John Richardson

[GBinOz]

Ah right, I thought in "2" and "3" you were simply indulging in such far-fetched possibilities that number "1" is the only viable option, sorry.

Hi Hair Bear,

I'm not sure how far fetched those conjectures might be. In the premises of packing case makers one might expect a stray piece of wood against a fence, or a panel of wood propped vertically against, say a saw horse, which would act like a sail in a slight breeze. On the other hand, such items did not appear in the list of objects found in the yard, but would they have been, given they were entirely normal objects to be found in such premises?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi,

As the fence cannot both have and not have gaps, than clearly the sketches cannot be viewed as reliable evidence as there is no reason to favour one over another. Therefore, to the extent that Victorian Fence design is of interest, inferences about the design of the fence in the backyard of #29 will need to be drawn from other sources of information, as what ever inference is drawn can be supported by more than one sketch.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

In Australia paling fences are usually constructed with gaps between the palings, but the gaps are only a few millimetres wide. Viewed from a distance the fence looks solid. A very limited view can be had by looking through the gaps with one's face up against the palings. Movement behind the fence can be detected in only a very small area if both the viewer and the viewed movement are in line and at right angles to the fence line, which in practical terms amounts to close to 0% of the time.

So one sketcher might notice gaps (and exaggerate them in his sketch) because he observes the fence up close, while another sketcher observes the fence only at a distance, from which vantage point it looks solid.

Best regards, George

P.S. Thanks for the photo Trevor. That fence looks like an Australian paling fence.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

The entire height equation changes when he reaches the steps. A quick glance over the fence while standing on the steps would reveal all there was to be seen, if he had the slightest notion that there was anything out of the ordinary to be seen, to which he testified in the negative.

Needs must when the devil drives. Poverty and alcohol addiction can be powerful motivators.

Best regards, George

Yes, the steps change his height relative to the fence. Hmm, do we know how tall Cadosche was? I don't think so; if he were a short man of say 5' 4", that too would make a difference, but I digress.

Anyway, as we agree, his needs take priority, and if he exits and goes down the steps and only then hears the voices, the steps are over with. And when going back inside, he's facing the wrong way. And moreover, as we both agree, he testifies that he was not in the least bit interested in the activity next door. And just to repeat what I've said before, to me that signals that the "No" he recalls hearing, was not said in alarm, and so it seems the attack had not begun at the time of his first visit.

The bump on the fence, though, would suggest that the attack began during his interval between visits to the loo. Personally, it makes more sense to me in some ways if the attack began just after Cadosche went back inside on his first visit, and all but the leaving was done at the time of his 2nd visit, and the bump may have been JtR shifting closer to the fence to avoid the possibility of being seen at that time. And of course, he would flee in haste once he felt the coast was clear when Cadosche entered the loo for the 2nd time. Obviously, this is all just a guess, but a guess guided by the information we have available. There's no need to believe me.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

In Australia paling fences are usually constructed with gaps between the palings, but the gaps are only a few millimetres wide. Viewed from a distance the fence looks solid. A very limited view can be had by looking through the gaps with one's face up against the palings. Movement behind the fence can be detected in only a very small area if both the viewer and the viewed movement are in line and at right angles to the fence line, which in practical terms amounts to close to 0% of the time.

So one sketcher might notice gaps (and exaggerate them in his sketch) because he observes the fence up close, while another sketcher observes the fence only at a distance, from which vantage point it looks solid.

Best regards, George

P.S. Thanks for the photo Trevor. That fence looks like an Australian paling fence.

