Four little words

[Tom_Wescott]

To say Long and Cadosch contradict each other because they're a few minutes off in their timing is perhaps not accurate.

On the contrary - it is absolutely accurate to say that. Whether they had their timings wrong or not would be another question.

To say they contradict each other is to suggest that both could not occur as described. However, if the man and woman Long saw were not Chapman and her killer, but another woman and man, then both could have happened exactly as described both by Cadosch and Long.

Please remind me of the Bromley essay on Long and Cadosch? Was it in Ripperologist? When I think Bromley I think 'Mrs. Kuer's Lodger' and 'Smith's Beat'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

'Will you'by itself,makes little sense,so I'd reason that other words were uttered,words either not heard or not remembered by Long.Presuming that any discussion was on what was to happen next,maybe Chapman w as reluctant to enter further than the corridor,and the killer,wanting to go as far as the yard,said something like'' If I give you a shilling will you''or If I make it worth your while,will you''

[The Good Michael]

Many things have been theorized, but given that Chapman's arterial spray hit the fence tells me that if it was him bumping the fence, it was before his ripping. Possibly the struggle while he strangled her?

A kick to the fence seems possible as she was being throttled.

Mike

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello Tom.

"Many things have been theorized, but given that Chapman's arterial spray hit the fence tells me that if it was him bumping the fence, it was before his ripping."

Quite. And--if there was no blood on her left hand--Annie had the rings off before the ripping as well.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

total recall

Hello (again) Tom.

"Actually, he stated the opposite. He made a trip to the WC, heard two voices talking, heard the word 'no'. He goes back inside, comes back out, and hears a bump against the fence. At least that's how I recall it."

You recall correctly. And in my estimation, it was the "No" that precipitated the fracas that culminated in the ripping.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Great posts, Tom and Harry! Agreed entirely.

(An exact duplicate of what I posted on the "local" thread, but just as applicable!)

[Fisherman]

Tom_Wescott:

To say they contradict each other is to suggest that both could not occur as described.

Thatīs absolutely true - they could not, since the times described are impossible to join together. We must accept that one or both were mistaken. otherwise the deal is off on behalf one or both.

Please remind me of the Bromley essay on Long and Cadosch? Was it in Ripperologist? When I think Bromley I think 'Mrs. Kuer's Lodger' and 'Smith's Beat'.

Itīs here on Casebook, in the disserations section, Tom.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom.

"Many things have been theorized, but given that Chapman's arterial spray hit the fence tells me that if it was him bumping the fence, it was before his ripping."

Quite. And--if there was no blood on her left hand--Annie had the rings off before the ripping as well.

Cheers.
LC

That's correct. I discuss this in one of my old Berner Street Mystery essays where I go off on a Chapman tangent. The medical evidence rules out the possibility that her rings were stolen after she was murdered. Annie, like all the others except Kelly, were robbed before they were murdered.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Great posts, Tom and Harry! Agreed entirely.

(An exact duplicate of what I posted on the "local" thread, but just as applicable!)

Harry and I only copy from the best.

Fish,

Thanks for the tip. I'll check that out. So where do you personally fall on the Long vs Cadosche debate? In as few words as possible, please.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

Long said she didn't take much notice of them, so not much doing there.

Cadosche is more interesting for obvious reasons, but on balance I'd go with the doctor's estimated time of death.

[Tom_Wescott]

Long said she didn't take much notice of them, so not much doing there.

Cadosche is more interesting for obvious reasons, but on balance I'd go with the doctor's estimated time of death.

Yikes! You're really going against the grain on this one. But you know what? You don't have some support. Not many know this, but when John Davis discovered the body, he noticed that there was a fine layer of what appeared to be water across the top of Chapman. I think the Ripper pissed on her, but it might just as well have been morning dew (as opposed to Walter Dew), and if that's the case, she must have been there a while, like the doctor said.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

My east end mother frequently used the phrase "Will you? will you buggery"

So what?

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

timing

Hello Tom. Thanks.

"The medical evidence rules out the possibility that her rings were stolen after she was murdered."

What about between strangling and cutting?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Harry and I only copy from the best.

Fish,

Thanks for the tip. I'll check that out. So where do you personally fall on the Long vs Cadosche debate? In as few words as possible, please.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Few words, Tom? Thatīs asking a lot!

I think Phillips would never have missed if Chapman had been killed within the hour, instead opting for a TOD perhaps three hours - OR MORE! - away. There is also evidence, as has been presented before, that the police accepted that Phillips was the man on the money.

Itīs a nuisance when not one, not two, but THREE witnesses join forces the way Long, Cadosch and Richardson did -if Phillips was right, as I think he was, it must have been utterly frustrating for him.

I see you mention the liquid sprinkled over Chapman; itīs a long time since I saw that detail mentioned. Could you point me to the original source of it (the article/s, not the sprinkle ...)

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Itīs a nuisance when not one, not two, but THREE witnesses join forces the way Long, Cadosch and Richardson did -if Phillips was right, as I think he was, it must have been utterly frustrating for him.

Body temperature & rigor were very much key indicators for a doctor in the 19th century. What I have never been able to determine is what process did they think produced rigor mortis? - today we know it is a chemical process, but I don't think they knew this back then.
So I'm suspicious that medical opinion of the time believed rigor mortis was the result of a lowering of the body temperature.

If this be the case then there should be no wonder why Dr Phillips was perplexed over conflicting evidence. That the body was apparently not in-situ an hour before, but that it had such a low temperature and displayed the onset of rigor to the extent that was consistent with death being several hours previous.
The circumstances were alien to his formal experience.