John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, my bad. I forgot that you believe no-one in London in 1888 actually knew what time it was at any given point. Funny though that Mrs Long says she was "certain", just like Louis said "precisely at". I agree though, things are much easier when you just disregard what was actually said and instead use what fits with the storyline you believe.

Are you the only person on here or indeed anywhere that can’t understand this childishly simple concept? It doesn’t matter if Long was certain what the time was……she cannot have known if the clock was accurate or whether it was synchronised to other clocks!!! Likewise Diemschitz. Likewise absolutely everyone alive!! We can’t be sure of this in 2023 let alone in 1888! I’ll post George’s quote again (although you probably think that you know better than the expert):

Chris McKay, who is considered an authority on clocks of that era said: "Overall I think that if you found a clock in the East End that was telling time to within 10 mins of GMT you were doing well.".


HOW CAN ANT ADULT NOT GRASP THIS!

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I'll have to call in the stewards on that one Jeff (isn't that the petito principle?). If Annie was killed around 3am ( earlier ToD theory) it would make it appear more time had passed since death because more time had passed since death.

Best regards, George

ha ha! Well yes, that would also be the case of course, but what I was trying to point out are the unknowns that make estimating ToD so inaccurate. There are a bunch of unknown values for a specific case for which we have to substitute in a "default" value (usually the population average). While using the population average will minimize the error (or, technically, the sum of the squared errors), it is still introducing error for each case. If we somehow knew a person's actual body temperature at the time of death, then the estimations would have a smaller error window as we would now be able to account for some of the error introduced by having to use an average value. This is the reason why I always point out why the simulations I've run are approximations, and are not intended to be presented as some sort of exact replication of the day. I have to use a lot of average values, and there will be the resulting error associated with them. Same principle, just a different context.

Obviously, though, if Annie were killed earlier, there is more time for her body to cool, etc. I take that to be self evident, and have been focusing more on the bits that are not so apparent, and yet are the reasons why even today estimation of ToD is imprecise. Given the variation of people's normal body temperature that I've seen reported may mean that the limit to it's precision is something like +-1 hour, although the modern methods aren't a simple linear equation, so it may be less than that? However, to get to that limit we would need a lot more of the unknowns to become known, so the error margins in practical terms, expand.

In the end, the error associated with these estimates are so large that Dr. Phillips' estimate cannot differentiate between 4:30 and 5:20-5:25 type things. Those two times are too close together for the estimation to rule one or the other out.

And there's nothing we can do to change that, and our comparison between cases won't do it either. It is what it is. Dr. Phillips estimate is simply not in conflict with a ToD at 5:20-5:25, nor is it in conflict with an earlier ToD either. His estimate does not provide information that differentiates between the options because it is an estimate that could easily be obtained from either situation. That has been the main point I've been trying to make, and maybe it's me not being clear? I'm not saying the estimate means Annie must have been killed at 5:20-5:25, only that if she was, Dr. Phillips estimate is not out of line with that. And also, to be clear, if she was killed earlier, his estimate isn't out of line with that either.

Basically, the medical testimony does not differentiate between the two possibilities, so if that is all one has, then one should not have a preference. So if one doesn't believe the witnesses, then one should not be arguing for an earlier ToD or a later ToD, but just saying "we therefore do not know". However, if one believes any of the witnesses are presenting "case relevant testimony", then that rules out an earlier ToD. Hence my argument that the later ToD is the more supported - it conflicts wtih nothing, and only when we dismiss all of the witnesses as having presented information unrelated to the case, does the earlier ToD become possible but the later ToD remains possible even in that situation.

In short, there is no way to rule out a later ToD, and the earlier ToD is only viable if all of the witnesses are wrong even though they could be right.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

In short, there is no way to rule out a later ToD, and the earlier ToD is only viable if all of the witnesses are wrong even though they could be right.

- Jeff

They don't have to be wrong simply mistaken

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

I'm almost hesitant to mention this, but you do realise the above is Computer Generated, it's not a photograph.
Brilliantly done, no prizes for guessing who made it, but not an original.

I've just looked at my copy of "Jack the Ripper CSI Whitechapel" and there it is, an illustration by Jaakko Luukanen. I know I'm slipping, but this is embarrassing. Thanks Jon.

[FISHY1118]

I might add , if you want to see what side the door opens at 29 handbury st

James Mason " The London i use to know ( i think that's the title) has him walking through the door into the yard .

[GBinOz]

I might add , if you want to see what side the door opens at 29 handbury st

James Mason " The London i use to know ( i think that's the title) has him walking through the door into the yard .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ko2HJoLxA&ab_channel=Aut0five

[FISHY1118]

Thanks George

[Michael W Richards]

Are you the only person on here or indeed anywhere that can’t understand this childishly simple concept? It doesn’t matter if Long was certain what the time was……she cannot have known if the clock was accurate or whether it was synchronised to other clocks!!! Likewise Diemschitz. Likewise absolutely everyone alive!! We can’t be sure of this in 2023 let alone in 1888! I’ll post George’s quote again (although you probably think that you know better than the expert):

Chris McKay, who is considered an authority on clocks of that era said: "Overall I think that if you found a clock in the East End that was telling time to within 10 mins of GMT you were doing well.".


