, as given, create a paradox, any resolution will require identifying where the testimony is in error (something is said that is not accurate). There are a number of statements that could potentially be such an error.

1) Long did not see Annie Chapman

The first possibility is that the couple spotted by Elizabeth Long at 5:30ish simply was not Annie Chapman and JtR. If that part of her statement is an error, a simple case of mistaken identity, then that means while Annie was in the backyard with JtR and heard by Cadosch, there simply was another couple outside in the street.
This resolution leads to a couple of other issues that also need to be accounted for. Long says she saw the woman’s face, and testifies that she identified Annie at the mortuary as being the same woman. Also, the portion of the conversation she over hears (“Will you?” and “Yes”), is not inconsistent with what might be said between a prostitute and a client. It also sounds like a portion of the conversation that might occur shortly before they agree to move off to a more secluded location.
In short, the mistaken identity resolution requires that Long’s error lies in her identification of Annie at the mortuary, and that the conversation she overheard only coincidently sounds consistent with a prostitute and a client coming to an agreement. Obviously, the exchange of “Will you?” – “Yes”, could arise for many other reasons.
The mistaken identity resolution, however, in no way impacts upon Cadosch’s testimony, which in turn points towards the murder occurring around 5:23-5:24ish. If we set Long aside based upon mistaken identity, however, then her description of a 40 year old, dark, foreign looking, man wearing a low crowned brown hat, possibly a dark coat, looking “shabby gentile”, is of no value in terms of JtR as the man was not actually seen talking with Annie, and who by Cadosch’s testimony appears to be in the backyard of #29 already.

If, however, she is not mistaken in her identification, then the error in her testimony must be with regards to the timing of this event relative to the timing of the events described by Cadosch, which leads to the second way in which the paradox tends to get resolved. If she is accurate in her identification, then obviously the murder must occur after she saw Annie alive. If that is the case, then her sighting must have been before 5:23-24 ish (when Cadosch’s testimony points to Annie being in the backyard).

Resolution of the time paradox tends to follow a few different lines of possibility.

2) Long and Cadosch are referencing different clocks, which are not in sync.

Clocks in Victorian London were not synchronized, and so different clocks often indicated different times. Cadosch’s only reference to a clock is when he passes the Spitalfields’s clock at 5:32 on his way to work. I believe, but could be mistaken, that the Spitalfields’s clock would be at the Christ’s Church (rectory), which is located on Fournier Street (indicating that Cadosch was heading to the south east corner of the market for work). That would require him walking roughly 669 ft (as per the map below), which at an average walking speed of 3.2 mph, would require 2m 23sec to traverse.



Working backwards, therefore, Cadosch appears to have left for work between 2:29 and 2:30ish (according to that clock). The other times he gives, however, are unclear upon what he basis them on. He doesn’t testify as to how he determined what time it was when he got up, etc, and it is possible he’s working backwards from this time point, but it is also possible he had some other way of determining what time it was. We simply don’t know.
What we do know, however, is that at the same the same time Cadosch leaves for work Long claims she is passing by #29 and sees the couple standing in the street. However, Cadosch specifically says he did not see any man and woman in the street when he left for work, which would suggest that the couple seen by Long are no longer there.

But we have to take into account that Long has set her time based upon a different clock than Cadosch, as she indicates she set the time by the chime of the brewer's clock located on Brick Lane and Cadosh has set his time based upon the Spitalfields’s clock. If the brewer’s clock and Spitalfields’s clock are reading different times, then Long’s 5:30 and Cadosch’s 5:30 are not the same point in time. For example, if the Spitalfields’s clock is slow by 10 minutes relative to the brewer’s clock, then when Cadosch says it was 5:32 when he passed it, the brewer’s clock would read 5:42. That means Long’s 5:30 is Cadosch’s 5:20. The entire conflict between the times could very easily be nothing more than due to the variability between clocks in Victorian London.

Unfortunately, we do not know if the police checked the two clocks to determine if they were or were not in sync. As such, while we must consider this as a possible explanation (we cannot rule it out), it is a shame that this information was either never recorded, or if it was, is now unavailable to us as it would be a very simple thing to adjust the testified times.

