John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for the detailed reply jeff, although I agree with some of your points I disagree with others , ill refrain from expanding on those points again as we'd only be going over the same ground to that which we differ in opinions regarding the evidence at hand .All in all I don't think enough evidence has been shown that conclusively suggest a much later TOD is more viable than an earlier one based on the way that evidence is being and has been interpreted imo.

Then you haven’t read the evidence. If you read the evidence it’s impossible not to favour a later ToD. Simple as that. There’s too much wish-washy nonsense going on.

Three witnesses beat a 19th century, non-forensic expert Doctors unreliable estimation. I’m not giving my opinion here….I’m stating a fact. It’s not a matter of ‘interpretation’ on the likelihood of later or earlier…..a later ToD is the likeliest and by a mile.

[JeffHamm]

What isn't discussed much, George, and probably never has been; is why Albert couldn't determine the direction of the "no".

The human brain understands the direction of sound due to the difference in volume when hitting the right and left ear. Obviously, a sound to your left means there is obstruction in your senses prior to the sound hitting your right ear and as a result the sound is of a lower volume when in the right ear. It follows that when a noise is coming from your left or right it's very easy to determine the direction of that sound.

Albert had just reached the door, supposedly Annie is not far away at all to his left. Why didn't he know the direction of that sound?

On the other hand, the most difficult place from which to determine the direction of sound, is when it's coming from in front of you and that's because the sound hits your right and left ear at the same time and at the same volume.

There's a bit more to it than just the difference in volumes of the sound. The brain also uses the interaural arrival time differences, as a sound coming from your left reaches the left ear slightly before the right ear, and that difference in time is used. Sounds directly in front will be of equal volume and will arrive at the same time. And there's a third source of information, which has to do with how the body (head, etc) will interfere with the different frequencies that make up a sound (natural sounds are not pure tones).

The brain uses those three sources of information (often referred to as cues), to locate the 3d direction of the sound source. Working out the distance along that vector is trickier, and tends to be based upon familiarity with the sound.

Because sounds coming from behind us get interfered with by the ears differently than sounds coming from in front of us, front back isn't so difficult. There is, however, what is known as the "cones of confusion", which describe cones of locations directly out from each ear (picture a typical traffic cone stuck in each ear). Sounds that fall on the circumference of those cones are hard to localize, but if the sound source moves inside or outside of the cone itself get disambiguated.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Then you haven’t read the evidence. If you read the evidence it’s impossible not to favour a later ToD. Simple as that. There’s too much wish-washy nonsense going on.

Three witnesses beat a 19th century, non-forensic expert Doctors unreliable estimation. I’m not giving my opinion here….I’m stating a fact. It’s not a matter of ‘interpretation’ on the likelihood of later or earlier…..a later ToD is the likeliest and by a mile.

Yes i have read the evidence Herlock , and it is indeed possible according to it. Your opinion of the same evidence and how you choose to interpret it doesnt make it a fact . Plain and simple .

But you’re on a forum doing exactly that….playing amateur detective. ''And no one on hear is more repetitive'' that you are Trevor. It’s like having a parrot posting sometimes.

I can think of one , i bet Trevor can too.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

"the degree of reliability" is the key. Consider a table upon which are a can of beer and a mug of coffee. If you pick up the can you can tell if it has just come from the fridge, or has been sitting there over night. Likewise with the mug, it is discernable whether the coffee has been made fresh or is a remnant of the previous night's activities. Subjectivity will play a very small part in these judgements, and common sense tells us that, if the beer just came out of the fridge and the coffee is freshly made, it will be some considerable time before they feel like they are the same temperature. To say that the time will be more than 20 minutes does not require a high level of perception or expertise.