Hi George,

Yah, tiny gaps in the few mm range are common, though not universal. I think, though, the gap debate concerns large gaps vs "effectively no gaps", and given the very narrow range of viewing angles that allow one to see through the types of gaps we're now talking about, I would suggest these sorts of things are in the "effectively no gap" group. But what you're pointing out is that the sketches should be viewed as "of questionable reliability" with regards to the size and/or presence of the gaps as the details may reflect the artist's choice of how to depict the fence rather than the details of the actual fence per se, which is the same main idea that I'm suggesting.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

The bump on the fence, though, would suggest that the attack began during his interval between visits to the loo. Personally, it makes more sense to me in some ways if the attack began just after Cadosche went back inside on his first visit, and all but the leaving was done at the time of his 2nd visit, and the bump may have been JtR shifting closer to the fence to avoid the possibility of being seen at that time. And of course, he would flee in haste once he felt the coast was clear when Cadosche entered the loo for the 2nd time. Obviously, this is all just a guess, but a guess guided by the information we have available. There's no need to believe me.

- Jeff

The bump on the fence could have been anything there is no evidence it was the killer and Chapman when the TOD is uncertain.

Cadosh came out of his house on two occasions both times he would have used the steps which it would seem were identical to those in No 29. It would have been easy for him to have seen anyone in the next garden because he would have been at a height which clearly overlooked No 29.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Yah, tiny gaps in the few mm range are common, though not universal. I think, though, the gap debate concerns large gaps vs "effectively no gaps", and given the very narrow range of viewing angles that allow one to see through the types of gaps we're now talking about, I would suggest these sorts of things are in the "effectively no gap" group. But what you're pointing out is that the sketches should be viewed as "of questionable reliability" with regards to the size and/or presence of the gaps as the details may reflect the artist's choice of how to depict the fence rather than the details of the actual fence per se, which is the same main idea that I'm suggesting.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

So, almost Schrödinger's fence - both outcomes possible until observation by sketch artist with the very act of observation affecting the outcome.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

So, almost Schrödinger's fence - both outcomes possible until observation by sketch artist with the very act of observation affecting the outcome.

Best regards, George

Ha ha ha! Perfect! Would like twice if I could.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The bump on the fence could have been anything there is no evidence it was the killer and Chapman when the TOD is uncertain.

The bump is the evidence. It is consistent with Annie and JtR being there, particularly with some stage of the attack. So there is evidence. I agree it is not definitive proof, but that is different. In my opinion, none of the alternative explanations are better, therefore, based on the evidence the current best explanation is JtR and Annie are there. Note in particular that I am not saying it is proof, only that it is the best working hypothesis, and at this distance in time, probably the most we can achieve.

Cadosh came out of his house on two occasions both times he would have used the steps which it would seem were identical to those in No 29. It would have been easy for him to have seen anyone in the next garden because he would have been at a height which clearly overlooked No 29.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Only if he looked, which he testified he did not do, so despite the correctness of your statement it is still only describing what could have happened under different circumstances. That will not get us anywhere, in my view.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

The bump is the evidence. It is consistent with Annie and JtR being there, particularly with some stage of the attack. So there is evidence. I agree it is not definitive proof, but that is different. In my opinion, none of the alternative explanations are better, therefore, based on the evidence the current best explanation is JtR and Annie are there. Note in particular that I am not saying it is proof, only that it is the best working hypothesis, and at this distance in time, probably the most we can achieve.


Only if he looked, which he testified he did not do, so despite the correctness of your statement it is still only describing what could have happened under different circumstances. That will not get us anywhere, in my view.

- Jeff

You are right it will not take us anywhere other than to weaken the case for a later time of death on the balance of probabilities that the evidence for a later TOD is unsafe, taking into account the conflicting witness testimony and the times the rest of the victims were killed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, there are several sketches which were clearly made at the time surely they can't all be wrong?

"Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposedWhile coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.

The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.

That would have been his opportunity to say I couldn't see through it or over it !!!!!!!!!!

I also make mention of Cadosh`s testimony as reported in the Times where he states that the fence was 5`6ins only in height with it being only that height I would suggest he would have been able to see the heads of anyone in the backyard of 29 especially if they were up close to the fence.

He also states that another reason for him not looking over or through the fence was that he knew the residents of 29 to be early risers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The point isn’t just that the fence ‘might’ or ‘might not’ have had gaps because common sense tells us that there couldn’t have been gaps. If there had have been the gaps shown in the fences Albert Cadosch just couldn’t have missed seeing someone in the yard of number 29 in the vicinity of where the body was later found. There’s simply no way that he would have been asked if he’d looked over the fence and yet not one single person said “hold on, why didn’t you see anything through those huge gaps in fence?”

