Chapman’s death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We should treat eyewitnesses with a healthy degree of sceptism because humans are infallible and make mistakes. However, we have three independent witnesses whose testimony contradicts the findings of the doctor, even if their testimony is not harmonious with each other. We need Long, Cadosch and Richardson to have all been wrong, lying, or wilfully blind for the medico's estimated TOD to stick.

Good point Harry.

And let’s face it even the timings are not massively out and this was at a time when very few poor people owned clocks or watches and many even relied on a Constable to get them up for work in the morning. We are only talking about a difference of 15 minutes or so after all. To use Fish’s favourite word, would it have been ‘freakish’ for Cadosch or Long to have been 15 minutes out in their estimate of the time. There are no doubt posters who are quite happy to say that Cadosch, for example, could have been mistaken about what he’d heard but who would appear horrified at the entirely reasonable suggestion that he might have simply got up 15 minutes later than he thought? Or that Mrs Long might have been 15 minutes out either.

Here’s another suggestion. Why couldn’t Cadosch and Long both have been wrong about their timings but only by around 7 or 8 minutes. So we would have Long seeing the two people at around 5.25 and Cadosch hearing the ‘no’ at around 5.28. And so for the sake of accepting the reasonable possibility of an error of a mere 7/8 minutes we would then had three witness that tied up.

[Elamarna]

Good point Harry.

And let’s face it even the timings are not massively out and this was at a time when very few poor people owned clocks or watches and many even relied on a Constable to get them up for work in the morning. We are only talking about a difference of 15 minutes or so after all. To use Fish’s favourite word, would it have been ‘freakish’ for Cadosch or Long to have been 15 minutes out in their estimate of the time. There are no doubt posters who are quite happy to say that Cadosch, for example, could have been mistaken about what he’d heard but who would appear horrified at the entirely reasonable suggestion that he might have simply got up 15 minutes later than he thought? Or that Mrs Long might have been 15 minutes out either.

Here’s another suggestion. Why couldn’t Cadosch and Long both have been wrong about their timings but only by around 7 or 8 minutes. So we would have Long seeing the two people at around 5.25 and Cadosch hearing the ‘no’ at around 5.28. And so for the sake of accepting the reasonable possibility of an error of a mere 7/8 minutes we would then had three witness that tied up.

We are back to my little pet subject of timings.
When are people going to realise, NONE of these times are pricise, nor can they be used for meaningful comparisons.

There was No Syncronizied time full stop.
People would go by Clocks on building, church bells, clocks in homes and maybe watches.
All of which could indicate a different time, at precisely the same moment.

Long and Cadosch appear to be about 10 minutes out. So what?
why do we assume that the brewery clock was accurate( thats not even allowing for the often suggested possibility of it being the quarter past strike), or that Cadoschs time was accurate.

my rule of thumb following on from Bucks Row, is at least 5 minutes either way on timings.

We continue to take these times as if they are set in stone, THEY ARE NOT!

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Good point Harry.

And let’s face it even the timings are not massively out and this was at a time when very few poor people owned clocks or watches and many even relied on a Constable to get them up for work in the morning. We are only talking about a difference of 15 minutes or so after all. To use Fish’s favourite word, would it have been ‘freakish’ for Cadosch or Long to have been 15 minutes out in their estimate of the time. There are no doubt posters who are quite happy to say that Cadosch, for example, could have been mistaken about what he’d heard but who would appear horrified at the entirely reasonable suggestion that he might have simply got up 15 minutes later than he thought? Or that Mrs Long might have been 15 minutes out either.

Here’s another suggestion. Why couldn’t Cadosch and Long both have been wrong about their timings but only by around 7 or 8 minutes. So we would have Long seeing the two people at around 5.25 and Cadosch hearing the ‘no’ at around 5.28. And so for the sake of accepting the reasonable possibility of an error of a mere 7/8 minutes we would then had three witness that tied up.

This whole issue really revolves around Richardson and his differing accounts and could he have missed the body by reason of his actions and movements

Telegraph Inquest Account
I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then.