3) Long has the time wrong for her sighting

Another aspect that needs to be considered is that Long has misremembered the time. When considering any witness’s testimony, we must keep in mind that a witness like Long is not taking notes of things at the time, but rather well after the fact has to go back and recall events that otherwise were not remarkable because they are not seeing a crime in progress, so it’s just the same old same old daily activities. Cadosch reports looking specifically at the Spitalfields’s clock, noting the time as 5:32, as the precision of that time, and the fact he specifically looked at on his way to work, and that he gave his statement to the police that very evening, points to his testimony as being reliable as to the time on that particular clock.

Long, however, does not report looking at the brewer’s clock, but basing the time upon the chimes. Chimes rang every 15 minutes, and the 5:15 and 5:30 chimes would sound different. Long’s time, therefore, is based upon her recalling that she heard the chimes. If, at the time she’s recalling the events, she misrecalls the 5:15 chimes as being the 5:30 chimes, then her reported sighting didn’t occur at 5:30is but at 5:15ish (time according to the brewer’s clock).

We have another time reported by Long as well, which is that she left home to go to the market at around 5:00 am. We also have her address as being in Church-row, Whitechapel. There are a number of reports with regards to the house number (32 and 198 I think they are). The problem is, there isn’t a Church-Row in Whitechappel (there is a Church Lane that connects Whitechapel to Commerical Road, and Church Passage, but that’s to the west of the market so she wouldn’t pass Brick Lane or be on Hanbury Street and is in Spitalfields. There was a Church Street in Whitechapel, now named Fournier Street, but going to the market from there would not take her passed Brick Lane, nor would it make sense to even head up to Hanbury Street at all.

Interestingly, Hanbury Street used to be a bunch of different streets, and the east end was known as Church Street up until 1876 (that would place it in “Miles End New Town”). I suppose it is possible that those who lived there still called it Church Street? If so, then it would make sense for Long to pass Brick Lane, while walking along Hanbury Street and going to the market. However, it should only take her about 7m 26sec to walk even the entire length, and if she left home around 5:00, she should have been well passed #29 by 5:30. Given the vagaries of “about 5:00”, this would point more towards her hearing the 5:15 chimes. While it is often assumed she walked down Brick Lane, unless there are different wordings elsewhere (not impossible), or I'm just overlooking something (also not impossible), she doesn't actually say in her testimony that she walked down Brick Lane, only that she hears the chimes as she nears the Brick Lane/Hanbury intersection. So, if she was coming from the east end of Hanbury Street (formerly Church Street), then that would be consistent with her testimony, so it needs to be considered.



On the other hand, there is a Church Row in Bethnal Green. And a walk from there to the Spitalfields’s market would take her down Brick Lane itself.



I don’t have the housing numbers, though, but it’s not a long street. So, starting in the middle of Church Row (Bethnal Green), it would take about 11m 23sec to get to the market, but only about 7 m 31s to get to the Brewery. And again, this tends to point towards hearing the 5:15 chimes, if she did indeed leave at close to 5:00 am. In the older thread looking into where Long lived (see link below), a family by the name of Long did live in Church Row in both the 1881 census and during the 1891 census (at #17 and then later at #31), and if they were relatives than it’s possible Elizabeth and her husband were residing with them in 1888 (the 31 Church Row is awfully close to some reports that place Elizabeth Long at 32 Church Row after all).

Now, for one to assert that no, she did not mis-remember the chime and she heard the 5:30 chime, then one has to assert that she misremembered the time she left home (swap one memory error for another).

Alternatively, one has to argue she was just a very slow walker.

Alternatively, one has to assume she did some things on the way to the market that used up some time (nowhere in her testimony, though, is there any hint of her stopping along the way, but then, she also doesn’t state specifically that she walked directly on the whole time, so we really don’t know what she did – and anything is possible.).

Of course, it’s also possible that neither of the two possible locations reflects where she actually lived! There’s an old thread that looks at trying to locate her address, and while not completely successful, there was another suggestion that perhaps her address was on Blythe Street (based upon some possible matches in the census records), and perhaps her address was being withheld.



From there (starting at the furthest end of Blythe Street), it would require 17m and 15s to reach the corner of Brick Lane and Hanbury Street, which would fit with hearing either the 5:15 chime (if her departure “around 5:00” means leaving 2 or three minutes before 5), or possibly the 5:30 chime (if her departure “around 5:00” means leaving around thirteen minutes after 5:00; up to about 3 minutes less if she lived at the south end of Blythe; up to 2m 54s).