This is how I view the comparison between the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes with the former being cold and the latter warm. The difference is just too large to be explained in terms of 20 to 30 minutes. JMO

Best regards, George

With all due respect George, from the various papers I have read the evidence shows that human bodies do not act like simpler objects, such as cans of beer or mugs of coffee and that the variation you believe is unlikely is actually the case. Having looked at a few papers now, that present cooling data of bodies post mortem, it is very clear that the variation between two cases is actually much larger than you appear to believe, as such, I'm afraid we're unlikely to come to a common conclusion as we have different ideas about that variablity. I don't expect you to just take my word for it though (it's never a good idea to just accept something as yes, even I make mistakes! ha ha). I would, however, recommend you look for some research papers on the topic as I think you would find it quite interesting, and you may find something that I've overlooked and we both learn from it.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for the detailed reply jeff, although I agree with some of your points I disagree with others , ill refrain from expanding on those points again as we'd only be going over the same ground to that which we differ in opinions regarding the evidence at hand .All in all I don't think enough evidence has been shown that conclusively suggest a much later TOD is more viable than an earlier one based on the way that evidence is being and has been interpreted imo.

No problem Fishy, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

When you start imaging comings and goings happening with precise times you invariably will have trouble. And its not clear that Cadosche did in fact use the loo when "relieving himself". He did however note that he had heard sounds from the yard of #29 before, so it stands to reason then that his statement that he believed the sounds were from that yard, can be accepted. The timings, as some are intent on dismissing offhandedly, do suggest that when Cadosche heard the sounds, both sounds, the same party was in that yard and it almost without doubt would have been Annie and her killer. 4:45-no-one there, 5:15 and 5:20-voice, then thud sounds, 5:45-6am-found dead. If she is killed in that yard, and that seems to be without question, then we need to allow time for the cutting and the unseen exit.

What I'm looking for here is, is it a realistic possibility that Chapman and her killer could have entered the yard of No. 29 while Cadosch was in the yard of No. 27 without him hearing them? I mentioned the loo because I thought being there would have been the most likely explanation for how he might not have heard them.

[FISHY1118]

No problem Fishy, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

What isn't discussed much, George, and probably never has been; is why Albert couldn't determine the direction of the "no".

The human brain understands the direction of sound due to the difference in volume when hitting the right and left ear. Obviously, a sound to your left means there is obstruction in your senses prior to the sound hitting your right ear and as a result the sound is of a lower volume when in the right ear. It follows that when a noise is coming from your left or right it's very easy to determine the direction of that sound.

Albert had just reached the door, supposedly Annie is not far away at all to his left. Why didn't he know the direction of that sound?

On the other hand, the most difficult place from which to determine the direction of sound, is when it's coming from in front of you and that's because the sound hits your right and left ear at the same time and at the same volume.

Hi FM,

Cadosche actually testified "I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door". So he was in the door way, with the door self closing (presuming it was like #29) and forming a barrier to the supposed direction of the source of the sound. In addition the possibility of echoes is thrown into the mix. My conclusion is that he wasn't sure where the sound came from and was perhaps trying to be "helpful" in suggesting that it may have come from the #29 side.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

With all due respect George, from the various papers I have read the evidence shows that human bodies do not act like simpler objects, such as cans of beer or mugs of coffee and that the variation you believe is unlikely is actually the case. Having looked at a few papers now, that present cooling data of bodies post mortem, it is very clear that the variation between two cases is actually much larger than you appear to believe, as such, I'm afraid we're unlikely to come to a common conclusion as we have different ideas about that variablity. I don't expect you to just take my word for it though (it's never a good idea to just accept something as yes, even I make mistakes! ha ha). I would, however, recommend you look for some research papers on the topic as I think you would find it quite interesting, and you may find something that I've overlooked and we both learn from it.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Perhaps I erred in using a comparison between inanimate objects and living entities but my examples was to demonstrate extremes rather than a comparison between living and inanimate. I'm in full agreement on the variability, and expect that you would agree that a graphical representation of that variability in a statistically significant sample will be in the form of a bell curve. Modern thinking on the methods of determining intervals since death vary, as do the results, but I think you are suggesting that if Chapman and Eddowes were included in the sample they would fall at the extreme opposite ends of the bell curve, which is in line with your suggestion that there is a very large variation between the two. My point is, do we have sufficient evidence to justify their allocation to the very edges of statistical samples. While the notion that the methods of the time were crude by comparison with today's thinking, is there sufficient evidence to warrant the assumption that they must necessarily have been statistical outliers? The theory behind the bell curve in that the highest probability is that their interval of death calculation would be in the central cluster of a reasonable sample. Is the estimation of the probability being coloured by the additional necessity to fit in with witness testimony?