It’s noticeable that the two ‘gap’ sketches are very, very similar in angle and composition when compared to the others. I reckon that one was the source of the other.

[JeffHamm]

You are right it will not take us anywhere other than to weaken the case for a later time of death on the balance of probabilities that the evidence for a later TOD is unsafe, taking into account the conflicting witness testimony and the times the rest of the victims were killed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I disagree. Given all the data can be said to be unsafe, either one is left to argue no time of death can be preferred, or one is has to determine the probabilities of All the witnesses being wrong,as any one of them being right is sufficient to rule out the earlier time, vs only Dr Phillips evidence, which ge himself does not object to 5:25 type tod, and which we now know falls within the error range of his type of evidence.

Personally, given what we have available, I still see 5:25ish as the best working hypothesis for Annie's death. If you wish to champion an earlier time, go for it, but to me it looks like a risky gamble.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are right it will not take us anywhere other than to weaken the case for a later time of death on the balance of probabilities that the evidence for a later TOD is unsafe, taking into account the conflicting witness testimony and the times the rest of the victims were killed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Whilst accepting that we are talking about likelihood I find this viewpoint little short of staggering! The evidence clearly and overwhelmingly points to a later time of death. The only factor that we know for a fact is ‘unsafe to rely on’ is Dr. Phillips TOD estimation. And how do we know this? Because, without exception, modern forensic experts explicitly tell us this. And yes, I’m going to post this again because you appear to believe that these experts are simple making this up:



From: Forensic Biology For The Law Enforcement Officer by Charles Grady Wilber,1974

'The stiffening of the body or rigor mortis develops usually within an hour or two hours after death.'

Or,

From: EstimationOf Time Of Death by Ranald Munro and Helen M.C. Munro.

"The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2-4 hours) after death.'

Or,

"Francis E. Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."

Or,

"Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."

Or,

Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."

Or,

From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'

Or,

Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short".The paper alsostates that,according to W.G. Aitcheson Robertson, author of 'Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', in "death followed by convulsions, muscular exertion, racing, the rigor mortis will appear earlier". We are told thatMason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat. Then what about the physical condition of the deceased? Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"

Or,

What does Fisherman's own favourite expert, Jason Payne James, have to say about using rigor to estimate the time of death? Well let's have a look in Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

Or,

From the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology:

The time of onset and duration of Rigor is varied by multiple factors as will be discussed shortly but in general it is likely to be apparent in about 1-2 hours after death,

Or,

From Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition (updated by Jason Payne James and others)

'...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'

Or,

The examples given of factors affecting the rate of cooling of a body are:

1. Mass of the body

2. Mass surface area

3. Body temperature at time of death

4. Site of reading of body temperature

5. Posture of the body - extended or in a fetal position

6. Clothing - type of material, position on body - or lack of it

7. Obesity - fat is a good insulator

8. Emaciation - lack of muscle bulk allows a body to cool faster

9. Environmental temperature

10. Winds, draughts, rain, humidity

Phillips only felt the body for warmth using his hand when he should have taken the temperature rectally using a thermometer. But he didn’t.

Or,

Mason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat.

…….

So we have a competent Victorian doctor (not an expert in forensic medicine or a specialist) using methods that all modern experts (with 100 years of accumulated additional knowledge) tell us were unreliable. Now that, in itself, doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have got it right because that would have meant that doctors TOD’s would always have been wrong which clearly couldn’t have been the case, but it tells us of a very real possibility of inaccuracy and, let’s face it, if Phillips was wrong he was only wrong by less than an hour. Then of course we have to remember that at the inquest he added his caveat to his estimation.