In all cases, though, we have to try and sort out what appears to be an error in regards to her actual address. There is no Church Row in Whitechapel, there are various forms of Church somethings in the area, with the nearest Church Row being in Bethnal Green. Many of the alternatives would not have her pass by #29 Hanbury Street, and those that remain, tend to suggest if she departed home around 5:00 am she should have passed #29 around 5:15 rather than 5:30.

Without clarification of her actual address, of course, all we can do is consider as many of the possibilities as we can come up with. And overall, none of the addresses apart from maybe Blythe Street, really tend to point to her hearing the 5:30 chime, and most suggest she was likely to have passed by #29 closer to 5:15 than 5:30.
However, there are always ways to explain why it may have taken her longer than the distances would suggest. She’s a slow walker, she did things on the way, her memory for when she left was wrong rather than her memory for when she was at #29, etc. Regardless, all of these are just more assumptions, and one could easily make a different set of assumptions (she was a typical walker, she misremembers the chime not when she left, and so forth).

As with so many things JtR, we are missing critically important information. Long’s testimony and Cadosch’s testimony with regards to the time of the events they report conflict when taken exactly as stated. That conflict must be resolved in order to make sense of the rest of their testimony, which one must do in order to try and work out what happened. The problem is, we do not have enough information, and it is possible to resolve things in different ways by making different assumptions.
It is possible to resolve things such that Long’s testimony is unrelated to the case (did not see Annie, it was a mistaken identity). While that allows for a dismissal of Long’s statements, it does not in any way remove the testimony of Cadosch and his hearing of people and activity that he believed came from the backyard of #29. To remove Cadosch, one has to dismiss him on the grounds that he too was mistaken, and the sounds did not come from #29 but from elsewhere, again, making them unrelated to the case. And while I’ve not gone into Richardson, one also has to presume that he too was mistaken, and that when he testifies that Annie Chapman’s body was not there when he checked the backyard of #29, he too was mistaken.

On the other hand, as Richardson and Cadosch’s testimonies are separated enough in time that we need not concern ourselves with the exact stated times, Long’s and Cadosch’s stated times are close enough that we must concern ourselves with the fact they are basing things on different clocks. That alone is more than sufficient to account for the discrepancy, and so we cannot reject her based upon this conflict alone. Moreover, Long’s time is based upon recalling that she heard the chimes. Based upon a number of suggestions as to the location of her residence, though, the distances involved combined with her testified time as to leaving home, tend to suggest the very real possibility that what she recalls as being the 5:30 chimes might very well have been the 5:15 chimes. And if that were the case, then that one error alone would resolve the entire conflict in the testimonies (and of course, clock sync could still remain a concern, but now the differences between the clocks could be a matter of a couple minutes rather than something closer to 10 minutes).

And, in closing, it is important to note I am not saying that Long must, therefore, have misremembered the chimes. I am only saying that is one very real possibility, and if one does not accept that possibility on the grounds that it requires making an assumption that she did so, then whatever alternative is put forth will have to make some other, equally unsupported, assumption or be left with a paradox.

- Jeff

The TOD of Chapman has always been a contentious issue among researchers and the arguments have rolled on and on with no one conceding defeat. What I have posted below is from another post on another thread and may assist in determining a more accurate TOD and was initiated by the poster Private Investigator

He cites almost identical weather conditions for both murders and the fact that both bodies had been mutilated in identical fashion with the abdomens being left exposed to the elements.

Regarding the Chapman murder, there are those who suggest that she was killed at a later time of death but I personally don't concur. Phillps stated that "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing"

Whereas with Eddowes we know she was killed within a 45 min window from when she left the police station and Dr Brown examined the body in situ approx 50 mins after it was found and he states "The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body" we know this is fairly accurate

I personally think this is how we can set about trying to prove a more accurate TOD of Chapman using the doctor's findings in the Eddowes murder for comparison. I think this is a more accurate way of corroborating Dr Phillip's own opinion of the TOD in which he opines an earlier TOD

We have to bear in mind the witness testimony of both Long and Cadoshe has never been fully tested!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Sorry, but this will be fairly long! (Pun not intended, but not avoided either! )

- Jeff

The testimony of Elizabeth Long:
Day 3, Thursday, September 13, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, September 14, 1888, Page 3)


Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased. I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark. He was wearing a brown low-crowned felt hat. I think he had on a dark coat, though I am not certain. By the look of him he seemed to me a man over forty years of age. He appeared to me to be a little taller than the deceased.
[Coroner] Did he look like a working man, or what? - He looked like a foreigner.
[Coroner] Did he look like a dock labourer, or a workman, or what? - I should say he looked like what I should call shabby-genteel.
[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.
[Coroner] Did they appear to be sober? - I saw nothing to indicate that either of them was the worse for drink.
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.
[Coroner] You are certain about the time? - Quite.
[Coroner] What time did you leave home? - I got out about five o'clock, and I reached the Spitalfields Market a few minutes after half-past five.
The Foreman of the jury: What brewer's clock did you hear strike half-past five? - The brewer's in Brick-lane.

https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/12397.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The testimony of Albert Cadosch:

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The testimony of Elizabeth Long, as given, tends to create some conflict with testimony given by Albert Cadosch. The focus tends to be on the fact that Long indicates that Annie is still alive and outside on Hanbury Street at 5:30 while Cadosch testifies that he hears someone say “No” around 5:20 and he’s of the belief it was from the backyard of #29. He returns 3 or 4 minutes later (so around 5:23-5:24ish), and hears something brush up against the fence, but doesn’t pay any heed. Based upon Cadosch’s testimony, it would appear that Annie is probably in the backyard of #29 around 5:20, and that she was attacked around 5:23ish type thing. Clearly, if that’s the case, she cannot be in the street at 5:30ish to be seen by Long.

This conflict in the testimony, as stated, needs to be resolved as otherwise there is a paradox; Annie is in two places at the same time, both dead in the backyard and alive in the street at 5:30.

To be clear, when I say “resolved”, I don’t mean we have to prove what the true situation had to have been, but rather “resolved” in the sense that when one offers their interpretation of the events this conflict must be dealt with. Because the statements, as given, create a paradox, any resolution will require identifying where the testimony is in error (something is said that is not accurate). There are a number of statements that could potentially be such an error.

1) Long did not see Annie Chapman

The first possibility is that the couple spotted by Elizabeth Long at 5:30ish simply was not Annie Chapman and JtR. If that part of her statement is an error, a simple case of mistaken identity, then that means while Annie was in the backyard with JtR and heard by Cadosch, there simply was another couple outside in the street.
This resolution leads to a couple of other issues that also need to be accounted for. Long says she saw the woman’s face, and testifies that she identified Annie at the mortuary as being the same woman. Also, the portion of the conversation she over hears (“Will you?” and “Yes”), is not inconsistent with what might be said between a prostitute and a client. It also sounds like a portion of the conversation that might occur shortly before they agree to move off to a more secluded location.
In short, the mistaken identity resolution requires that Long’s error lies in her identification of Annie at the mortuary, and that the conversation she overheard only coincidently sounds consistent with a prostitute and a client coming to an agreement. Obviously, the exchange of “Will you?” – “Yes”, could arise for many other reasons.
The mistaken identity resolution, however, in no way impacts upon Cadosch’s testimony, which in turn points towards the murder occurring around 5:23-5:24ish. If we set Long aside based upon mistaken identity, however, then her description of a 40 year old, dark, foreign looking, man wearing a low crowned brown hat, possibly a dark coat, looking “shabby gentile”, is of no value in terms of JtR as the man was not actually seen talking with Annie, and who by Cadosch’s testimony appears to be in the backyard of #29 already.

If, however, she is not mistaken in her identification, then the error in her testimony must be with regards to the timing of this event relative to the timing of the events described by Cadosch, which leads to the second way in which the paradox tends to get resolved. If she is accurate in her identification, then obviously the murder must occur after she saw Annie alive. If that is the case, then her sighting must have been before 5:23-24 ish (when Cadosch’s testimony points to Annie being in the backyard).

Resolution of the time paradox tends to follow a few different lines of possibility.

2) Long and Cadosch are referencing different clocks, which are not in sync.

Clocks in Victorian London were not synchronized, and so different clocks often indicated different times. Cadosch’s only reference to a clock is when he passes the Spitalfields’s clock at 5:32 on his way to work. I believe, but could be mistaken, that the Spitalfields’s clock would be at the Christ’s Church (rectory), which is located on Fournier Street (indicating that Cadosch was heading to the south east corner of the market for work). That would require him walking roughly 669 ft (as per the map below), which at an average walking speed of 3.2 mph, would require 2m 23sec to traverse.



