Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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