Then we have to add (and I can’t recall which specific ones) that there were factors affecting TOD estimations that Phillips wouldn’t have been unaware of in 1888 (that have only been discovered in the ensuing years)

All of the above proves that Phillips TOD estimate was unsafe to rely on. Complex actions are usual more likely to err than simple ones and in opposition to Phillips we have three witnesses who only had to use their eyes (acknowledging of course that we know that witnesses can be mistaken)

Some disagree (George, Christer etc) but when considering the location of the corpse and the steps and the large gap under the door this must push the possibility of Richardson missing it toward the outer edges of unlikeliness. He had absolutely no doubt that he couldn’t possibly have missed it and he had no reason to (especially not by placing himself at the scene of a knife murder in possession of a knife.) My own opinion is that it was close to physically impossible for him to have missed it and after we add his statement I’d say that there’s little in this case that I’m more certain of. He couldn’t have missed it because it wasn’t there.

Cadosch was absolutely certain that he heard a noise coming from number 29. That it could have been an innocent person in the yard while there was a corpse there can be dismissed. George mentions a piece of would as the possible source. It’s not impossible but personally I doubt this. If something was leaning against a fence and was light enough to be blown over by a breeze? Either way, if a noise came from number 29 at that time the overwhelming likelihood is that it was in some way connected to Chapman and her killer.

Long might have been mistaken (as all witnesses might) but we have to ask ourselves what is the likelihood that she saw a woman that looked just like Chapman with a man, at that time, a few feet away from the spot where she was discovered dead 30 minutes later? The timing isn’t an issue unless we assume the unlikely and unreasonable - that all clocks were accurate and synchronised. It would only take a margin of error of 5 or 6 minutes either way from Cadosch and Long for their times to tie up perfectly.

So we have one Doctor using methods that we absolutely know were ‘unsafe to rely on’ against 3 witnesses who all point to the same conclusion (none of whom had reason to lie)

Therefore the evidence very strongly, and quite clearly, points to a later TOD.

[Trevor Marriott]

Whilst accepting that we are talking about likelihood I find this viewpoint little short of staggering! The evidence clearly and overwhelmingly points to a later time of death. The only factor that we know for a fact is ‘unsafe to rely on’ is Dr. Phillips TOD estimation. And how do we know this? Because, without exception, modern forensic experts explicitly tell us this. And yes, I’m going to post this again because you appear to believe that these experts are simple making this up:



From: Forensic Biology For The Law Enforcement Officer by Charles Grady Wilber,1974

'The stiffening of the body or rigor mortis develops usually within an hour or two hours after death.'

Or,

From: EstimationOf Time Of Death by Ranald Munro and Helen M.C. Munro.

"The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2-4 hours) after death.'

Or,

"Francis E. Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."

Or,

"Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."

Or,

Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."

Or,

From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'

Or,

Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short".The paper alsostates that,according to W.G. Aitcheson Robertson, author of 'Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', in "death followed by convulsions, muscular exertion, racing, the rigor mortis will appear earlier". We are told thatMason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat. Then what about the physical condition of the deceased? Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"

Or,

What does Fisherman's own favourite expert, Jason Payne James, have to say about using rigor to estimate the time of death? Well let's have a look in Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):

"The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

Or,

From the Textbook Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology:

The time of onset and duration of Rigor is varied by multiple factors as will be discussed shortly but in general it is likely to be apparent in about 1-2 hours after death,

Or,

From Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition (updated by Jason Payne James and others)

'...a body is not a uniform structure: its temperature will not fall evenly and, because each body will lie in its own unique environment, each body will cool at a different speed, depending on the many factors surrounding it.'

Or,

The examples given of factors affecting the rate of cooling of a body are:

1. Mass of the body

2. Mass surface area

3. Body temperature at time of death

4. Site of reading of body temperature

5. Posture of the body - extended or in a fetal position

6. Clothing - type of material, position on body - or lack of it

7. Obesity - fat is a good insulator

8. Emaciation - lack of muscle bulk allows a body to cool faster

9. Environmental temperature

10. Winds, draughts, rain, humidity

Phillips only felt the body for warmth using his hand when he should have taken the temperature rectally using a thermometer. But he didn’t.

Or,

Mason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat.

…….