Working backwards, therefore, Cadosch appears to have left for work between 2:29 and 2:30ish (according to that clock). The other times he gives, however, are unclear upon what he basis them on. He doesn’t testify as to how he determined what time it was when he got up, etc, and it is possible he’s working backwards from this time point, but it is also possible he had some other way of determining what time it was. We simply don’t know.
What we do know, however, is that at the same the same time Cadosch leaves for work Long claims she is passing by #29 and sees the couple standing in the street. However, Cadosch specifically says he did not see any man and woman in the street when he left for work, which would suggest that the couple seen by Long are no longer there.

But we have to take into account that Long has set her time based upon a different clock than Cadosch, as she indicates she set the time by the chime of the brewer's clock located on Brick Lane and Cadosh has set his time based upon the Spitalfields’s clock. If the brewer’s clock and Spitalfields’s clock are reading different times, then Long’s 5:30 and Cadosch’s 5:30 are not the same point in time. For example, if the Spitalfields’s clock is slow by 10 minutes relative to the brewer’s clock, then when Cadosch says it was 5:32 when he passed it, the brewer’s clock would read 5:42. That means Long’s 5:30 is Cadosch’s 5:20. The entire conflict between the times could very easily be nothing more than due to the variability between clocks in Victorian London.

Unfortunately, we do not know if the police checked the two clocks to determine if they were or were not in sync. As such, while we must consider this as a possible explanation (we cannot rule it out), it is a shame that this information was either never recorded, or if it was, is now unavailable to us as it would be a very simple thing to adjust the testified times.

3) Long has the time wrong for her sighting

Another aspect that needs to be considered is that Long has misremembered the time. When considering any witness’s testimony, we must keep in mind that a witness like Long is not taking notes of things at the time, but rather well after the fact has to go back and recall events that otherwise were not remarkable because they are not seeing a crime in progress, so it’s just the same old same old daily activities. Cadosch reports looking specifically at the Spitalfields’s clock, noting the time as 5:32, as the precision of that time, and the fact he specifically looked at on his way to work, and that he gave his statement to the police that very evening, points to his testimony as being reliable as to the time on that particular clock.

Long, however, does not report looking at the brewer’s clock, but basing the time upon the chimes. Chimes rang every 15 minutes, and the 5:15 and 5:30 chimes would sound different. Long’s time, therefore, is based upon her recalling that she heard the chimes. If, at the time she’s recalling the events, she misrecalls the 5:15 chimes as being the 5:30 chimes, then her reported sighting didn’t occur at 5:30is but at 5:15ish (time according to the brewer’s clock).

We have another time reported by Long as well, which is that she left home to go to the market at around 5:00 am. We also have her address as being in Church-row, Whitechapel. There are a number of reports with regards to the house number (32 and 198 I think they are). The problem is, there isn’t a Church-Row in Whitechappel (there is a Church Lane that connects Whitechapel to Commerical Road, and Church Passage, but that’s to the west of the market so she wouldn’t pass Brick Lane or be on Hanbury Street and is in Spitalfields. There was a Church Street in Whitechapel, now named Fournier Street, but going to the market from there would not take her passed Brick Lane, nor would it make sense to even head up to Hanbury Street at all.

Interestingly, Hanbury Street used to be a bunch of different streets, and the east end was known as Church Street up until 1876 (that would place it in “Miles End New Town”). I suppose it is possible that those who lived there still called it Church Street? If so, then it would make sense for Long to pass Brick Lane, while walking along Hanbury Street and going to the market. However, it should only take her about 7m 26sec to walk even the entire length, and if she left home around 5:00, she should have been well passed #29 by 5:30. Given the vagaries of “about 5:00”, this would point more towards her hearing the 5:15 chimes. While it is often assumed she walked down Brick Lane, unless there are different wordings elsewhere (not impossible), or I'm just overlooking something (also not impossible), she doesn't actually say in her testimony that she walked down Brick Lane, only that she hears the chimes as she nears the Brick Lane/Hanbury intersection. So, if she was coming from the east end of Hanbury Street (formerly Church Street), then that would be consistent with her testimony, so it needs to be considered.



On the other hand, there is a Church Row in Bethnal Green. And a walk from there to the Spitalfields’s market would take her down Brick Lane itself.



