Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[JeffHamm]

It may have been less than an hour, but it is unlikely.

We agree on the first part, but I don't think it's particularly unlikely. Note, even Dr. Phillips points out that if he has underestimated the effect of her blood loss and the coolness of the morning, then the ToD could be earlier than he estimates.

For Long to be right, she has to have mistaken a 5.15 chime for a 5.30 chime.

I'm sure there could be other explanations, but I agree that seems to be the most probable explanation (if, of course, she's right)

For Cadoche to have heard the murderer and his victim twice in about the space of five minutes, the murderer has to have heard him without being deterred.

Indeed.

The same murderer was away in a flash in Buck's Row as Lechmere approached, in Dutfield's Yard when Diemschutz arrived, and in Mitre Square in between the arrivals of Harvey and Watkins - possibly because he heard Harvey coming.


But in daylight, and in a potential trap in a back yard, he is unconcerned by the movements of a man a few feet away?

True, but in this case he's got nowhere to run to, while in Buck's Row and Mitre Square, he has easily accessible exits.

Since it seems that Richardson did not tell a consistent story about the knife, can it be believed?

Yes, because his story is never inconsistent. He says he used a knife to work on his boot. His legging spring is also found in that location, easily explained if he had to remove it to work on his boot. He doesn't say that repair was the last time he worked on it until the Coroner points out how dull the knife was. We get more information, that does not contradict the earlier, so while questioning the witness led to a more complete picture, it did not result in him contradicting what he said earlier. That, I would suggest, is the point of asking witnesses questions.

He did not say he went that morning to number 29 Hanbury Street to cut a piece of leather.

No, probably because that wasn't why he went there. As he says, he went to check the locks. And it was while there that he decided to try and fix his boot as it appears a piece of leather in it was probably rubbing him uncomfortably. It wasn't, though, his purpose for going to #29 in the first place. Just like how he also worked on his boot later at work doesn't make working on his boot his reason for going to work.

Phillips' testimony cannot be overridden by the customary list of improbabilities.

None of them are improbable though.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's all been covered, in a lot of details, elsewhere. I've already summarized that, and I'm not going to go back into the lengthy posts again as you can find them on the boards if you're so inclined.

It's fine if you want to work with the earlier time, but that requires dismissing all 3 witnesses, each with a different explanation, because if any of them are correct (Richardson's testimony there was no body in the yard before 5:00 am; Long's identification as Annie being alive well after 5; Cadosch hearing people alive, and activity next to the fence) then clearly she wasn't dead 2 hours previous.

Anyway, my reason for thinking it may have been less than an hour is exactly what I've been saying, because the estimates for ToD based upon rigor mortis and body temperature are even today associated with margins of error in the +-2 to 3 hour range. They are simply very imprecise estimates, no further explanation is required.

- Jeff

It may have been less than an hour, but it is unlikely.

For Long to be right, she has to have mistaken a 5.15 chime for a 5.30 chime.

For Cadoche to have heard the murderer and his victim twice in about the space of five minutes, the murderer has to have heard him without being deterred.

The same murderer was away in a flash in Buck's Row as Lechmere approached, in Dutfield's Yard when Diemschutz arrived, and in Mitre Square in between the arrivals of Harvey and Watkins - possibly because he heard Harvey coming.

But in daylight, and in a potential trap in a back yard, he is unconcerned by the movements of a man a few feet away?

Since it seems that Richardson did not tell a consistent story about the knife, can it be believed?

He did not say he went that morning to number 29 Hanbury Street to cut a piece of leather.

Phillips' testimony cannot be overridden by the customary list of improbabilities.

[JeffHamm]

The textbook estimate of two hours has not changed since 1888.

What reason is there to think it may have been less than an hour?

The conditions were almost identical to those in Mitre Square, where the victim was warm and not stiffening after 42 minutes.

What reason is there to think that in this case rigor mortis set in so quickly other than a need to validate the testimony of non-medical witnesses?

That's all been covered, in a lot of details, elsewhere. I've already summarized that, and I'm not going to go back into the lengthy posts again as you can find them on the boards if you're so inclined.

It's fine if you want to work with the earlier time, but that requires dismissing all 3 witnesses, each with a different explanation, because if any of them are correct (Richardson's testimony there was no body in the yard before 5:00 am; Long's identification as Annie being alive well after 5; Cadosch hearing people alive, and activity next to the fence) then clearly she wasn't dead 2 hours previous.

Anyway, my reason for thinking it may have been less than an hour is exactly what I've been saying, because the estimates for ToD based upon rigor mortis and body temperature are even today associated with margins of error in the +-2 to 3 hour range. They are simply very imprecise estimates, no further explanation is required.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

The textbook estimate of two hours has not changed since 1888.

What reason is there to think it may have been less than an hour?

The conditions were almost identical to those in Mitre Square, where the victim was warm and not stiffening after 42 minutes.

What reason is there to think that in this case rigor mortis set in so quickly other than a need to validate the testimony of non-medical witnesses?

[JeffHamm]

[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.


I am not sure how Phillips' estimate of probably more than two hours can be whittled down to less than an hour, especially when almost identical conditions in Mitre Square resulted in a warm body showing no signs of stiffening after the elapse of about 42 minutes.

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.


I am not sure how Phillips' estimate of probably more than two hours can be whittled down to less than an hour, especially when almost identical conditions in Mitre Square resulted in a warm body showing no signs of stiffening after the elapse of about 42 minutes.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

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.

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.

[JeffHamm]

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?

Whether it was a regular trip or not that doesn't mean she would take note of the time unless it indicated she was going to be late. If she doesn't have to be at the market until around 5:45, then neither 5:15 nor 5:30 would be a concern to her, and therefore, as you say, on such a regular trip, not something she need take particular note of. As such, her recollection of the time is based upon a memory, and as such is exactly the type of mistakes that witnesses make. What I presented was an attempt to determine what time we might expect it to be based upon various suggested addresses for her. And they all seem to point to the time being more likely to have been 5:15 than 5:30, which in turn would point to a recollection error, which in turn is a very common type of error contained in eye witness testimony.

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?

Oh, I was unaware that we knew what time Cadosch had to start work? Could you provide me with the source for that information as I've never seen it anywhere.

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.

Why would there be, given it appears that Cadosch took his time reading from it?

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?

I would hazard a guess than his employers had their own clock of some sort.

Why do you assume he would be late for work if it was really 5:42 rather than 5:32? I guess that will be answered when you provide the source you have for the time Cadosch was due to be at work, as that is information I don't have.

- Jeff

[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

[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.

[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?

[JeffHamm]

Simply a very good post

Thanks Steve!

- Jeff

[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

[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

[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