John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Alright Fishy,

I don't mind replying to the scrutiny providing it's reasonable.

When posters claim Dr Phillips' medical observations are 'useless' then you know that replying is a pointless exercise, however.

We do not know whether Elizabeth Long saw Annie Chapman.

We do not know whether Albert Cadoche heard Annie Chapman say no, nor whether he heard her fall against the fence.

We do not know whether John Richardson sat on the second step and cut a piece of leather when he said he did.

But we do know that at about 6.30 a.m., Dr Phillips examined Annie Chapman and observed that rigor mortis had commenced and her body was almost completely cold.

That evidence suggests that she was killed at 4.30 a.m. or earlier.




The phenomenon of rigor mortis was first described in 1811 by the French physician, P.H. Nysten, but its physiological basis was not discovered until 1945 by Szent-Györgyi (2004). It consists of a sustained contraction of the muscles of the body, which begins at 2–6 hours after death

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rigor-mortis

Most textbooks report that most cases of rigor mortis commence between two to three hours after death.

https://biologydictionary.net/rigor-mortis/

muscular stiffening that begins 2 to 4 hours after death

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rigor%20mortis

Rigor mortis usually sets in between two and four hours after death.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rigor-mortis

At two to six hours: Rigor mortis (stiffening of muscles) will begin.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-happens-to-my-body-right-after-i-die-1132498

Rigor mortis begins within two to six hours of death

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/rigor-mortis-and-other-postmortem-changes

It begins two to four hours after death

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/rigor-mortis

Unlike livor mortis, which develops less than an hour from the time of death, rigor mortis begins 2 to 4 hours after death

https://www.osmosis.org/answers/livor-mortis

When it happens, it indicates that deaths had occurred from 2-4 hours ago.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343473450_An_overview_of_Rigor_Mortis

This stiffness, known as rigor mortis, occurs about two to six hours after death.

https://www.britannica.com/story/what-happens-to-our-bodies-after-we-die

Rigor mortis starts to develop 2–4 hours after death

Role of Rigor Mortis in Assessment of Time Since Death
medicopublication.com


Typically, the onset of rigor mortis begins at approximately 2 to 6 hours after death

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300985816629720

Rigor mortis happens within two to seven hours after death.

https://www.virtualhospice.ca/en_US/Main+Site+Navigation/Home/Topics/Topics/Final+Days/Care+of+the+Body+After+Death.aspx

It begins two to four hours after death

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rigor-mortis

[Lewis C]

Long said that she was certain that 5:30 was the time at which she saw Chapman with a man. If she was correct about what she said she was certain about, then we know that Cadoche could not have heard Chapman being murdered at 5:25.

We know that the morning that Chapman was murdered, dawn was at 4:51 AM and sunrise was 5:25. The question arises about how likely it is that JtR would have killed when there was so much daylight.

I believe that in the other possible witness identifications of JtR, he was thought to be younger than the man that Long saw.

[FISHY1118]

Long said that she was certain that 5:30 was the time at which she saw Chapman with a man. If she was correct about what she said she was certain about, then we know that Cadoche could not have heard Chapman being murdered at 5:25.

We know that the morning that Chapman was murdered, dawn was at 4:51 AM and sunrise was 5:25. The question arises about how likely it is that JtR would have killed when there was so much daylight.

I believe that in the other possible witness identifications of JtR, he was thought to be younger than the man that Long saw.

There is little doubt Long got the time wrong ,she knew where she was and what time of the morning it was from probably having repeated that journey at that exact time more than once.

If she was correct with her I.D, then Chapman was killed much earlier than 5.30am as Dr Phillips suggested.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is little doubt Long got the time wrong ,she knew where she was and what time of the morning it was from probably having repeated that journey at that exact time more than once.

If she was correct with her I.D, then Chapman was killed much earlier than 5.30am as Dr Phillips suggested.

Don't you mean:

There is little doubt Long got the time right ... If she was wrong with her I.D ?

[Wickerman]

There is little doubt Long got the time wrong ,she knew where she was and what time of the morning it was from probably having repeated that journey at that exact time more than once.
...

There is a timing problem with Long, though I doubt it is her fault.
As we don't have the original inquest record we have to rely on press accounts, and the Times reporter tells us that Long was passing No.29 as the Brewers Clock struck 5:30 am. Whereas the Daily Telegraph reporter writes that Long was in Brick Lane when the Brewers Clock struck 5:30 am. That might not amount to a whole lot of difference, but there is a difference. If the D.T. version is correct Long reached No.29 a minute or so after 5:30 am, which makes it less likely that she saw Chapman on the street.
I'm inclined to think Long heard the 5:15 chime, which would better fit the testimony she gave & Cadoche's account.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If the D.T. version is correct Long reached No.29 a minute or so after 5:30 am, which makes it less likely that she saw Chapman on the street.
I'm inclined to think Long heard the 5:15 chime, which would better fit the testimony she gave & Cadoche's account.

Even less likely!

How do you know that that clock chimed every quarter hour and how do you know that Long would not have known how to recognise the half-hour chime?

[Wickerman]

Even less likely!

How do you know that that clock chimed every quarter hour and how do you know that Long would not have known how to recognise the half-hour chime?

What can I say, I've read up on that subject, that local business clocks chimed on the quarter-hour. Local clocks were far more important in the lives of the populace in the 19th century so they chimed on a regular basis. We know Spitalfields clock chimed on the quarter-hour and if she had been in Hanbury St., considering how sound carries, etc., I would expect her to reference Spitalfields Church clock as opposed to the Brewery Clock. So, I'm inclined to see the D.T. version as most likely if she heard the Brewery Clock as it was just behind her on the same street.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What can I say, I've read up on that subject, that local business clocks chimed on the quarter-hour.

Was there any difference between the sound of a chime at a quarter past and a chime at half past?

[Mark J D]

Was there any difference between the sound of a chime at a quarter past and a chime at half past?

Westminster, St. Michaels or Whittington...?

M.

[DJA]

winchester cathedral - Google Search

[JeffHamm]

Was there any difference between the sound of a chime at a quarter past and a chime at half past?

My understanding is that the chimes were the same tune, but the 1/4 hour chime played a relatively short bit of it, the 1/2 hour played a longer bit, and the 3/4 played longer again. The hour chimed the full tune and then would sound off the hour itself. So basically, the half hour chime was the same as the 1/4 hour chime and then a bit more was played.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

My understanding is that the chimes were the same tune, but the 1/4 hour chime played a relatively short bit of it, the 1/2 hour played a longer bit, and the 3/4 played longer again. The hour chimed the full tune and then would sound off the hour itself. So basically, the half hour chime was the same as the 1/4 hour chime and then a bit more was played.

- Jeff

Right Jeff, when daily life depended on the chimes of the local clock the difference had to be noticeable.
It's the same reasoning as the British bank notes being made different sizes, with the time of day people have to be able to distinguish the quarter-hour from the half-hour, etc. Which argues against Mrs Long confusing the two, but that also depends on whether there were any other noises or distractions going on as the clock chimed.

We have to take into account that Cadoche said it was only a couple of minutes past the half-hour (5:32) as he passed Spitalfields Church clock, on leaving the house for work.
Cadoche's testimony holds together by itself, it's only the testimony of Mrs Long that causes questions, so the simplest solution to my mind is she confused the quarter-hour for the half-hour chime, or she really had not seen Chapman and her client. It was another couple.
I think Cadoche's story reads quite reasonable.

[JeffHamm]

Right Jeff, when daily life depended on the chimes of the local clock the difference had to be noticeable.
It's the same reasoning as the British bank notes being made different sizes, with the time of day people have to be able to distinguish the quarter-hour from the half-hour, etc. Which argues against Mrs Long confusing the two, but that also depends on whether there were any other noises or distractions going on as the clock chimed.

We have to take into account that Cadoche said it was only a couple of minutes past the half-hour (5:32) as he passed Spitalfields Church clock, on leaving the house for work.
Cadoche's testimony holds together by itself, it's only the testimony of Mrs Long that causes questions, so the simplest solution to my mind is she confused the quarter-hour for the half-hour chime, or she really had not seen Chapman and her client. It was another couple.
I think Cadoche's story reads quite reasonable.

Hi Wickerman,

That's my thoughts, more or less, as well. I tend to think that Long has probably mis-remembered the time, basically she recalls hearing the chime as she passed, but of course it is only later, when she realised she may have seen something important after hearing of the murder, that she has to recollect the events and she could easily have misremembered it as the half hour chime rather than the quarter hour chime. I don't think at the time she heard it, though, she would have mistaken the chime, only that later when she recalls things she may have misremembered it (obviously I can't know if that's the case, but it is a very real possibility that we have to consider). If we could interview her it would be important to find out why she was going to the market (was it for daily shopping? did she work there - one paper does suggest she might have worked there, but the phrasing means her use of work could be referring to doing the daily shopping - sorry I forget the exact wording so can't quote it here). Anyway, if her reasons were such that taking careful note of the time (as Cadosche seems to have done as he was going to work so needed to know the time) was important that might weigh against her misremembering, but if her reason was one where the exact time would be less important then the chances of a memory error increases. Again, it's another one of those things where our lack of details makes it difficult to make much progress beyond mapping out the various possibilities. A simple, and not unusual, memory error of that sort would reconcile the testimonies into a fairly straight forward sequence of events. I tend to favour this, in part because having looked at all of the suggested addresses for Long's residence (there's an old thread that tried to pin down her residence at the time), her statement of leaving home around 5:00, from any of those addresses, tend to suggest she would have passed the Brick Lane clock around 5:15.

