Chapman’s death.

[Jon Guy]

Simple question to Mrs Long "Are you certain that the woman you saw talking to the man was the victims Eddowes"? what would her answer have been based on what she said the answer would be "No I am not"

I don`t know about Eddowes, but Long was shown the body of Annie Chapman and identified her as the woman she saw that morning.
This info is already on record, Trev, have a look.

[PaulB]

But you cant do that if there are conflicts in the facts, and the evidence, all you are going to be able to do is cherry pick what you belive to be the best scenario which is what we see here.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No. Cherry-picking is selecting the evidence that best fits your theory. What we are doing is assessing the evidence very carefully and constructing the most likely picture of what happened 130 years ago. That picture can change if new material appears or a new interpretation is accepted. That's why history is a fluid subject, not static and stagnant.

You want the impossible, you want certainty, but you'll hardly ever get that. You'll NEVER have 'beyond reasonable doubt'. All you have are the sources. That's it. Nothing else. And if there are conflicts in those sources then you do the best you can with them and, as said, construct the most likely sequence of events. The alternative is to do what you do, namely set the testimony aside as unreliable, don't use it, and leave us without any history - in this case leaving just a body in a yard. As a policeman that's what you might have to do, lacking any firm evidence to bring charges and go to court, but that's not at all satisfactory to a historian trying to understand what happened back then, and as he or she's not constrained by the legal needs of the evidence, even unreliable testimony cane considered and balanced in context with the events.

A careful and controlled assessment of the evidence is not cherry-picking.

[PaulB]

Just dealing with the witnesses

Simple question to Mrs Long "Are you certain that the woman you saw talking to the man was the victims Eddowes"? what would her answer have been based on what she said the answer would be "No I am not" So that would rule her testimony out in favour of a TOD being 5.20am

As to Cadosh he has already said he didnt know where the voice came from other than the direction of 29, but as we know sound carries in the dead of night or the early morning. So that part of his testimony weakens the case for a 5.20 murder. As to a bump agains the fence it could have been caused by anything.

Staying with Cadosh he hears a bump against the fence it could have been anything so the 5.20am murder time is not conclusively proven by his evidence. He could have got his time wrong or simply heard Davies or Richardson open the door, which if you look at the picture might have been caused by the door swinging open and banging against the fence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We're talking about Annie Chapman, not Catherine Eddowes, and on 12 September Mrs Long went to the mortuary and identified the body of Annie Chapman as that of the woman she had seen outside no.29. You have been told this already, so I don't know why you write that she wasn't sure. As for Cadosch, you are speculating that the sound carried, yet he thought it came from the yard of no.29, and you are speculating that the bump against the fence was caused by an unspecified 'anything', but what? A cat, dog, piece of lumber? What? You are playing 'what if' - 'what if' the sound carried, 'what if' something that wasn't the victim or murderer bumped against the fence? And now you are guessing that the door of no 29 might have banged against the fence, and that Cadosch might have got his times wrong. The reality is that Cadosch went indoors and as he did so he heard a voice which he thought came from the yard of no.29 and he later heard a bump against his fence.

[PaulB]

I don`t know about Eddowes, but Long was shown the body of Annie Chapman and identified her as the woman she saw that morning.
This info is already on record, Trev, have a look.

Sorry, I hadn't seen your post when I replied the same to Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor,

As Jon and Paul have both said, Long saw Annie’s body and was confident that it was the woman hat sh’d seem talking to a man. O course this isn’t 100% game over but it’s a strong positive point.

Cadosch didn’t say thatnhe didn’t know where the ‘no’ came from. He just showed caution that it was not impossible that he might have been mistaken. He might even have been over cautious. But caution doesn’t point to a liar or an attention seeker. There was no one to contradict him so he could easily of said that it definitely came from number 29. So if the noise did come from number 29 simply saying that it could have been anything is nowhere near good enough? What could it have been? Not a person that’s for sure. Let’s face it he was a matter of feet away. And what could the noise have been? Again, certainly not a person? A cat? Something as light and agile as that? Cats are timid would it have gone near a body? What about a dog? How did it get into the yard over the fences? How did it get back out? It was overwhelmingly likely to have Ben connected to the murder. If it was the backdoor Of number 29 Cadosch would have seen and reported th open door.

This is extreme nitpicking to try and discredit witnesses. Likewise Richardson. He simply ave a fuller version of te version he gave to Chandler during a discussion in the passageway. No one pushed or prompted him but at the Inquest he volunteered the info about sitting on the step. At the same time placing himself at the scene with a knife. Why would he do that?

Add this to a doctors TOD that can safely be dismissed and we are left with an overwhelming likelihood of a TOD after 5.20. This is where the evidence points us.

