Four little words

[Bridewell]

Inconsistency & Contradiction

And Cadosch? In Gavin Bromley´s excellent essay, he points to Cadosch being the more reliable witness of the two, just like you do. But he also points to inconsistencies between his early testimony and the one given at the inquest, just as he points out the uncertainty about where the voice saying "No" came from.

"He heard a voice say quite close to him 'No'. He believed it came from No.29".

I don't see much uncertainty there. The voice was quite close to him and he was quite close to the fence. The speaker wasn't in his own yard so he drew an entirely logical conclusion about the location of someone he couldn't see but knew to be close by. As for inconsistency, I think only of the height of the fence which seems to have gone from about 5' to between 5' 6" and 6'. You would think that a carpenter, of all people, would know the height of the fence in his own back yard.

[Fisherman]

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.

I think we must imagine that Phillips weighed a good many factors together. Rigor would have been just one of them, while other things like lividity, temperature, digestion and the overall impression would have been other key factors. I think it is a pity that Phillips spoke about how a cool night would have had an impact, since I believe this has wrongfully been taken as a sign that he did allow for himself being wrong. What he meant - to my mind - was simply that even if he actually thought that things pointed to three or four hours having passed since life fled, he was willing to concede that it could have been a matter of two hours only. But NOT less than one. Professionals like Phillips do not present what they think, only to - unchallenged - gainsay themselves in the next moment.

One of the doctors said about Stride that her death would certainly have occurred within the hour when he saw her, and that sort of provides a measure - this doctor allowed for Stride having been dead an hour, but no more. The evidence provided by the body told him this.
At the other end of the perspective, if Chapman had been dead for no more than an hour, offering a parallel to Stride in this respect, how would that lead Phillips to suggest THREE OR FOUR hours?

It makes totally no sense.

Which is why I´m with Phillips. And so was the police, judging by the press evidence mentioned.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Very unlikely, considering the curled state of her hands, which would have happened during strangling.

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.

It´s 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 too respect Dr. Phillips' experience and professionalism. However, his experienced with butchered bodies in the morning was virtually nil, and as I mentioned, he conceded that he could be off in the time of death. That being the case, I'm not going to have more faith in his opinion than he did himself, if that makes sense. I can't justify dismissing three visual witnesses in favor of what is really just an opinion. Even today, TOD estimates are just that...estimates.

I see you mention the liquid sprinkled over Chapman; it´s 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 ...)

I wish I could, but I don't have it to hand. In fact, I may need to seek it out once I start researching my Chapman chapter if I can't find it in my notes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

I too respect Dr. Phillips' experience and professionalism. However, his experienced with butchered bodies in the morning was virtually nil, and as I mentioned, he conceded that he could be off in the time of death. That being the case, I'm not going to have more faith in his opinion than he did himself, if that makes sense. I can't justify dismissing three visual witnesses in favor of what is really just an opinion. Even today, TOD estimates are just that...estimates.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

True - but they would not be given in evidence today if they were ungrounded guesswork only. They do not represent any exact science, but they represent science nevertheless.

As for Phillips, he may not have been used to thoroughly butchered bodies - few were - but he did not lean against his own experience only. He would have been very well read up on matters like these, and he would have grounded his verdict on good grounds thus.
And it is not as if we are speaking of a difference of half an hour or so - Phillips feels we should add 200-300 per cent of time to the suggestion formed by Long and Cadosh.
Also, long dead people´s TOD are harder to pinpoint in time than freshly killed persons.
I´m weighing all of this up, and it places Phillips in the driving seat in my world.
I also think he had lots of faith in his own take - read my post to Wickerman, and you will see that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The part about the liquid was in The Morning Advertiser from the 13:th of September, quoting from the inquest, James Kent speaking with the coroner:

Coroner: You spoke of some liquid having been thrown over her. Did you notice any water or anything?

Kent: -I could not tell what it was.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

I too respect Dr. Phillips' experience and professionalism. However, his experienced with butchered bodies in the morning was virtually nil, and as I mentioned, he conceded that he could be off in the time of death. That being the case, I'm not going to have more faith in his opinion than he did himself, if that makes sense. I can't justify dismissing three visual witnesses in favor of what is really just an opinion. Even today, TOD estimates are just that...estimates.

That pretty well covers it Tom.
Sorry Christer, I had nothing to add to Tom's concise response.

[Fisherman]

That pretty well covers it Tom.
Sorry Christer, I had nothing to add to Tom's concise response.

I´m fine with that, and I freely admit that three witnesses are not easily thrown overboard, Jon (and Tom). It´s nevertheless how I interpret the events, so I´ll stick with Phillips. Evidently, the police - who had access to all three witnesses and could weigh them in a more thorough manner than we are able to do - did the same thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

I´m fine with that, and I freely admit that three witnesses are not easily thrown overboard, Jon (and Tom). It´s nevertheless how I interpret the events, so I´ll stick with Phillips. Evidently, the police - who had access to all three witnesses and could weigh them in a more thorough manner than we are able to do - did the same thing.

The best,
Fisherman

I do agree with your earlier comment that the police were inclined to go with Phillips. Yes, this is evident by the effort they put in to grilling Richardson - the police wanted to find a weak point in his story, in fact they needed to and they knew it.
If this had been just one layperson against a doctor, the doctor would have won out in official reports.