I don’t have the housing numbers, though, but it’s not a long street. So, starting in the middle of Church Row (Bethnal Green), it would take about 11m 23sec to get to the market, but only about 7 m 31s to get to the Brewery. And again, this tends to point towards hearing the 5:15 chimes, if she did indeed leave at close to 5:00 am. In the older thread looking into where Long lived (see link below), a family by the name of Long did live in Church Row in both the 1881 census and during the 1891 census (at #17 and then later at #31), and if they were relatives than it’s possible Elizabeth and her husband were residing with them in 1888 (the 31 Church Row is awfully close to some reports that place Elizabeth Long at 32 Church Row after all).

Now, for one to assert that no, she did not mis-remember the chime and she heard the 5:30 chime, then one has to assert that she misremembered the time she left home (swap one memory error for another).

Alternatively, one has to argue she was just a very slow walker.

Alternatively, one has to assume she did some things on the way to the market that used up some time (nowhere in her testimony, though, is there any hint of her stopping along the way, but then, she also doesn’t state specifically that she walked directly on the whole time, so we really don’t know what she did – and anything is possible.).

Of course, it’s also possible that neither of the two possible locations reflects where she actually lived! There’s an old thread that looks at trying to locate her address, and while not completely successful, there was another suggestion that perhaps her address was on Blythe Street (based upon some possible matches in the census records), and perhaps her address was being withheld.



From there (starting at the furthest end of Blythe Street), it would require 17m and 15s to reach the corner of Brick Lane and Hanbury Street, which would fit with hearing either the 5:15 chime (if her departure “around 5:00” means leaving 2 or three minutes before 5), or possibly the 5:30 chime (if her departure “around 5:00” means leaving around thirteen minutes after 5:00; up to about 3 minutes less if she lived at the south end of Blythe; up to 2m 54s).

In all cases, though, we have to try and sort out what appears to be an error in regards to her actual address. There is no Church Row in Whitechapel, there are various forms of Church somethings in the area, with the nearest Church Row being in Bethnal Green. Many of the alternatives would not have her pass by #29 Hanbury Street, and those that remain, tend to suggest if she departed home around 5:00 am she should have passed #29 around 5:15 rather than 5:30.

Without clarification of her actual address, of course, all we can do is consider as many of the possibilities as we can come up with. And overall, none of the addresses apart from maybe Blythe Street, really tend to point to her hearing the 5:30 chime, and most suggest she was likely to have passed by #29 closer to 5:15 than 5:30.
However, there are always ways to explain why it may have taken her longer than the distances would suggest. She’s a slow walker, she did things on the way, her memory for when she left was wrong rather than her memory for when she was at #29, etc. Regardless, all of these are just more assumptions, and one could easily make a different set of assumptions (she was a typical walker, she misremembers the chime not when she left, and so forth).

As with so many things JtR, we are missing critically important information. Long’s testimony and Cadosch’s testimony with regards to the time of the events they report conflict when taken exactly as stated. That conflict must be resolved in order to make sense of the rest of their testimony, which one must do in order to try and work out what happened. The problem is, we do not have enough information, and it is possible to resolve things in different ways by making different assumptions.
It is possible to resolve things such that Long’s testimony is unrelated to the case (did not see Annie, it was a mistaken identity). While that allows for a dismissal of Long’s statements, it does not in any way remove the testimony of Cadosch and his hearing of people and activity that he believed came from the backyard of #29. To remove Cadosch, one has to dismiss him on the grounds that he too was mistaken, and the sounds did not come from #29 but from elsewhere, again, making them unrelated to the case. And while I’ve not gone into Richardson, one also has to presume that he too was mistaken, and that when he testifies that Annie Chapman’s body was not there when he checked the backyard of #29, he too was mistaken.

On the other hand, as Richardson and Cadosch’s testimonies are separated enough in time that we need not concern ourselves with the exact stated times, Long’s and Cadosch’s stated times are close enough that we must concern ourselves with the fact they are basing things on different clocks. That alone is more than sufficient to account for the discrepancy, and so we cannot reject her based upon this conflict alone. Moreover, Long’s time is based upon recalling that she heard the chimes. Based upon a number of suggestions as to the location of her residence, though, the distances involved combined with her testified time as to leaving home, tend to suggest the very real possibility that what she recalls as being the 5:30 chimes might very well have been the 5:15 chimes. And if that were the case, then that one error alone would resolve the entire conflict in the testimonies (and of course, clock sync could still remain a concern, but now the differences between the clocks could be a matter of a couple minutes rather than something closer to 10 minutes).

