Chapman’s death.

[etenguy]

No, Phillips did not say 2-4 hours, he said "at least two hours and probably more". He never gave any extreme. And he never qualified his opinion as I have shown.

So its zero out of two for you.

This is what Philips actually said at the inquest when asked about the time of death of Annie Chapman:

[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.

So Fisherman is correct concerning Dr Philip's opinion. However to go on and say 'he never qualified his opinion' is not correct. While he implies rather than explicitly states, he is telling the court that the circumstances of weather and blood loss could have led to more rapid cooling than usual - which in turn means that his estimate of time of death is not reliable and the victim may have been dead for less time than he estimates.

[etenguy]

Its one thing to be wrong. Its another to flaunt it.

The police did NOT "realize that the body could not have been hidden behind the door". They very clearly thought it could have been.

Philips gave a detailed account of the position of the body at the inquest (my bold).

I found the body of the deceased lying in the yard on her back, on the left hand of the steps that lead from the passage. The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard.

If the head was 6" in front of the level of the bottom step and the feet were towards the shed and Richardson had been on the stairs where he said he was, the door could not have obscured the whole body. Therefore either Richardson is lying (maybe for a newspaper to pay for his story, or perhaps for five minutes of fame or for some other reason) or the body was not there when Richardson went into the yard. Chandler stated that if Richardson remained at the top of the stairs, he may have missed the body. Given the position of the body, this seems unlikely indeed, but Chandler was there and I was not. Nevertheless, Richardson states he came down the steps to sit and cut his boot - if this is true, he could not have missed Annie's body if it had been there.

[etenguy]

My response:

It is not possible to "feel" the warmth of the core "through" the skin. That is incorrect and, frankly, bizarre. All you can do is feel whether the surface of the body (i.e. the skin) is warm or cold. I literally don't know where you have got it into your head that Dr. Phillips had some kind of magic skill to feel warmth through the skin. But you will, no doubt, provide a source which shows that this is how it was done in the 1880s. Oh no, you won't, because what you are saying is ridiculous.

Philips did state that

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

[Sam Flynn]

Philips did state that "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body."

Indeed, but he wouldn't have gauged the intestinal temperature temperature "through the skin", as Herlock rightly pointed out.

[etenguy]

Taking all the statements of Philips, Long, Cadosch and Richardson, I reach the following conclusion based on the following assumptions:

Assumptions
1. None of the four witnesses lied at the Inquest.
2. Opinions, as opposed to observations, may or may not be correct.
3. Observations provided were the truth as far as the witness was concerned.

Conclusion
Annie Chapman was murdered at approximately 5.30am - hence:
Richardson did not see a body at 4.45am in the yard of 29 Hanbury street as it was not yet there
Cadosch did hear the murderer and victim some time around 5.30am
Long did see Chapman with a man at about 5.30am
Philips estimate was in line with his observations but he failed to allow for the effect of blood loss and coldness of the night as he alluded to himself in his testimony.

An earlier death relies on Long, Cadosch and Richardson all lying or being mistaken within the same general time frame (possible but most unlikely all 3 should concur with each other also).

[etenguy]

Indeed, but he wouldn't have gauged the intestinal temperature temperature "through the skin", as Herlock rightly pointed out.

That is true.

[packers stem]

More nonsense I’m afraid. You cannot possibly know that she didn’t eat again. This was a poorly nourished woman who rarely knew where her next meal was coming from. She could have had another client and bought something else to eat. She might have met a friend who shared some food with here. Why are you so obsessed with the fact that her cannot be accounted for for four hours? She was a poverty stricken prostitute. Hardly someone who would have turned heads. This was 1888. No ccctv footage. No ATM machine use. There is simply nothing remotely notable about this. You keep implying a sinister explanation based on absolutely nothing except conspiracy theorist thinking. The idea that Annie was killed elsewhere is lunacy. This is why 99.9999% of people don’t give t a seconds consideration. It’s an affront to logic, reason and evidence.

