Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

At the Nichols inquest, the timings given by three policemen agreed with one another, but not with that given by a certain witness.

Harvey passed the post office clock at 1.28 a.m., Watkins passed through Mitre Square at 1.30, Lawende and friends saw the couple at 1.35 a.m, Harvey arrived at 1.40 a.m., the body was found at 1.44 a.m., and Dr Sequiera arrived at 1.55 a.m.

Inspector Collard was notified at 1.55 a.m.

He said that he arrived at 2.02 or 2.03, and Watkins said that Collard arrived at about 2 a.m.

Where is the evidence of clocks often being badly wrong?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

As I say, I am not arguing that I have proved the ToD has to be 5:25ish. What I am saying is that none of the witness or medical information can be said to be inconsistent with that time. Moreover, there is crime scene evidence (the legging spring, the open door) that point to either Richardson being truthful about his boot repair, and there adds credibility to his statement she was not there, and the open door suggests someone left after he did (and nobody who lived there had left, so who left the door open?).

For those who wish to argue foe an earlier time, all the witnesses have to be discarded despite their statements being internally consistent given the know error associated with time. And the open door needs to be explained, as does the legging spring.

That is not insurmountable, but it still means a lot of the information we have had to be explained away despite all of it fitting into a nice neat package otherwise.

As such, unless something new comes to light, I stand by my belief that 5:25ish is the most likely TiD given what we know. I am not saying it has to be 5:25, only I see little reason to place an earlier time ahead of it in terms of our preferences.

I have no problem if one wants to bet on the other horse, but to say there is a conflict is, I think, to overlook the imprecision of our data. Imprecision for witness statements is what you call "unsafe", but given estimation of ToD is even today imprecise, isn't that also unsafe?

And if all we know is unsafe, how can you favour one time over another?

- Jeff

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Jeff
The witness testimony is unsafe and was never fully tested. I agree that Phillips estimated TOD is simply a guess and on that basis and that basis alone before introducing any other factors the TOD is questionable. Those other factors have been mentioned many times here but it seems those who go for a later time of death seem to want to ignore those obvious factors which in my opinion go a long way to support an earlier TOD.

Despite what you say there is clearly a conflict between the medical testimony and the witness testimony

The comparisons between the medical reports on Chapman and Eddowes in my opinion go a long way to support an earlier TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

As I say, I am not arguing that I have proved the ToD has to be 5:25ish. What I am saying is that none of the witness or medical information can be said to be inconsistent with that time. Moreover, there is crime scene evidence (the legging spring, the open door) that point to either Richardson being truthful about his boot repair, and there adds credibility to his statement she was not there, and the open door suggests someone left after he did (and nobody who lived there had left, so who left the door open?).

For those who wish to argue foe an earlier time, all the witnesses have to be discarded despite their statements being internally consistent given the know error associated with time. And the open door needs to be explained, as does the legging spring.

That is not insurmountable, but it still means a lot of the information we have had to be explained away despite all of it fitting into a nice neat package otherwise.

As such, unless something new comes to light, I stand by my belief that 5:25ish is the most likely TiD given what we know. I am not saying it has to be 5:25, only I see little reason to place an earlier time ahead of it in terms of our preferences.

I have no problem if one wants to bet on the other horse, but to say there is a conflict is, I think, to overlook the imprecision of our data. Imprecision for witness statements is what you call "unsafe", but given estimation of ToD is even today imprecise, isn't that also unsafe?

And if all we know is unsafe, how can you favour one time over another?

- Jeff

[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 Dr Whatsit,

I couldn't agree more. The article I was reading also agrees with you. I will have to find the thread you mention and give it a good read. I had to struggle with this issue when trying to put together my various simulations, and in the end was surprised to find that most stated times and recreated times were iften within 5 minutes, though there was also usually one person whose time seemed out by more, but even then not crazy fat, kike 10 to 15 minutes type thing.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Good god I finished that last post with an awful sentence; but it seemed ok at the time!

- Jeff

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's not "whittling down", rather, it's quite the opposite, one must expand his 2 hour statement based upon the error of such estimates, and because the margins of error associated with estimated ToD, even today with more advanced methods, is in the range of hours, not minutes, his statement is not inconsistent with the eye-witness testimony. The short version is that there is no actual conflict between the medical testimony and the eye-witness testimony. That doesn't prove the ToD was 5:25 of course, but it does mean the argument that there's a conflict that needs to be resolved is wrong. There isn't a conflict.