Best regards, George .

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Perhaps I erred in using a comparison between inanimate objects and living entities but my examples was to demonstrate extremes rather than a comparison between living and inanimate. I'm in full agreement on the variability, and expect that you would agree that a graphical representation of that variability in a statistically significant sample will be in the form of a bell curve. Modern thinking on the methods of determining intervals since death vary, as do the results, but I think you are suggesting that if Chapman and Eddowes were included in the sample they would fall at the extreme opposite ends of the bell curve, which is in line with your suggestion that there is a very large variation between the two. My point is, do we have sufficient evidence to justify their allocation to the very edges of statistical samples. While the notion that the methods of the time were crude by comparison with today's thinking, is there sufficient evidence to warrant the assumption that they must necessarily have been statistical outliers? The theory behind the bell curve in that the highest probability is that their interval of death calculation would be in the central cluster of a reasonable sample. Is the estimation of the probability being coloured by the additional necessity to fit in with witness testimony?

Best regards, George .

Hi George,

I perhaps have phrased things a bit wrong, I'm not saying Chapman and Eddowes would fall at opposite ends, only that they could, and we don't know where they fall. As such, the differences between them cannot be said to be surprising simply because they fall within the expected range of variation. This is just the way known population distributions are used to make inferences about specific examples, so I'm not doing anything unusual in that regards.

Also, while there are similarities in the injuries inflicted, there are a lot of important differences between those specific cases. Eddowes appears to have been wearing more clothing (provided, of course, the information listing Chapman's clothes is complete). Annie appears to have been outside for many hours, which introduces the possibility of mild hypothermia to be considered (lowering her starting temperature, making it appear more time had passed since death), Eddowes was inside. Chapman was ill, and also walking around, while Eddowes, being intoxicated, was probably asleep for some period. We know Eddowes had had a fair bit of alcohol, Annie appears to have had much less. Alcohol makes the blood vessels expand and so one will feel warmer to the touch; and even though there was great amounts of blood loss, prior to that the increased heat would warm the body itself, so not all the extra warmth gets lost due to the loss of blood. We also do not know either victims normal resting body temperature, and that alone introduces a range of error in the +-1 hour range, and so introduces up to 2 hours difference between any two cases.

There are, of course, some factors that might work the other way. Annie was considerably plumper than Kate, and larger bodies may retain heat longer, although that typically applies to the internal body temperature of intact bodies (the increased amount of flesh slows the internal cooling rate), so this would probably be reduced due to the nature of the injuries.

Anyway, while I think it an interesting idea to try and compare the two, I think we can mislead ourselves into thinking the two cases are more similar than they are. The relationship between time and body temperature is a complex relationship, and it is influenced by a lot of factors, most of which we do not know and so cannot apply them to our comparisons. As a result, one might end up "predicting" Annie and Kate would have similar temperatures, but those predictions, being associated with high error margins, are not sufficiently reliable to substitute them in as facts. It is as easily explainable for them to have quite different temperatures as it is to have two witnesses report the same event happening at different times if they have referred to different clocks.