HOW CAN ANT ADULT NOT GRASP THIS!

And you cant grasp even if she was off by 10 minutes either way, it still doesnt work with Cadosche. If she saw Annie 5:20, then who is in the yard at #29 at 5:20? If she actually saw Annie at 5:40, then how could all that was done to Annie be done and the killer left before Davis finds her just before 6? Its the same stupidity as the Stride Thread, if Louis did arrive at 1 to discover Liz...or just after, then how could Eagle and Issac K and Lamb be there before anyone even knows a body is there... because Louis hadnt yet found it?

The mutilation of Annie took time, factor that in as well.

Think man. Please.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you cant grasp even if she was off by 10 minutes either way, it still doesnt work with Cadosche. If she saw Annie 5:20, then who is in the yard at #29 at 5:20? If she actually saw Annie at 5:40, then how could all that was done to Annie be done and the killer left before Davis finds her just before 6? Its the same stupidity as the Stride Thread, if Louis did arrive at 1 to discover Liz...or just after, then how could Eagle and Issac K and Lamb be there before anyone even knows a body is there... because Louis hadnt yet found it?

The mutilation of Annie took time, factor that in as well.

Think man. Please.

[Hair Bear]

Thanks Jon.

Here is another photo that initially mislead me:


It shows the palings on the #29 side, which means the rails are on the otherside, which is what is seen on my earlier photo. This photo also clearly shows paving where as in the other it is not so clear. However the following persuaded me that I may be in error with the differences above the door..



Cheers, George

Not sure who inserted the Ripper and Chapman, but would I be correct in assuming they have her head too close to the house? The doc and Chandler have 6-inch and between 6-9-inch, which I've taken to mean this side of the level of the steps. We are also told she was two feet from the house, and looking at all the drawings and Mason's foot placements, I would suggest the level of the bottom step is less than 2ft away from the house, which ties in with the 6-inch/6-9-inch this side of the level of the steps.

[FISHY1118]

And you cant grasp even if she was off by 10 minutes either way, it still doesnt work with Cadosche. If she saw Annie 5:20, then who is in the yard at #29 at 5:20? If she actually saw Annie at 5:40, then how could all that was done to Annie be done and the killer left before Davis finds her just before 6? Its the same stupidity as the Stride Thread, if Louis did arrive at 1 to discover Liz...or just after, then how could Eagle and Issac K and Lamb be there before anyone even knows a body is there... because Louis hadnt yet found it?

The mutilation of Annie took time, factor that in as well.

Think man. Please.

[JeffHamm]

They don't have to be wrong simply mistaken

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah, yes, I should have phrased that better, although being mistaken is a form of being wrong.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

if Louis did arrive at 1 to discover Liz...or just after, then how could Eagle and Issac K and Lamb be there before anyone even knows a body is there... because Louis hadnt yet found it?

Hi Michael,

Chris McKay, who is considered an authority on clocks of that era said: "Overall I think that if you found a clock in the East End that was telling time to within 10 mins of GMT you were doing well.".

So Louis saw the Harris clock. He said it read 1 o'clock, but it may have been 10 min fast on GMT. However as far a Louis knew it was 1 o'clock. Koze looked at the clubhouse clock, and it may have been 10 min slow on GMT, but as far as he knew it was about 12:40. Police stations (and Railways) were regulated to GMT via telegraph, and I believe the station sergeant would set a pocket watch and give his beat PCs a correction to apply to their local reference clock. However, as soon as a PC was out of sight of the reference clock he was estimating, which is what Lamb was saying. Blackwell's time piece seemed to be out of sync with the practice clock that Johnson used, and not necessarily regulated to GMT.

So when Louis claimed it was 1 o'clock, it was one o'clock Harris clock time. Lamb was talking one o'clock Police time. There was also Club time and Mortimer time. We have no way of determining the actual sync errors in these clocks.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

Hi George,

I just posted something on the Stride thread that relates dierctly to your comments above, Im going to paste it here because I believe it addresses what you and others have been at me for. Im tired of only posting angry rebuttals. Im here for other reasons, like to discuss with others the various elements at play in these cases.

"You have clocks in peoples houses and in businesses,... like Fannys house for example, and the club, or Johnsons house,... you have people who track their times because they had to, like the beat police, you have the odd person with pocket watches, the issue with you folks is that you negate any of those sources as what the witnesses might have had available to them before they give their time estimates formally, in legal context. The other problem is that when times are given by witnesses, they are used by investigators to reconstruct actions and sightings as best as can be done so that they can try and understand what transpired, and where clues, or guillt... if any, may lie. Ive never ever suggested that clocks were, or had to be synchronized, though you both accuse me of it repeatedly. Ive only said that you and Herlock do not have the right to challenge any of those times given by witnesses. Thats the evidence, it isnt flexible depending on how accurate you perceive them to be. Or whether you think they saw a timepiece that they could use to gauge what time something relevant occurred. No-one on the planet expects all timepieces to be synchronized, not even in modern times, so when you accuse me of requiring that line of thought I am left wondering whether you get the actual point being made. The time that are given, are the evidence. Use the evidence, dont try and explain discrepancies or contradictions based on your assessment of whether the source they referred to, if any, was telling the same time that other witnesses used.

The time evidence isnt for you, or I, to interpret for some subjective accuracy determination, you can only try and use it AS IS to reconstruct something. When you cannot accurately recreate something using that evidence because some of the evidence contradicts other evidence, or is questionable, then you have to try and assess what is the most reasonable rational and logical timing based on the most trustworthy evidence. Thats it. No-one will ever know the exact time this happened or that happened, they can know however whose timing contradicts others, what stories can be validated, and with a reasonable buffer, how much time they may have been off. As an estimated time.

Almost all the witnesses in the Stride investigation and Inquest were asked to give times. Those times are the evidence. If they do not work together, it doesnt automatically suggest its because their timepieces were not synchronized. It could be because some of the witnesses didnt tell the truth. You ask me and others to disregard the fact that some of the witnesses who gave times for that half hour from 12:30 to 1am have serious discrepancies of 20 minutes or more with other witness times. When multiple witnesses agree on a time, as in this case, and other individual witnesses times contradict those witnesses, you have to assess A) is there any proof for that contradictive accounts, B) who provides that contradictory account, and C) is there any reason for that witness to be less than 100% truthful.

In this Stride case the witness timings that dramatically contradict other times given by other witnesses that are essentially the same times, 5 minutes here or there, are ALL from club staff. And this event happens at a time historically where the authorities, according to Anderson anyway, are working on the assumption that this Jack the Ripper fellow is a European Immigrant Jew. "An ascertained fact" Anderson claims. That the club houses anarchists, another word for suspected criminals. This is a time where very negative sentiment is being directed at those same people due to their numbers and the overcrowding of neighbourhoods around East London in particular. The people at the club knew they were not "trusted" by the neighbours, or the police.

That raises the real possibility, that as I indicated above, point C) that those witnesses may have reasons for shaping their stories to ensure they are not validating the negativity they knew existed. No witness would be more cognizant of that than the people who worked at the club. And in fact in this case, those are the stories that directly conflict with stories that are from sources that are neutral, from people with nothing to gain or lose by stating things as they saw them.

As you can clearly see, Ive been getting angry having to pound on these points because I dont see any acceptance of those realities in the rebuttals. I just see and read insults and accusations.

Im not going to readdress this again, so put down you weapons, Ive put it down here now as best as I can, so dont bother posting accusations or insults as rebuttal. You either get it, or you dont."

I know its a bit long winded, but I would like to have these timing discussions put to rest, and illustrating my thought process is the best way I can wrap it up from my end. I cannot control whether anyone agrees with it, but it is what it is.

[Michael W Richards]

Returning to the topic, Richardson gave a time. Its approximate, he doesnt say "I arrived at exactly". He says "between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m." He estimates how long he was on the steps..."About two minutes at most". He addresses what he saw while on the steps..."Q: Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then." That statement is not as ambiguous, he "could not have failed to notice".

I believe that is a trustworthy account. He knows he cant give an exact time so he doesnt try to, but he knows what he would have seen if it was there. That for me is the evidence that also helps establish a realistic TOD. Even without Cadosche, although I think he is very relevant, Annie would have had to be killed on that spot, (which the arterial spray suggests), sometime between approx 4:55am and 6am. There is no "earlier" time than that that can work with Richardsons statement. I believe him, whether anyone else does or doesnt is up to them. But if you feel he is trustworthy in this instance, then you have a TOD within 1 hour.

Now, Mrs Long says she saw Annie outside on the street "at exactly" 5:30am. She is unambiguous in her time, despite that we know the killing and the cutting would take some time to complete. Phillips said he could not complete the injuries made in less than 15 minutes. Is it feasible that Long saw Annie at exactly 5:30, she made her way with her killer to the yard, he kills her then spends at least 15 minutes carving the poor woman up, then leaves unseen, all before 6am? Possibly..maybe. But there would have been no trouble providing a better TOD for the woman by Phillips when he arrived at 6:30. The fact that she was killed within the hour would be easily detectable. The cool air was a factor, sure, but Longs statement if believed practically guarantees a TOD within 1 hour of Phillips arrival.

So....why would Phillips say she had been dead at least 2 hours at 6:30am? Incompetence? Really, really cold morning?
Phillips.."The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing."

I would think there are a few things to be gleaned here. The TOD is almost certainly between 5am and 6am, Mrs Long was likely mistaken on her ID but maybe not the time she saw someone, and Phillips comments need to be looked at closer.