The variation between the onset times of rigor mortis is also in the range of hours, as are estimates of ToD based upon temperature readings. Estimates of the ToD, even today, and even when multiple readings are taken and tracked over time, are highly imprecise estimates.

- Jeff

Jeff
The witness testimony is unsafe and was never fully tested. I agree that Phillips estimated TOD is simply a guess and on that basis and that basis alone before introducing any other factors the TOD is questionable. Those other factors have been mentioned many times here but it seems those who go for a later time of death seem to want to ignore those obvious factors which in my opinion go a long way to support an earlier TOD.

Despite what you say there is clearly a conflict between the medical testimony and the witness testimony

The comparisons between the medical reports on Chapman and Eddowes in my opinion go a long way to support an earlier TOD

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Good god I finished that last post with an awful sentence; but it seemed ok at the time!

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Oh, and for those who are interested, I'm looking at a 2003 paper entitled "CLOCK SYNCHRONY, TIME DISTRIBUTION AND ELECTRICAL TIMEKEEPING IN BRITAIN 1880-1925" (sorry for the shouting, the title is in all caps and I've cut and pasted). This is a peer reviewed historical article from Past & Present , Nov., 2003, No. 181 (Nov., 2003), pp. 107-140, published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the "Past and Present Society".

There are some interesting points that I thought I would share.

... The keen interest in accurate timekeeping will be discussed in three separate, yet interconnected, narratives: on time concerns in the city of London; on the problems of time distribution; and on the electrical timekeeping industry. Collectively they will illustrate that it was only in the early twentieth century that accurate timekeeping, and its distribution, became a reality - later than most people realize. ....

and (I love his bit at the end of this quote):

"...In 1908, Sir John A. Cockburn wrote a letter to the Times complaining about the clocks in London streets, none of which appeared to record the same, let alone the correct, time. As Cockburn put it, 'highly desirable as individualism is in many respects, it is out of place in horology'. ..."

and
"...Most public clocks in London were poorly regulated and church clocks were among the worst. In 1904, the Corporation of the City of London had recommended that all clocks 'over-hanging the public way' be synchronized but did not bother to comply by regulating its own clocks which remained unreliable.18. ..." (just in case it looks weird, the 18 at the end is the number that indicates the reference they supply for this point)

and I've found the bit about the 30 minutes for noon:
"...'noon takes a quarter or even half an hour to sound' was one (my insert here: complaint) made of town clocks in France. 20 ..."

and finally, as these more than get the point across:
"... Among the correspondents to the Times was E. J. D. Newitt of the Standard Time Company (STC), one of the few private companies that distributed time electrically in 1908. He wrote that 'in the present state of affairs every man's time is his own'; he complained that the Government had no synchronized clocks, and that until many more people saw the value of accurate timekeeping 'the standard of time ascertained at Greewwich with, by our private enterprise, is placed at the disposal of the community in a variety of ways is of much less use than it should be'. 22 ..."

Basically, even into the early 1900s, public clocks in London were very unreliable, and differences in the displayed time from one to the other was not just common, it was the norm. And the variation was such that it was noted, and it was considered an irritation by some, and so the amounts are not simply a minute here or there, but in the order of 10s of minutes or more.

This problem with regards to the accuracy of the clocks should never be far from anyone's mind when looking at the time line of events. It just gets further compounded when one is not just dealing with the variation between times set by different clocks, but add into it the fact that in most cases the time was not recorded "at the time", but had to be recalled at some later point in time. Police and doctors, arriving at the scene, will record the time at the time, but a witness who gives testimony will state the time as they recall it to have been when an event happened and that may not be what they would have recorded had they done so as the event they describe actually happened.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I suggested it was too dark for the murderer to have been worried about being caught by the likes of Cadoche, or to have noticed the water, about two and a half hours earlier than Richardson's visit.

Ah, ok, I thought you meant at 5:25 it would be too dark.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi PI,

Oh, I missed this one, sorry.

If Long was making a regular and routine trip to the market, then she can reasonably have been expected to recognise the sound of the clock and the time it signified - not just on this occasion but every time.

A recollection error is not the same thing as an error in recognition. You are describing her mistaking the chimes at the time she hears them, I am suggesting that at the time she realises her movements might be important, she mis-remembers the chimes that sounded. An important difference. Recollection errors of this type are very common in eye-witness testimony.

If Cadoche was regularly and routinely taking the same route to the same place of work, and he was ten minutes later than he thought he was, he could hardly have failed to discover that, whether he was late for work or not.