So we have a competent Victorian doctor (not an expert in forensic medicine or a specialist) using methods that all modern experts (with 100 years of accumulated additional knowledge) tell us were unreliable. Now that, in itself, doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have got it right because that would have meant that doctors TOD’s would always have been wrong which clearly couldn’t have been the case, but it tells us of a very real possibility of inaccuracy and, let’s face it, if Phillips was wrong he was only wrong by less than an hour. Then of course we have to remember that at the inquest added his caveat to his estimation.

Then we have to add (and I can’t recall which specific ones) that there were factors affecting TOD estimations that Phillips would have been unaware of in 1888 (that have only been discovered in the ensuing years)

All of the above proves that Phillips TOD estimate was unsafe to rely on. Complex actions are usual more likely to err than simple ones and in opposition to Phillips we have three witnesses who only had to use their eyes (acknowledging of course that we know that witnesses can be mistaken)

Some disagree (George, Christer etc) but when considering the location of the corpse and the steps and the large gap under the door this must push the possibility of Richardson missing it toward the outer edges of unlikeliness. He had absolutely no doubt that he couldn’t possibly have missed it and he had no reason to (especially not by placing himself at the scene of a knife murder in possession of a knife.)

Cadosch was absolutely certain that he heard a noise coming from number 29. That it could have been an innocent person in the yard while there was a corpse then can be dismissed. George mentions a piece of would as the possible source. It’s not impossible but personally I doubt this. If something was leaning against a fence and was light enough to be blown over by a breeze? Either way, if a noise came from number 29 at that time the overwhelming likelihood is that it was in some way connected to Chapman and her killer.

Long might have been mistaken (as all witnesses might) but we have to ask ourselves what is the likelihood that she saw a woman that looked just like Chapman with a man, at that time, a few feet away from the spot where she was discovered dead 30 minutes later? The timing isn’t an issue unless we assume the unlikely and unreasonable - that all clocks were accurate and synchronised. It would only take a margin of error of 5 or 6 minutes either way from Cadosch and Long for their times to tie up perfectly.

So we have one Doctor using methods that we absolutely know were ‘unsafe to rely on’ against 3 witnesses who all point to the same conclusion (none of whom had reason to lie)

Therefore the evidence very strongly, and quite clearly, points to a later TOD.

Thank you for your lengthy reply but we will agree to disagree on the TOD. As I said the balance of probabilities taking into account all the evidence points to an earlier TOD

We obviously interpret and evaluate the strength and value of the witness testimony quite differently

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for your lengthy reply but we will agree to disagree on the TOD. As I said the balance of probabilities taking into account all the evidence points to an earlier TOD

We obviously interpret and evaluate the strength and value of the witness testimony quite differently

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I don’t dismiss the inconvenient.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Thank you for your lengthy reply but we will agree to disagree on the TOD. As I said the balance of probabilities taking into account all the evidence points to an earlier TOD

We obviously interpret and evaluate the strength and value of the witness testimony quite differently

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Could you please develop your argument for me. You previously referred to your reasons for rejecting the evidence as being "the conflicting witness testimony" and the "times the rest of the victims were killed".

The evidence of the witnesses Richardson, Davis, Long, Cadosch and Phillips actually knits together quite well. I understand that we could have reservations about individual statements, but they all gelled together sufficiently well for the coroner to accept them as the likely truth. So we appear to have to reject almost all of the known witness evidence if we don't accept a ToD of about 5. 30 am. The coroner, who had the full detailed witness statements, heard all of the evidence, and who was used to estimated time variations, accepted the evidence, finding the differences "not very great or very important". So no conflicting evidence of significance for the coroner.

As for the "times the rest of the victims were killed", I am unsure exactly how you are using this information, what ToDs you are using, and to which victims you refer. I believe that you don't accept appx 3. 30 am for Nichols, and there is a huge range of possible times for Kelly. You have a theory, it seems, that for some reason JtR killed all his victims at a particular time?

You must have some very powerful information, of which I am unaware, to claim that "the balance of probabilities taking into account all the evidence points to an earlier time of death".