Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[JeffHamm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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

- Jeff

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

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

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

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

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

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

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

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

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

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

Hi Dr Whatsit,

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

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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

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

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Jeff

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

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

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

Inspector Collard was notified at 1.55 a.m.

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

Where is the evidence of clocks often being badly wrong?

[John Wheat]

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JeffHamm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Phillips gave his estimate, but indicated that he was open to it being wrong when he said "..."but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood". This is noted by the coroner during his summing up when he says "...It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces. But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed the man and woman cannot have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, close by where she was last seen by any witness. ..." Basically, the coroner is indicating that the medical estimate for the ToD should not be viewed as automatically over-ruling the witnesses.

A big part of Dr.P's estimate would be based upon the body temperature. In his testimony he never indicates he took any actual temperature readings, and the only thing he states is how the body felt to the touch (cold). Some have argued that it seems highly probable that he would have taken a temperature reading with a thermometer, though (but given the gut cavity has been opened and emptied, even this might lead to an overestimation as the formulas in use are based upon how the internal temperature of intact bodies change over time). While that is an assumption, for the sake of argument, let's say that he did, giving him some objective value to work with.

Even today, estimates of the ToD based upon taking temperature readings, and factoring in body mass, the external temperature, and other factors, the accuracy of the estimate is only within +-3 hours (I've presented various research articles on this in the past, so the information is already on the boards, and there were lengthy discussions on this already so there's no point in going over the same thing again). But in short, in order for 5:25 to be considered inconsistent with Dr. Phillip's estimate, his estimate for Annie's murder would have to be 2:24 am or earlier. His estimate of 4:30ish means she was likely killed between 1:30am and 7:30 am. We can rule out some of that time because she was found dead at just before 6am, and we know she was in the doss house until 1:45am. And that is based upon the assumption that he took an actual temperature reading, recorded the temperature at the scene, and factored in things like her body mass, and so forth because that is what is done now, and even now the estimates are associated with +-3 hours. In the studies that I found looking at short post-mortem intervals, the error was, if anything, even worse (even wider margins of error). Adding rigor mortis information doesn't narrow this error window either.

In short, all Dr. Phillip's estimate tells us is that Annie was killed sometime after she left the doss house and before the time she was found. The estimation for ToD is a very very crude estimate, and in this case, even today, it is too imprecise to provide us with any useful information.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

I would think we could give Dr Phillips a bit more credit as a doctor and his ability to give a more accurate t.o.d than that which you mentioned Jeff.

I just don't think he would have been that blazay about Chapmans t.o.d as to leave us to believe she was killed between 1.50 am and 6.00 am .

I imagine he would have seen his fair share of dead people, and would no doubt have been asked to give an estimate on t.o.d in more than one occasion.
We just can't nor should we discount his estimate about Chapmans death that easily imo.