I'm going by what we know .
You're going by where your imagination takes you in order to make science fit 5.30 .....

[packers stem]

Taking all the statements of Philips, Long, Cadosch and Richardson, I reach the following conclusion based on the following assumptions:

Assumptions
1. None of the four witnesses lied at the Inquest.
2. Opinions, as opposed to observations, may or may not be correct.
3. Observations provided were the truth as far as the witness was concerned.

Conclusion
Annie Chapman was murdered at approximately 5.30am - hence:
Richardson did not see a body at 4.45am in the yard of 29 Hanbury street as it was not yet there
Cadosch did hear the murderer and victim some time around 5.30am
Long did see Chapman with a man at about 5.30am
Philips estimate was in line with his observations but he failed to allow for the effect of blood loss and coldness of the night as he alluded to himself in his testimony.

An earlier death relies on Long, Cadosch and Richardson all lying or being mistaken within the same general time frame (possible but most unlikely all 3 should concur with each other also).

No
It just means that Long saw some couple completely unrelated to the crime

[Herlock Sholmes]

No
It just means that Long saw some couple completely unrelated to the crime

Opinion deliberately disguised as fact yet again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed, but he wouldn't have gauged the intestinal temperature temperature "through the skin", as Herlock rightly pointed out.

Unless he was a magician as Fish and his 2 buddies appear to believe.

[packers stem]

If Chapman was moved to the yard after Richardson was there, then she was moved in broad daylight. Not likely. Moreover, why was there arterial spray on the fence if she was not killed there...?

There wasn't
There was a 'smear' on the fence
There were 6 tiny dots on the brickwork ,the largest being the size of a sixpence (a sixpence was a tiny silver coin ,much smaller than any coin we use today).
Hardly surprising if you were to throw a body to the ground with a slit throat

[packers stem]

Opinion deliberately disguised as fact yet again.

Same as the 'opinion' that she saw Chapman or that Cadosch heard anything of importance

[packers stem]

.

So packer are you saying she was killed elsewhere then dumped in the yard ? because if you are youll cop a lot of stick for that around here.

And ? .....

Only because some here are obsessed with the ridiculous notion of a knife wielding man in a cloak who can cut out kidneys in the dark, despite not being anatomically trained, decides to spend an awful long time disembowelling Chapman in broad daylight as the residents of Hanbury Street were waking, opening their curtains and popping out to the sh*thouse ,not only that he takes organs with him , locks himself in a room up a cul de sac with no chance of escape......
Who has the crazy idea

Chapman was not killed in situ, neither was Eddowes .It's painfully obvious but isn't accepted purely because people search for one man and his knife because that is what profiling says ...... despite there never having been a serial killer who has carried out such extraordinary feats either before or since

[etenguy]

And ? .....

Chapman was not killed in situ, neither was Eddowes .It's painfully obvious but isn't accepted purely because people search for one man and his knife because that is what profiling says ...... despite there never having been a serial killer who has carried out such extraordinary feats either before or since

An interesting suggestion, but what of the other victims? Were they killed in situ? And how do you explain the blood - are you suggesting they were killed elsewhere but the mutilations were carried out in situ? No - I see you believe Eddowes kidney was removed somewhere other than where her body was found. Your view regarding Chapman is in direct opposition to Philips' view that Chapman was definitely alive when she entered the yard, is there any reason you think Philips was wrong?

[etenguy]

Same as the 'opinion' that she saw Chapman or that Cadosch heard anything of importance

Long said she saw Chapman - that much is fact. Could she be mistaken? Possibly, but given Chapman was in the vicinity at around the time Long says she saw her, it becomes much more likely that Long did see her and not some doppelganger.

Cadosch heard noise from the yard of 29 Hanbury Street at about the time Chapman was being murdered, this increases the likelihood that what he heard was part of that murder taking place.

If we assume Long did not see Chapman and Cadosch did not hear anything murder related, we have to start relying on errors, lying and coincidences to explain what happened. The simpler explanation is more often the correct one.