And, in closing, it is important to note I am not saying that Long must, therefore, have misremembered the chimes. I am only saying that is one very real possibility, and if one does not accept that possibility on the grounds that it requires making an assumption that she did so, then whatever alternative is put forth will have to make some other, equally unsupported, assumption or be left with a paradox.

- Jeff

Simply a very good post

[JeffHamm]

The TOD of Chapman has always been a contentious issue among researchers and the arguments have rolled on and on with no one conceding defeat. What I have posted below is from another post on another thread and may assist in determining a more accurate TOD and was initiated by the poster Private Investigator

He cites almost identical weather conditions for both murders and the fact that both bodies had been mutilated in identical fashion with the abdomens being left exposed to the elements.

Regarding the Chapman murder, there are those who suggest that she was killed at a later time of death but I personally don't concur. Phillps stated that "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing"

Whereas with Eddowes we know she was killed within a 45 min window from when she left the police station and Dr Brown examined the body in situ approx 50 mins after it was found and he states "The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body" we know this is fairly accurate

I personally think this is how we can set about trying to prove a more accurate TOD of Chapman using the doctor's findings in the Eddowes murder for comparison. I think this is a more accurate way of corroborating Dr Phillip's own opinion of the TOD in which he opines an earlier TOD

We have to bear in mind the witness testimony of both Long and Cadoshe has never been fully tested!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I was focusing on Cadosch and Long, given that is the focus of the thread. The medical information we have, as I've commented on many times before based upon actual data concerning things like the time for the onset of rigor, etc, and to avoid drifting off topic, the short version is that nothing in the medical testimony precludes a ToD around 5:25. His estimated ToD cannot be viewed separate from the margins of error associated with such estimates, and those margins of error are very wide, and get wider the shorter the interval. As such, the conflicts that people focus on are, in fact, will-o-the-wisps; the witness testimony and the medical testimony are all consistent with a ToD around 5:25, and that, in my opinion, is how I think we will come to the most likely accurate time for the murder.

I think Long requires some extra scrutiny, though, given that the key bit she adds beyond the ToD estimation is a description of JtR (albeit not a very detailed one nor one based upon a good view of the man). She provides the oldest age estimate, but she didn't see the man's face so not sure how she came to that, otherwise, she describes someone in a hat, who looks reasonably dressed but not out of place for the area.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Simply a very good post

Thanks Steve!

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks for your analysis, Jeff.

I suggest that Long was describing a routine walk to and visit to Spitalfields Market.

In anticipation of being accused by someone of making an assumption, I refer to the following exchange between the coroner and Long:

[Coroner] ... Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.

[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

Does that seem like the testimony of someone on a once-in-a-blue-moon visit to the market?

She is quite definite about when she left home, when she saw the couple, and when she reached the market.

If, as I suggest, this was a regular and routine trip for her, how often would she have mistakenly thought she had reached Hanbury Street at 5.30 when it was really 5.15?


Similarly with Cadoche's testimony.

He was getting ready to go to work.

He needed to get to work by a certain time.

That is what determined the moment he chose to leave for work.

He could not have determined that moment by counting back from the time he saw on the clock - because he had not yet seen it.

His trip to work was obviously a regular and routine occurrence.

If the Spitalfields church clock was slow by 10 minutes, then Cadoche was liable to be late for work.

Would his employers not have noticed that?

Would he not have had to take account of that?

Yet he cites the time on the clock as if he believes it to be accurate.

As I pointed out a couple of days ago, there is no inconsistency between Cadoche's times and that of the church clock.

I was challenged on that at the time, but no justification given for it.

I believe I saw a suggestion some months ago that Cadoche could have been using the same 'wrong' time as that shown by the church clock.

What about Cadoche's employers?