Again, what time did Cadosch have to be at work? I've never seen that information.

Also, the same clock wasn't always out by the same amount, their accuracy would vary day to day by some amount, and tend to drift away from the "true time", until someone eventually resets them. It was a big source of annoyance, and a problem that continued into the early 1900s (and wasn't unique to London, I recall seeing a letter from the early 1900s where someone was complaining about having to hear the hour chime for 30 minutes due to the variation between the clocks in their vicinity! That means, from the first to the last clock, the times were out by 30 minutes! - or the person was exaggerating of course )

Anyway, clearly his start time must have been after 5:32 as he seems unconcerned about noting the time was 5:32. If I were forced to guess, I suspect he was required to start at 6:00, as 5:45 seems an odd time to start a shift, and as such, 10 minutes here or there wouldn't be of concern to him. However, it may be that in 1888 start times for work tended to be based upon 1/4 hour increments rather than 1/2 hour steps.

It is hardly believable that they were both going about their business believing that the world was ten minutes slower or 15 minutes faster than it actually was - every day.

Again, mis-timed clocks were common place in Victorian London. It was an aspect of daily life to view clocks as giving an estimate.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And it wasn't too dark. Richardson himself indicates he could see easily, and obviously could see well enough that he attempted his boot repair.

I suggested it was too dark for the murderer to have been worried about being caught by the likes of Cadoche, or to have noticed the water, about two and a half hours earlier than Richardson's visit.

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
Annie, if killed at 5:25ish, had been walking the streets for almost 4 hours. She has been outside.

-----------------------

That's what I mean by improbabilities!

Chapman is seen at a lodging house at about 1.30 a.m., is seen leaving it at 1.50 a.m., heading in the direction of Hanbury Street, and then has to wander the streets for about four hours, without anyone noticing her, before meeting her death in .... Hanbury Street.

Is it not much more likely that she met her death in Hanbury Street soon after she headed there and that that is why she was so cold and stiffening and that that is why the water in the yard was not used by the murderer, who was untroubled by the possibility of Cadoche catching him for the same reason he did not see the water: it was too dark.

Why is it more probable for her to be murdered just after she left than at any other time? One could even argue that it is improbable for her to be murdered in the short space of time following her departure.

And it wasn't too dark. Richardson himself indicates he could see easily, and obviously could see well enough that he attempted his boot repair.

Why JtR didn't use the water to wash his hands we don't know, but if he had some sort of cloth with him, or took a hankerchief from Annie's possession, he could have wetted it in the water to aid in washing his hands. We don't know, of course, but it's hardly an insurmountable problem.

There are other indications of someone having been there between the time Richardson left and when Annie's body was found.

John Davies testifies the door to the street was found open by him:

... [Coroner] When you went into the yard on Saturday morning was the yard door open or shut? - I found it shut. I cannot say whether it was latched - I cannot remember. I have been too much upset. The front street door was wide open and thrown against the wall. I was not surprised to find the front door open, as it was not unusual. I opened the back door, and stood in the entrance.

But John Richardson testifies:

[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.

That indicates that between the time Richardson left and Davies arrives, someone had left the place and didn't ensure the front door closed. Who was that?

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Annie, if killed at 5:25ish, had been walking the streets for almost 4 hours. She has been outside.

That's what I mean by improbabilities!

Chapman is seen at a lodging house at about 1.30 a.m., is seen leaving it at 1.50 a.m., heading in the direction of Hanbury Street, and then has to wander the streets for about four hours, without anyone noticing her, before meeting her death in .... Hanbury Street.

Is it not much more likely that she met her death in Hanbury Street soon after she headed there and that that is why she was so cold and stiffening and that that is why the water in the yard was not used by the murderer, who was untroubled by the possibility of Cadoche catching him for the same reason he did not see the water: it was too dark.

[JeffHamm]

Ok,

So, from the testimony, it appears Annie’s clothing at the time she was murdered was:
Handkerchief, worn as a scarf
At least 1, probably 2 or 3, Rings (missing)
Apron
Long Black Jacket
A large pocket (torn down front and side; empty)
Skirt
Two petticoads
Two Bodices
Boots
Stockings

Eddowes attire is at least listed for us (can be found under her victims page):

I’ve marked two handkerchiefs with ** as it is not clear how they were worn, given a neckerchief is already mentioned. These might have been in her possession rather than worn as clothing.