Of course, if her identification of Chapman was a mistake despite her saying she was sure the woman in the morgue was the woman she saw on Hanbury Street, then it really doesn't matter if she got the time right or wrong and Cadosche may have left just before she entered Hanbury Street (and the couple would have been in the opposite direction to which Cadosche would walk so he might not have noticed them), and that too would reconcile the testimonies.

And not to be left out, we also know Long and Cadosche are basing their times on different clocks, and that alone could account for the discrepancy.

There's no way to prove any of this anymore, but given these sorts of margins of error when it comes to fine details in witness statements, I really don't see any meaningful conflict between Long and Cadosche because I don't view the stated times as absolutes with no margins of error associated with them. Of course, just because Long and Cadosche don't produce a huge conflict doesn't mean that Long really did see Chapman - she could have made an identification error - rather it just means that her testimony is that she saw Chapman and she was sure about that, and that would indicate Chapman was alive well after Richardson's visit.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

As these drawings show if indeed Richardson stood on the step and he only opened the door 35degrees, on that angle he only needed to look hard to his right to check the cellar door. And look into the yard without glancing to his left to spot Chapmans body

From the height of the steps he would have had to look straight down and slighly to his left to see her body , remembering he only went to check the cellar down, which he might have done many times befor. He knew just a slight opening of the door then put his head around would allow him to see the cellar door lock easily.

So i believe its just possible he did miss chapmans body .

That is of course we believe Insp Chandler when he said Richardson made no mention of sitting on the step to cut the leather from his boot .

Just a foot note , notice the gap in the paleings of the fence and the height ? Albert Cadosch

A further consultation of the detectives engaged in the case was held this morning, and an officer again visited the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, and made a careful inspection of the palings leading from that house to No. 27, where resides the young man Cadosh, who stated at the inquest that he heard sounds proceed from the spot where the body lay at a quarter-past five on the morning of the murder. An examination of the fence shows that immediately over the place in the yard there is an aperture in the palings by which the dead body could have been plainly visible, while anyone moving in the yard might easily have been seen.14 Echo Sept 20th 1888.

As this earlier post would suggest .

A much simple explaination would be that Cadosch was wrong , the 'NO'' he heard came from somewhwere else ,and the noise was not Chapman hitting the fence .

Longs time was just as likely correct at 5.30 am according to the clock she heard chime ,she just got the i.d wrong.

I dont see any problem with this senario playing out when one carefully reads the above Echo Sept 20th newspapaer report above. IMO

[JeffHamm]

As this earlier post would suggest .

A much simple explaination would be that Cadosch was wrong , the 'NO'' he heard came from somewhwere else ,and the noise was not Chapman hitting the fence .

Longs time was just as likely correct at 5.30 am according to the clock she heard chime ,she just got the i.d wrong.

I dont see any problem with this senario playing out when one carefully reads the above Echo Sept 20th newspapaer report above. IMO

Hi Fishy,

That is not a simpler explanation, but rather a more complicated one. It requires 3 errors to have been made in order to invalidate their testimony, while a misremembering of the time by Long (or a simple case of clocks reading different times), only requires one error to have been made in order to make all of the testimony consistent. That means, when evaluating the explanations, the one that requires the least amount of errors is the simpler one.

The idea that Long may have misidentified Chapman, of course, also only requires one error to have been made, which would invalidate her sighting, but of course that does nothing to discredit Cadosche's.

Obviously, it is possible that 3 errors were made, but we still have Richardson's statement that Annie was not in the backyard just before 5:00 am. We have the discovery of his legging spring, which he easily could have dropped when removing his boot to work on it (meaning, we have physical evidence at the scene that corroborates his story), and we have Davies finding the outside door was open at 6:00, suggesting someone had left in a hurry (and the door was closed when Richardson arrived). Again, all of those bits of evidence are entirely consistent with the story that emerges from the witness statements. Moreover, given the error associated with the medical testimony is large, Dr. Phillip's estimated ToD is also consistent with the events described by the witnesses. In some ways, Long's testimony, is the least important as the only extra bit of information she gives is her description of the man seen with the woman she identified as Chapman, and given she only saw him from behind, I'm not sure it's of much use.

The drawings, as have been discussed before, are just that, drawings. If there were such large gaps it seems likely the police would have questioned Cadosche more closely about why he couldn't see anything through them. I believe there are photos that show the were no gaps in the fence, but I'm not sure if those photos were taken close enough to the time as to be reliable either.

Anyway, obviously you are free to interpret things differently, but when evaluating theories the one with the least "modifications" is the simplest, and so your above 3 modifications is considered to be more complicated than one which only involves one modification. It doesn't mean the simplest has to be true, and I'm not saying that it must be true. All I'm saying is that if Long did get her time wrong, then all of the evidence, from multiple sources, is entirely consistent.

- Jeff