[Joshua Rogan]

Simple question to Mrs Long "Are you certain that the woman you saw talking to the man was the victims Eddowes"? what would her answer have been based on what she said the answer would be "No I am not" So that would rule her testimony out in favour of a TOD being 5.20am

As I posted earlier in this thread, she was asked this very question at the inquest, and her answer was "Oh yes"

Daily News 20 Sept;
"The witness saw the woman's face. She had never seen her before, but she recognised the deceased when she saw her in the mortuary as the same person.

The Coroner - Are you sure?

The Witness - Oh, yes."

[Trevor Marriott]

As I posted earlier in this thread, she was asked this very question at the inquest, and her answer was "Oh yes"

Daily News 20 Sept;
"The witness saw the woman's face. She had never seen her before, but she recognised the deceased when she saw her in the mortuary as the same person.

The Coroner - Are you sure?

The Witness - Oh, yes."

Now we delve into the question of identification which again I would suggest is also unsafe but I cannot be arsed to spend any more of my valuable debating this issue. I have said all that needs to be said from an investigative perspective and I stand by all the flaws I have highlighted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Regarding the issue of digestion and time of death. I would add that there could have been another pertinent factor. Thus, Dr Phillips autopsy indicates that Chapman may have been in an advanced stage of tuberculosis. This is significant because before effective drugs became available autopsies, conducted on patients with pulmonary tuberculosis, revealed intestinal involvement in 55-90% of cases, with the frequency related to the extent of pulmonary involvement: see Rathi and Gambhire, 2016.

Presumably abdominal tuberculosis could have a significant effect on gastric emptying rates. However, as noted previously, as studies in this area invariably focus on healthy subjects, It's difficult to draw firm conclusions, thus further highlighting the problem of determining ToD with any degree of acuracy.

[PaulB]

Now we delve into the question of identification which again I would suggest is also unsafe but I cannot be arsed to spend any more of my valuable debating this issue. I have said all that needs to be said from an investigative perspective and I stand by all the flaws I have highlighted

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, you don't delve into the question of unsafe identifications. You said that if Mrs Long had been asked if she was certain the woman was Chapman (though you actually wrote Eddowes), she would have answered, "No I am not". And you said 'that would rule her testimony out in favour of a TOD being 5.20am'. But she was asked that question and she replied, "Oh, yes." So what you asserted was wrong. It has nothing to do with the certainties or otherwise of identifications. However, when you have her saying "No I am not" her words are reliable and enable you to rule out her testimony as favouring a post-5.20am time of death. Yet when she says "Oh yes", her words are suddenly unsafe. Your bias couldn't be more obvious if it was illuminated with giant arc lights! No wonder you don't want to debate this anymore...

I'm sorry, but you state that Phillips' estimate of time of death was a guess and you have offered no credible reason for disbelieving Richardson, Cadosch and Long, except that their stories cannot be proved conclusively (which is likely to always be an impossibility). Do you really think that comes anywhere near a reasoned argument?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now we delve into the question of identification which again I would suggest is also unsafe but I cannot be arsed to spend any more of my valuable debating this issue. I have said all that needs to be said from an investigative perspective and I stand by all the flaws I have highlighted

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Is there a single witness, a single senior police officer, a single piece of evidence or testimony in this case that isn’t worthy of dismissal in your opinion?

When you receive a letter and you find a spelling error do you simply throw the letter in the bin ignoring the content?

When you were a police officer how did you ever follow up leads if every piece of evidence or witness statement or piece of information had to be utterly perfect?

• Long identified Chapman as the woman that she saw. She could have been mistaken of course but equally she might have been correct. She also might reasonably have been a little out with her timing.
• Richardsons testified under oath that he could not possibly have missed a body had it been there at 4.50. He had no reason to go into the detail of sitting on the step when talking to Chandler in an unofficial discussion in the passageway. No one forced or prompted him to mention sitting on the step with a knife at The Inquest but he did. All that you have to throw any doubts on him is what Chandler said in an unofficial discussion at a busy time. Why is it so impossible for example that Chandler misheard something like “‘I sat on the steps” and checked the cellar doors’ and heard it as “‘I stood on the steps” and checked the cellar doors’? Richardson simply had no reason to lie. He’s a believable witness.
• Cadosch is even stronger. He said that he heard no from number 29 but was cautious. He was certain though that he heard the noise against the fence. We can name nothing else that it could have been outside the realms of fantasy. So if he was mistaken then there just happened to be a no that appeared to come from number 29 and a noise that did come from number 29 just within the 70 minute gap between Richardson and Davis? Yeah right.
• Phillips TOD estimate has been categorically shown to have been unsafe by the authority of the best minds in Forensic medicine.