I’ve also listed her Apron with !!!, just to acknowledge that Trevor doesn’t believe she was wearing this. For the present purposes, however, I want to set that issue aside as it really doesn’t make a difference.

Black straw bonnet worn tied to the head.
Black cloth jacket
Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces
Man's white vest
Brown linsey bodice
Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
White calico chemise
Pair of men's lace up boots
1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
1 large white pocket handkerchief **
1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border **
2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
Brown ribbed knee stockings
Apron !!!


In short, Eddowes seems to be wearing more layers of clothing than Annie. As a result, more heat will be retained due to the insulation offered.

Also of importance is the following.

Eddowes had been in jail up until about 45 minutes prior to her death. She was inside.

Annie, if killed at 5:25ish, had been walking the streets for almost 4 hours. She has been outside.

Annie's surface temperature will be colder than Eddowes, and will also cool more quickly as a result of that combined with the fact she had less clothing to retain heat.

Also, after having examined a number of papers on the cooling pattern over time post-mortem, it's quite apparent that even internal body temperatures vary a great deal between victims dead for the same amount of time.

So no, it is not at all surprising that Annie might be cold to the touch while Eddowes might be warm, even if both were examined at a similar post-mortem interval.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

A comparison between Annie Chapman and Eddowes has been made, suggesting that clearly Annie cannot be cold to the touch if Eddowes was not if they were both examined the same amount of time after death because the weather conditions were similar.

The problem, though, is that weather conditions is only one of the many factors one has to consider.

One also has to consider the specifics of the individuals, both their recent activities and what they were wearing.

I'm going to break this post into two parts. My next post will summarize things.

Here I'm just going to go through the inquest testimony for Annie Chapman and highlight all of the references to clothing I can find. There might be an official list of her clothes somewhere, but I don't have it to hand.

- Jeff

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Day 2, Wednesday, September 12, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, September 13, 1888, Page 3)

From the testimony of James Kent:
…Deceased's clothes were disarranged, and her apron was thrown over them…
…She had some kind of handkerchief around her throat which seemed soaked in blood. …

(this is with respect to time discrepancies:
From the testimony of Henry John Holland:
…. Going back to the house I saw an inspector run up with a young man, at about twenty minutes past six o'clock. …
So 6:20 he claims the police (Inspector Chandler) shows up

From the testimony of Joseph Chandler (Inspector):
…On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street. At the corner of Hanbury-street I saw several men running. I beckoned to them. One of them said, "Another woman has been murdered." I at once went with him to 29, Hanbury-street, and through the passage into the yard. …

And we have a difference of up to 10 minutes to address here. Some of that could be accounted for the fact that Chandler has to talk to the men and travel to #29, but all of that seems unlikely to require 10 minutes.

Day 3, Thursday, September 13, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, September 14, 1888, Page 3)

From the testimony of Joseph Candler during Annie Chapman’s inquest:
[Coroner] Did you search the body? - I searched the clothing at the mortuary. The outside jacket - a long black one, which came down to the knees - had bloodstains round the neck, both upon the inside and out, and two or three spots on the left arm. The jacket was hooked at the top, and buttoned down the front. By the appearance of the garment there did not seem to have been any struggle. A large pocket was worn under the skirt (attached by strings), which I produce. It was torn down the front and also at the side, and it was empty. Deceased wore a black skirt. There was a little blood on the outside. The two petticoats were stained very little; the two bodices were stained with blood round the neck, but they had not been damaged. There was no cut in the clothing at all. The boots were on the feet of deceased. They were old. No part of the clothing was torn. The stockings were not bloodstained.
From the testimony of Timothy Donovan:
[Coroner] You have seen that handkerchief? - I recognise it as one which the deceased used to wear. She bought it of a lodger, and she was wearing it when she left the lodging-house. She was wearing it three-corner ways, placed round her neck, with a black woollen scarf underneath. It was tied in front with one knot.
From the testimony of Dr. Phillips:
… There was an abrasion over the bend of the first joint of the ring finger, and there were distinct markings of a ring or rings - probably the latter. …

Day 4, Wednesday, September 19, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, September 20, 1888, Page 2)

From the testimony of Eliza Cooper:
…[Coroner] Was she wearing rings? - Yes, she was wearing three rings on the middle finger of the left hand. They were all brass.…
From the testimony of Edward Stanley:
[Coroner] Was she wearing rings when you saw her? - Yes, I believe two. I could not say on which finger, but they were on one of her fingers.
From the testimony of William Stevens:
… [Coroner] Had she got any rings on her fingers? - Yes.