So here he states he sat on the doorstep and could not have failed to notice the body had it been there

Times Inquest testimony Richardson paraphrased
"I stood on the steps, I did not go into the yard, my object was to see the cellar was alright and looked and saw it was alright. I did not sit on the top step, but rested my feet on the flags of the yard"

Here he only stood on the steps and states he did not sit down !!!!!!!

Insp Chandler Telegraph account
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Here he seems to corroborate the Telegraph account by saying he was standing up an looking down at the cellar to his right

Now I would say all those differing accounts as they have been documented makes his testimony unsafe to totally rely on and he could have quite easily not seen the body at 4.50am.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[packers stem]

No, this is not extreme at all. As I keep pointing out, it's what is likely based upon the existing circumstances. Thus, it's a fact that Chapman had a wasting disease and was probably emaciated. This would have had a substantial impact on body temperature; this has been explained to you. That's why the Hessgne model requires adjustments to be made for body weight when assessing ToD. I would also point out that we don't know what Chapman's body temperature was because Dr Phillips didn't bother to take a reading!

I have also no idea why you have introduced digestion as a means of assessing ToD as this is a very unreliable method; this has also been explained to you. Thus, poly-trauma will substantially slow down digestion (this has also been explained to you), and you must realize that this is highly relevant in the Chapman case. After all, she'd suffered severe neck injuries and had been eviscerated. How on earth could you not know this?

Thanks for constantly pointing out what you've 'explained ' .
Now if I could just explain to you that when we talk about food stuff leaving the stomach we are talking about before the severe neck injuries .
How could you not know this ?
Trauma slowing digestion refers to after the trauma and injuries .
The point is a light meal of potato is most likely to have well left the stomach and entered the small intestine hours before her death had she been killed at 5.30

[JeffHamm]

Nice post. Just a few thoughts occurred to me that I thought I would share.

Richardson's statements should be compelling that there was no corpse in the yard at 4.50am. However, there are two contradicting elements to his story.
1. He not only failed to tell Chandler he sat on the step to remove leather from his shoe, according to Chandler, he actually said he did not go down the steps.

I think he said he didn't go into the yard, not that he didn't go down the steps. Sitting on the steps doesn't really contradict the idea that he didn't go out into the yard. People's use of language is, generally, a bit loose and it doesn't seem all that strange that someone who sat on the steps would say they didn't go into the yard.

2. When he brought a useless knife to the court, he then changed his story to say he didn't remove the leather from his shoe until later, after borrowing a knife from a work colleague. So he sat on the step and tried to remove leather from his shoe, the knife being blunt but he wasn't successful and then did it later.
This does not discount the main thrust of his evidence but it does cast some doubt on what he tells us. He seems to be reluctant to tell the full story until challenged - maybe he was trying to protect himself from being accused but then why come forward at all? It leaves a level of confusion and suspicion.

To me, it sounds like someone adding more details when being questioned further, and they're the sort of details that someone would easily not mention as they are not going to seem really all that important to the main thrust of what they are saying, which is basically, I was there and there wasn't a body at that time and I'm sure of it. To him, that would seem enough, but to someone questioning him, they would want to know those details (hence they get drawn out) because they need to decide if if they also believe Richardson is right to be so sure. I don't get the impression he's holding back or reluctant, rather, it's the sort of details one would think trivial to the matter (despite them actually being very important). The details he adds tend to be entirely consistent with the general picture he told, and it's the minute details that are getting filled in. But nothing he adds seems to produce any contradictions (given I don't think his sitting on the steps is contradicted by him saying he didn't go into the yard - others may see that as a contradiction).

It leaves us not knowing what the window for the time of death was with certainty. I tend to think the three witness statements taken together do suggest a 5.20 am to 5.30 am TOD but by no means certain - I am mostly swayed by Richardson, who for whatever gave a confused story but was clear about the lack of a corpse in the yard at 4.50am.

I too tend to think the 5:20-5:30 window as being the most likely given the evidence we have to work with. Other suggestions have, I think, bigger hurdles to overcome, but as you say, nothing is for certain.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

This whole issue really revolves around Richardson and his differing accounts and could he have missed the body by reason of his actions and movements

Telegraph Inquest Account
I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then.

So here he states he sat on the doorstep and could not have failed to notice the body had it been there

Times Inquest testimony Richardson paraphrased
"I stood on the steps, I did not go into the yard, my object was to see the cellar was alright and looked and saw it was alright. I did not sit on the top step, but rested my feet on the flags of the yard"

Here he only stood on the steps and states he did not sit down !!!!!!!

I don't think he's claiming not to have sat down, rather he's clarifying that he didn't sit on the top step, rather he rested his feet on the flags of the yard, which clearly indicates he sat down. Taken together that implies he sat lower down (just not on the top step, but probably the 2nd to last maybe).

Insp Chandler Telegraph account
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Here he seems to corroborate the Telegraph account by saying he was standing up an looking down at the cellar to his right

Now I would say all those differing accounts as they have been documented makes his testimony unsafe to totally rely on and he could have quite easily not seen the body at 4.50am.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Chandler's account is recounting Richardson's first interaction with him. I rather suspect that was hurried, and Richardson would be conveying the most important aspects, which would basically be he was there around 4:50, he was there to check the cellar, which he did though he didn't go into the yard. The other things, like sitting down to try and remove a piece of leather from his boot, which he ended up having to do at work, would be the kind of incidental things people do in their day that he may very well not think worth mentioning until they are drawn out through questioning. His main piece of information was there was no body at 4:50 and he was sure of it. That's what this all looks like to me anyway.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for constantly pointing out what you've 'explained ' .
Now if I could just explain to you that when we talk about food stuff leaving the stomach we are talking about before the severe neck injuries .
How could you not know this ?
Trauma slowing digestion refers to after the trauma and injuries .
The point is a light meal of potato is most likely to have well left the stomach and entered the small intestine hours before her death had she been killed at 5.30

Unless, of course, she had taken another potato with her when she left the doss house. She could very well have eaten that around 5:00 as her breakfast. It's only an assumption that the potato found in her stomach is the same potato she was seen eating around 1.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think he's claiming not to have sat down, rather he's clarifying that he didn't sit on the top step, rather he rested his feet on the flags of the yard, which clearly indicates he sat down. Taken together that implies he sat lower down (just not on the top step, but probably the 2nd to last maybe).

Chandler's account is recounting Richardson's first interaction with him. I rather suspect that was hurried, and Richardson would be conveying the most important aspects, which would basically be he was there around 4:50, he was there to check the cellar, which he did though he didn't go into the yard. The other things, like sitting down to try and remove a piece of leather from his boot, which he ended up having to do at work, would be the kind of incidental things people do in their day that he may very well not think worth mentioning until they are drawn out through questioning. His main piece of information was there was no body at 4:50 and he was sure of it. That's what this all looks like to me anyway.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
No matter how you dress it up or what explanations are put forward it doesn't detract from what is there in black and white from 1888, and that is what we have to work, with, not modern day researchers explanations or their interpretations of what was said or what they believe the witness did. The fact is that there discrepancies which as they stand make the testimony unsafe, and that TOD cannot be conclusively established.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Thanks for constantly pointing out what you've 'explained ' .
Now if I could just explain to you that when we talk about food stuff leaving the stomach we are talking about before the severe neck injuries .
How could you not know this ?
Trauma slowing digestion refers to after the trauma and injuries .
The point is a light meal of potato is most likely to have well left the stomach and entered the small intestine hours before her death had she been killed at 5.30

I have absolutely idea why you persist on using a very unreliable method to ascertain ToD. And we have no idea when the meal was consumed, so your argument that the meal had already been digested prior to her death is pure speculation.

You might also want to reflect on the fact that there are conflicting studies in this area. For instance, Spitz and Fisher argue that a small meal takes around 1 hour to digest, wheras Adelson estimates half an hour to 2 hours.And Brophy et al. found that meal emptying time can vary significantly from day to day in the same and differrent individuals. Then there's the issue of weight and caloric intake. Finally, these studies ate usually based on healthy individuals, and Chapman wasn't healthy!

[Herlock Sholmes]

This whole issue really revolves around Richardson and his differing accounts and could he have missed the body by reason of his actions and movements

Telegraph Inquest Account
I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then.

So here he states he sat on the doorstep and could not have failed to notice the body had it been there

Times Inquest testimony Richardson paraphrased
"I stood on the steps, I did not go into the yard, my object was to see the cellar was alright and looked and saw it was alright. I did not sit on the top step, but rested my feet on the flags of the yard"

Here he only stood on the steps and states he did not sit down !!!!!!!

Insp Chandler Telegraph account
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.

Here he seems to corroborate the Telegraph account by saying he was standing up an looking down at the cellar to his right

Now I would say all those differing accounts as they have been documented makes his testimony unsafe to totally rely on and he could have quite easily not seen the body at 4.50am.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

These were differences in newspaper reporting.

From The Telegraph:

[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

He sat on the steps. No doubt whatsoever.

[Michael W Richards]

We know Richardson was in the yard before 5am, we know Cadosche was in his yard around 5:15, and what we have with those 2 simple facts is that 2 people were either directly adjacent or on the same spot as the murder occurs. Whether there are contradictory reports of what Richardson said he saw is irrelevant when Cadosche's statement essentially verifies that no-one was dead yet in the yard of #29 when he went out. So whether Richardson "could have" missed seeing the dead body, something that is unlikely anyway, Cadosches remarks suggest that at least someone was on the spot Annie is killed 40-45 minutes before she is found there. Since people seem to want to follow Phillips comments, having Annie killed any later than indicated by the witnesses is therefore unlikely, and it would seem that, by the witnesses, her being killed before 5 is also unlikely. Making Phillips estimates wrong. Estimates are variables, witnesses on the spot at just before 5 and near half past 5 are not.

She was killed around 5:20.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unless, of course, she had taken another potato with her when she left the doss house. She could very well have eaten that around 5:00 as her breakfast. It's only an assumption that the potato found in her stomach is the same potato she was seen eating around 1.

- Jeff

A point that I made a while ago Jeff but you’d have thought that I’d suggested that aliens had delivered a cheeseburger to her by the reactions! It’s patent nonsense to try and say that the last recorded time that she ate was the last actual time that she ate. These poor women didn’t know where the next meal was coming from or when they would arrive. , for example, a friend had offered her a potato she would hardly have refused it.

Any calculation based on the notion that that initial potato must have been her last meal is nonsense based on something that we cannot possibly know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know Richardson was in the yard before 5am, we know Cadosche was in his yard around 5:15, and what we have with those 2 simple facts is that 2 people were either directly adjacent or on the same spot as the murder occurs. Whether there are contradictory reports of what Richardson said he saw is irrelevant when Cadosche's statement essentially verifies that no-one was dead yet in the yard of #29 when he went out. So whether Richardson "could have" missed seeing the dead body, something that is unlikely anyway, Cadosches remarks suggest that at least someone was on the spot Annie is killed 40-45 minutes before she is found there. Since people seem to want to follow Phillips comments, having Annie killed any later than indicated by the witnesses is therefore unlikely, and it would seem that, by the witnesses, her being killed before 5 is also unlikely. Making Phillips estimates wrong. Estimates are variables, witnesses on the spot at just before 5 and near half past 5 are not.

She was killed around 5:20.

Exactly Michael. But those that require an earlier TOD with continue their desperate nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have absolutely idea why you persist on using a very unreliable method to ascertain ToD. And we have no idea when the meal was consumed, so your argument that the meal had already been digested prior to her death is pure speculation.

You might also want to reflect on the fact that there are conflicting studies in this area. For instance, Spitz and Fisher argue that a small meal takes around 1 hour to digest, wheras Adelson estimates half an hour to 2 hours.And Brophy et al. found that meal emptying time can vary significantly from day to day in the same and differrent individuals. Then there's the issue of weight and caloric intake. Finally, these studies ate usually based on healthy individuals, and Chapman wasn't healthy!

i know why John.

[Joshua Rogan]

Unless, of course, she had taken another potato with her when she left the doss house. She could very well have eaten that around 5:00 as her breakfast. It's only an assumption that the potato found in her stomach is the same potato she was seen eating around 1.

- Jeff

It's a minor point, but all the reports I can find say she was eating potatoes, not a potato.