So to round up and even to simplify. What you and others are asking is this.....that three very good (and very inconvenient for some) witnesses were all either mistaken or lying and that Dr Phillips lucky guessed Chapman’s TOD and achieved something that no Victorian Doctor could have done. Whatever efforts are made here if you took a 1000 random people and explained the circumstances fully around events at number 29. Giving them all of the information 990+ would go for a TOD sometime after 5.20 and just to add, I’d struggle to believe that a single one would suggest that Chapman was killed elsewhere.

The case for the TOD has been proven as near as it will ever be in the absence of new evidence. Only bias or bloody-mindedness keeps this debate going.

[John G]

I'm not sure what the issue is with Richardson's evidence. If you accept the Chandler version, then you're effectively arguing that Richardson lied under oath. And, unless he was the killer, why would he do that?

In any event, it doesn't decisively alter matters, i.e. because Chandler stated at the inquest that if Richardson was at the top of the step then he "might not have seen the body", not that he wouldn't have seen the body.

If you reject both accounts then you're effectively arguing that Richardson lied to both Inspector Chandler and to the inquest. Why would he do that? What's the evidence that Richardson had a motive to perjure himself and to lie to the police?

And yet some people consider this to be the most plausible scenario!

Maybe some people just like to swim against the tide.

[etenguy]

I don`t know about Eddowes, but Long was shown the body of Annie Chapman and identified her as the woman she saw that morning.
This info is already on record, Trev, have a look.

Hi Jon - I agree with your statement, but wasn't the identification some four days after she had seen the couple in the street? A couple she took little notice of by her own testimony. I struggle to put too much reliance on Long's statement by itself. I only reach the point of thinking she may have been correct when considered in concert with Cadosch and Richardson.

[etenguy]

I'm not sure what the issue is with Richardson's evidence. If you accept the Chandler version, then you're effectively arguing that Richardson lied under oath. And, unless he was the killer, why would he do that?

In any event, it doesn't decisively alter matters, i.e. because Chandler stated at the inquest that if Richardson was at the top of the step then he "might not have seen the body", not that he wouldn't have seen the body.

If you reject both accounts then you're effectively arguing that Richardson lied to both Inspector Chandler and to the inquest. Why would he do that? What's the evidence that Richardson had a motive to perjure himself and to lie to the police?

And yet some people consider this to be the most plausible scenario!

Hi John

Richardson lied to Chandler (or Chandler made a mistake) if Richardson's inquest testimony is accurate - Chandler states that Richardson stated he did not go down the steps. Chandler also stated (though I find it hard to believe having since photos of the yard) that Richardson may not have seen Annie's corpse if he stayed at the top of the stairs. If Chandler is correct, then the corpse may have been there at 4.50am.

I think Richardson was not a great communicator because of his narrowly focussed answers and confusion about his statements. Nevertheless the one thing he states consistently and with great certainty is that he would have seen the corpse if it had been there. This is the meat of his statement and this provides me with a high level of confidence on this point.

[John G]

Hi John

Richardson lied to Chandler (or Chandler made a mistake) if Richardson's inquest testimony is accurate - Chandler states that Richardson stated he did not go down the steps. Chandler also stated (though I find it hard to believe having since photos of the yard) that Richardson may not have seen Annie's corpse if he stayed at the top of the stairs. If Chandler is correct, then the corpse may have been there at 4.50am.

I think Richardson was not a great communicator because of his narrowly focussed answers and confusion about his statements. Nevertheless the one thing he states consistently and with great certainty is that he would have seen the corpse if it had been there. This is the meat of his statement and this provides me with a high level of confidence on this point.

Hi,

Yes, very good points, well summarized. And surely the only logical reason Richardson had for lying is if he himself was the killer-otherwise why does it matter to him whether he was able to see the body or not at 4:45? And for those who advocate Lechmere as a suspect, that scenario, ironically, is completely destructive to their case.

[etenguy]

Hi,

Yes, very good points, well summarized. And surely the only logical reason Richardson had for lying is if he himself was the killer-otherwise why does it matter to him whether he was able to see the body or not at 4:45? And for those who advocate Lechmere as a suspect, that scenario, ironically, is completely destructive to their case.

Hi again, John

I am not a Lechmere as Ripper advocate, but Fisherman has raised a number of questions about his behaviour which is troubling, though may simply be a reaction to the circumstances he found himself in that night. But I am not convinced a 5.30ish TOD destroys the case against him since:
a) he may not have been working that day for some reason - I don't think anyone checked;
b) or he may have been able to slip away from work unnoticed for a while;
c) or he may have changed his shift times for that day for some reason.
I don't know any of the above are true, but all are possibilities.