Are they too expected to be using the 'wrong' church clock so that they - as well as Cadoche - are unaware that he is late for work?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Trevor,

I was focusing on Cadosch and Long, given that is the focus of the thread. The medical information we have, as I've commented on many times before based upon actual data concerning things like the time for the onset of rigor, etc, and to avoid drifting off topic, the short version is that nothing in the medical testimony precludes a ToD around 5:25. His estimated ToD cannot be viewed separate from the margins of error associated with such estimates, and those margins of error are very wide, and get wider the shorter the interval. As such, the conflicts that people focus on are, in fact, will-o-the-wisps; the witness testimony and the medical testimony are all consistent with a ToD around 5:25, and that, in my opinion, is how I think we will come to the most likely accurate time for the murder.

I think Long requires some extra scrutiny, though, given that the key bit she adds beyond the ToD estimation is a description of JtR (albeit not a very detailed one nor one based upon a good view of the man). She provides the oldest age estimate, but she didn't see the man's face so not sure how she came to that, otherwise, she describes someone in a hat, who looks reasonably dressed but not out of place for the area.

- Jeff

I hope you are not deemed to have drifted off topic because I revived this thread after two months' dormancy precisely because I was deemed to be drifting off-topic for discussing this issue on another thread!

Sorry, Jeff, but a T.O.D. of 5.25 a.m. is not credible for the reasons stated by Trevor and me.

It is not enough to say that it is possible for Chapman to have been murdered less than an hour before she was examined and found to be almost completely cold and having started to stiffen.

'Being possible' is not evidence!

Phillips' estimate of two hours is reasonable.

In order to challenge it, one has go explain why, on this occasion, the murderer would have committed a murder when it was getting light, when he must have known that people were getting up and moving about, when he knew that if such a person saw him he might be trapped, and - and this is the clincher - why he would have chosen to exit the front of number 29 with bloodstained hands when he could have washed them in the water available in the yard, unless it was because it was still quite dark.

[JeffHamm]

I hope you are not deemed to have drifted off topic because I revived this thread after two months' dormancy precisely because I was deemed to be drifting off-topic for discussing this issue on another thread!

Sorry, Jeff, but a T.O.D. of 5.25 a.m. is not credible for the reasons stated by Trevor and me.

It is not enough to say that it is possible for Chapman to have been murdered less than an hour before she was examined and found to be almost completely cold and having started to stiffen.

'Being possible' is not evidence!

Phillips' estimate of two hours is reasonable.

In order to challenge it, one has go explain why, on this occasion, the murderer would have committed a murder when it was getting light, when he must have known that people were getting up and moving about, when he knew that if such a person saw him he might be trapped, and - and this is the clincher - why he would have chosen to exit the front of number 29 with bloodstained hands when he could have washed them in the water available in the yard, unless it was because it was still quite dark.

Hi PI,

With any estimate of ToD there is a range of time that is considered as containing the actual ToD (it's called the margin of error). For a time to be considered in conflict with the estimated ToD, that time has to be outside of that range. The time of 5:25 is not outside of Dr. Phillip's estimated ToD and therefore Dr. Phillip's estimate is not evidence against an actual ToD of 5:25.

I didn't say his estimate was unreasonable. I said it wasn't in conflict with a true ToD of 5:25.

And no, I don't need to try and get into the head of JtR and make decisions for him. If Annie was murdered at 5:25, then clearly whoever killed her came to the decision to do so despite the fact it seems unreasonable to us. But personally, I find that the actions JtR took to be unreasonable no matter what the time.

Also, to be absolutely clear, I'm not even saying that the above "proves" she was killed at 5:25. Rather, I'm saying the more modest version of "the evidence we have from the witnesses and the doctor is consistent with a ToD of around 5:25. Long's sighting, which is the only unique bit of information she adds has to do with a description of JtR, and so her testimony needs further examination. While her testimony does not really produce sufficient conflict with a ToD of 5:25, it would be a great benefit to us if we could pin down her actual residential address in order to put her statements under more detailed scrutiny. Even if we remove her testimony entirely, however, a ToD of 5:25 remains consistent with the remaining evidence. Of course, if we could somehow prove she did actually see Annie that morning, which her positive identification of Annie at the mortuary suggests, then clearly Annie wasn't killed at that time. However, there is good reason to be cautious about accepting that identification as definitive because we do not know the conditions under which it was conducted, and the error rate for identifications can be much higher under some protocols than others. I think, if we knew where Elizabeth Long actually lived, that would give us some new information to work with, which in turn allows us to put some of our assumptions to the test. It wouldn't, sadly, completely resolve the issue, but it may tip the scales a bit one way or the other.

- Jeff