The police will always choose to side with professional opinion when it is available.

[Fisherman]

I do agree with your earlier comment that the police were inclined to go with Phillips. Yes, this is evident by the effort they put in to grilling Richardson - the police wanted to find a weak point in his story, in fact they needed to and they knew it.
If this had been just one layperson against a doctor, the doctor would have won out in official reports.

The police will always choose to side with professional opinion when it is available.

It would seem Phillips met with representatives of the police and discussed the matter, whereupon an agreement was reached. I for one would love to know exactly what was said at that meeting ...

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

Annie

Hello all,

Just a few thoughts. In the Sourcebook, Richardson states first that he stood on the top(?) step and cut leather from his boot. Standing on one leg, cutting off a piece of leather. The door "closed by itself", so presumably he stood with his back to the door propping it open with his back and looking towards the cellar. He was there "perhaps three minutes". If this is so, he may have missed seeing the body. Ok, later he states that he stood with his feet on the flags, but he can't have done both. He does say that he did not enter the yard.

Cadoche. Did he ever say whether the voice saying "no" was male or female? Regarding his timing, his second visit to the yard may have been less than three minutes later, as anyone who has suffered from the trots could tell you. And presumably he was moving at speed. I rule out a UTI, as in that case he would have just used the gazunder.

Jack peed on the body? Unlikely that anyone would have missed the pungent odour of male urine, even if the East End was particularly smelly at the time. I would vote for a shower of rain. Also, such a juicy detail would hardly have escaped the press.

Best wishes,
C4

[Fisherman]

Jack peed on the body? Unlikely that anyone would have missed the pungent odour of male urine, even if the East End was particularly smelly at the time. I would vote for a shower of rain. Also, such a juicy detail would hardly have escaped the press.

Best wishes,
C4

Although I find Toms suggestion tantalizing, I´m with you here - if that liquid had been urine, then this would have been recognized, I think.

So! If it was NOT urine - what was it? Early september mornings bring dew wqith them over here, and Britain would not have differed in that respect - in the morning, my car sometimes look dipped in water when I come out on the street. Could it simply have been dew?

And no jokes about Walter D, ladies and gentlemen, please ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hello all,

Just a few thoughts. In the Sourcebook, Richardson states first that he stood on the top(?) step and cut leather from his boot. Standing on one leg, cutting off a piece of leather.

Richardson claimed he cut a piece of leather off because it hurt him - he had taken a piece out the previous day, but it was not enough.

Doesn't that suggest the piece he cut off was from inside his boot?
Therefore, to remove leather from the inside he would need to take his boot off - so no need for standing on one leg - sitting would be good though.

The door "closed by itself", so presumably he stood with his back to the door propping it open with his back and looking towards the cellar.

Or hold it back with his elbow, or knee, while he trimmed his boot?

The body was essentially in front of anyone who opened the door, yes it was to their left, but if you envisage a 12:00 position meaning directly ahead, then the body was about 10:00. I think you'd have to be cursed with tunnel vision to miss it.

Cadoche. Did he ever say whether the voice saying "no" was male or female?

No he didn't (that I remember), but the Times published an account on 15th Sept. that suggests the voice was female.

[curious4]

Back to door

Hello Jon,

I was thinking a more two o'clock direction - looking towards the cellar. He would have had his back to the door to hold it open easily, whether sitting or standing, though I think. If in a hurry, as he seemed to be, I think he could have been standing, he had taken off most of the leather the day before, so the remaining piece must have been small.

Best wishes,
C4/Gwyneth

[Michael W Richards]

Hmm....a witness claims to have seen the dead woman at 5:30am, and a witness hears voices from the very spot next door at 5:15am....seems to me to believe Long one would have to assume that the sounds Cadosche heard were not the soon to be dead woman and her assailant. Which would mean that another couple was in that yard after 5am and then left after the soft thud and "no" to allow Mrs Longs couple to enter the yard after 5:30am....as daylight was upon it. A sensible answer?

Seems to me the daylight issue should be a key here. Did the killer kill her in daylight then mutilate her....while windows in the house were open, neighbors windows were open, and people were getting up and out for work?

If he left before daylight was present, then Mrs Long didnt see Annie. Seems logical to me that he did.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

The time Mrs Long reached No. 29 is not all that clear.

I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street.
Daily Telegraph.

It was about 5:30. She was certain of the time, as the brewers' clock had just struck that time when she passed 29, Hanbury-street.
Times.

If Cadosch is correct about the time on the Spitalfields clock (5:32) then he must have left his home close on 5:30am, this should cast doubt on the Times Inquest report.

Cadosch also said:
"I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out."
Daily Telegraph

"When he left the house he did not see any man or woman in Hanbury-street. He did not see Mrs. Long."
Times.

And if the Daily Telegraph version is correct as to the time she heard the Brewers clock, then Mrs Long must have arrived after Cadosch left home. Therefore, whoever she saw in Hanbury St. it was not Chapman & client.

Then we have the added complication of whether Mrs Long mistook a 5:15 chime, for the 5:30 chime.
If we replace 5:15 for 5:30 in her statement then the whole picture changes and either the D.T. or Times could be correct.