- Jeff

[Hair Bear]

This is how I view the comparison between the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes with the former being cold and the latter warm. The difference is just too large to be explained in terms of 20 to 30 minutes. JMO

That's a very valid point which can't be swept easily away (nor should it be). This probably has no bearing on two dead bodies, but many moons ago I participated in a 90-minute yoga class. At the end of the time we were asked to stand in a circle and hold hands. The woman on my left, her hand was like an ice cube. The woman on my right, her hand was on fire (I was dying to step out of the circle and make them hold hands, just so they could benefit from each other).

[GBinOz]

Annie appears to have been outside for many hours, which introduces the possibility of mild hypothermia to be considered (lowering her starting temperature, making it appear more time had passed since death)

- Jeff

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi FM,

Cadosche actually testified "I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door". So he was in the door way, with the door self closing (presuming it was like #29) and forming a barrier to the supposed direction of the source of the sound. In addition the possibility of echoes is thrown into the mix. My conclusion is that he wasn't sure where the sound came from and was perhaps trying to be "helpful" in suggesting that it may have come from the #29 side.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

If the door to number 27 opened in the same way as number 29’s then it opened from left to right. So as Cadosch was going though it would have been on his right side with number 29 being on his left, not forming a barrier. Am I misunderstanding your point George?

The way that I interpret Cadosch’s comment is in terms of caution. Whenever we make points, no matter how confident we are, when questioned we often have to concede an alternative possibility. As an obvious example, I’m strongly of the opinion that Chapman was killed later (as you may have noticed) but of course I have to concede the possibility of an earlier ToD because it’s clearly not impossible (however unlikely I feel it to be) So we have Cadosch at around 5.25 am not ‘on alert’ or expecting any voices or noises. He’s within touching distance of the fence and hears the word ‘no’ and his initial impression is that it came from number 29. I find it really difficult to believe that someone can hear a voice and think it came from a very few feet away when it actually came from a distance away. I think that a person would know that it came from close by. I just can’t see a word drifting in from a distance being mistaken for one coming from right next to him. But I think when questioned someone, trying not to appear over-confident, might admit to the possibility of error and I think that’s what Cadosch did.

Also, without having surviving evidence of this of course, we would assume that the police would have questioned neighbours to see if anyone had been in their yard at around that time that could have been the source of the ‘no’ (or the noise for that matter) but we have no mention of any other possible source. So how far away could a “no” have been away and sounded like it came from a very few feet away?

Cadosch therefore is someone willing to concede the possibility of error so I’d suggest that this counts against any suggestion of a man just trying to push a lie (the 15 minutes of fame argument) I realise of course that you yourself are suggesting error rather than a lie. So for me the evidence is strong that he did indeed hear a noise coming from number 29 (I also think that the ‘no’ came from there too) and I really think that we’re on shaky ground with thoughts of an unconnected noise being made in an empty yard containing a corpse. We also have no mention of anything being in that yard that might have caused the noise.

Trevor uses ‘unsafe’ but for me the word should be ‘imperfect’ as most witnesses are. That three all point to one outcome is very strong corroborating evidence with the chances of them all being wrong very unlikely to say the least.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t have the book with me at the moment I recall in David Barrat’s book a case where a doctor was called and the body was found to have been completely cold to the touch…..but he found that the ‘body’ was still alive. Phillips placed emphasis on temperature so I’d genuinely recommend DB’s The Temperature of Death to see how fraught with danger this kind of estimate was/is and how much disagreement there was between authorities at the time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor uses ‘unsafe’ but for me the word should be ‘imperfect’ as most witnesses are. That three all point to one outcome is very strong corroborating evidence with the chances of them all being wrong very unlikely to say the least.

Its the witness testimony that is unsafe, not the witnesses, they can only say what they saw and when they saw it and then they are cross-examined or in the case of the coroner's courts asked questions, but it seems that questions which should have been asked were never asked, questions which may have given us answers to the questions we now pose.

As to your witnesses, you put so much faith in out of the three Mrs Long is the most unreliable followed by Cadosh with Richardson not far behind.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk