Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Wickerman]

I did vaguely remember something about that, but how do you know that Swanson was unaware of Phillips' caveat?

It's not that we 'know', it's more about what his report already includes.
Swanson is presenting both sides of an argument; Phillips's early estimate of 2 hours or more, as opposed to Long & Cadosch suggesting Chapman died later.
Had Phillips's caveat been part of the police files, it would have been included.
The fact it is not included shows Phillips produced his caveat at the inquest for the first time, and this was on 13 Sept.

[GBinOz]

That it was only at the inquest when Dr. Phillips thought it expedient to qualify his immediate opinion with the reconsideration of what the ambient temperature & mutilations may have had on his initial estimate.

Hi Jon,

Speaking of temperatures, I recall that we were both a little incredulous that doctors would not use thermometers when they had been available for many decades. I was recently scanning some cookbooks and noticed that many of them prescribed oven temperatures by means of descriptions - moderately hot, very hot etc. These descriptions were translated into Celsius or Fahrenheit by means of a table in the back of the book. Could the doctors have been engaging in a similar practice? Descriptions being code for use with a doctor's table of temperatures. What do you think?

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's what I meant by Swanson was using the police statement, not the inquest testimony.
All those witnesses gave a statement to police, those are kept as part of the record. When Swanson was asked by Warren to compile a report for the Home Office, he use those police statements. The caveat was not on Phillips's statement, he came up with it at the inquest.
I mentioned that in a previous post, perhaps you didn't understand what I meant?

I did vaguely remember something about that, but how do you know that Swanson was unaware of Phillips' caveat?

[Wickerman]

...
And if Phillips' much-made-of caveat had really meant that it was possible that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 a.m., then why did Swanson not conclude that no body was there at 4.50 a.m. instead of writing it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body?

That's what I meant by Swanson was using the police statement, not the inquest testimony.
All those witnesses gave a statement to police, those are kept as part of the record. When Swanson was asked by Warren to compile a report for the Home Office, he use those police statements. The caveat was not on Phillips's statement, he came up with it at the inquest.
I mentioned that in a previous post, perhaps you didn't understand what I meant?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

DW was talking about doubts that Swanson had that Phillips was correct. DW didn't say that Swanson was certain that Phillips was incorrect.

Why then are so many of Swanson's admirers here so sure that Phillips was wrong?

It was Phillips who saw the body and the bloodstains, who felt the stiffening of the limbs, and the coldness of the body.

The experts of today, who we are told know better than Phillips, did none of those things.

And if Phillips' much-made-of caveat had really meant that it was possible that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 a.m., then why did Swanson not conclude that no body was there at 4.50 a.m. instead of writing it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body?

[Lewis C]

If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him.

(SWANSON)


Swanson did not conclude from Richardson's apparent innocence that the body was not there at that time.

DW was talking about doubts that Swanson had that Phillips was correct. DW didn't say that Swanson was certain that Phillips was incorrect.

[Wickerman]

...

If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him. (SWANSON)

My interpretation of Swanson's words differs from yours. I see the first and last parts of the statement as an indication that Richardson was strongly suspected of involvement in the murder, and the middle as commenting that no evidence could be found to substantiate that suspicion.

Hi George.
While I agree with your point above, that there was a shift in Swanson's commentary, from Richardson not seeing the body, to the police treatment of Richardson as a suspect.
It's almost as if a line was missed out. That (the police) "specially directed their attention to him". Certainly appears to suggest he was suspected, or required to be eliminated from suspicion, which is another way of saying the same thing.

What I thought Dr. W. was pointing out was the police had no idea because in their eyes the evidence of Dr. Phillips was neutralized by Mrs Long, and/or vice versa.
That neither could be relied on, them being both subject to equal doubt.

Notice, Swanson makes no mention of the caveat added by Dr. Phillips, Swanson only refers to the time of 4:20, which suggests his (19th Oct.) report was compiled from statements made before the inquest, or before 13 Sept.
That it was only at the inquest when Dr. Phillips thought it expedient to qualify his immediate opinion with the reconsideration of what the ambient temperature & mutilations may have had on his initial estimate.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

As you know I am not one that deals in absolutes, so I am quite prepared to consider the possibility that Long did see Annie that morning. My reservations in that regard are that she took three days to come forward, and said that she didn't think that she could identify either of the couple, and of course her caveat, that she saw lots of couples at that time of morning and that was the reason she took no notice of them. I am confident that Packer actually saw Stride because he was initially shown Eddowes body and said that she was not the woman he saw. Did Long pick Annie out of a line-up of one? This detail would clarify both our opinions I would think.

With regard to the time Long needed to get to work, there are possible reasons why it might have taken twice as long as reasonably presumed, such as stopping to talk to acquaintances on the way. The question in my mind is, would she have anticipated such interruptions and decided to leave for work fifteen minutes before the necessary time, or was she just confused about the times in general?

In terms of evidence, Long represents a very light weight on my scale of probabilities. If it could be shown that she picked Annie out of a line-up of more than one, then the weight of her evidence on my scale would become more substantial.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yah, we're in agreement on Long. And yes, as I say, there are lots of reasons why she might have taken longer, and I wasn't presenting that as any sort of definitive "proof" or anything. Other arguments for concern could be that her memory for her time of leaving was the error, or the locations that have been suggested for her residence are not correct (apparently the address that is given at the inquest for her doesn't exist, so there was an old thread trying to work out where she did live - a few different locations were suggested, but of course if none of them are correct, then who knows how long it would have taken her??). And of course, she could have stopped along the way and all sorts of things. I was just using it as an example of how one might start going about trying to determine where some witness errors might be determined. Obviously, if the "15 minutes to walk" were found to be reasonable, the next step would have been to question her to find out if she did stop along the way, and so forth. We can't do that for obvious reasons, so it would just end up being another thing that doesn't really differentiate, but does provide food for thought. I think, though, if it turned out that her residence was a 30 minute walk away, that would be seen as providing support for her getting the 5:30 chime correct. When I went looking at this idea, I realised that if the locations were of the 15 min type it would do no more than leave the door open, while a 30 minute walk would probably close the idea on misremembering the chime. Again, I'm not pushing this has to be the case, only that it has to be considered as one of the options we still cannot discount.

And I too am concerned that Long's identification might have been a "line up of 1", which is not a great way to do it as such procedures produce higher false positives (not always, as we see with the coffee vendor, but that's a different person).

And yes, Packer did reject Eddowes before picking Stride. But of course, if he knew Stride hadn't been facially mutilated and he had heard of Eddowes' murder, that might not be as good a "line up" as one might hope. Regardless, Packer may indeed have seen Stride, but the problem with his statements is they continuously change and some have suggested his changes seem to correspond with information that appeared in the press. That makes him an unreliable witness and probably he makes for a good example of how the press can indeed influence a witness - and perhaps indicates what sort of behaviours we would expect to see in such a witness.

In the end, as I've said before, I'm of two minds about Long (and most things). While it could indeed be the case that she saw two people unrelated to the crime, it also could be she did indeed see Annie. Her identification of Annie at the morgue should be taken with caution simply because the identification procedure does appear to be of the more unreliable sort. On the other hand, just because there are reasons to consider that she might be wrong doesn't mean she actually was wrong! In the end, though, nothing really changes whether we include or exclude her testimony.

I'm interested in her testimony, mostly because she poses such an ambiguous puzzle to solve, and I'm not concerned with which solution is correct, but I would like to know the correct solution. I'm not sure the information will exist to solve it - but hey, if one doesn't look one will never see.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Try reading again what Swanson said about Richardson's evidence - if Phillips was correct then he found it difficult to understand how Richardson could have failed to see the body, and then he continues that the police checked Richardson's story thoroughly and could not fault it. That cannot be accepted as a statement of acceptance of Phillips' ToD without a reservation. He is clearly uncertain. As I previously wrote, when the evidence of important witnesses contradict each other, there must be doubt. Swanson was pointing out the contradiction and that there was therefore some doubt. He does not ever say that the police favoured one side over the other.

Hi DW,

If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him. (SWANSON)

My interpretation of Swanson's words differs from yours. I see the first and last parts of the statement as an indication that Richardson was strongly suspected of involvement in the murder, and the middle as commenting that no evidence could be found to substantiate that suspicion.

As we are both aware, lack of evidence of involvement does not equate to either guilt or innocence.

JMO.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Yes, but hearing of the crime is necessary for someone to make the connection. It is, of course, possible that the person is wrong, and that what they witness was not related to the crime. There is an example in the Nichols' crime as there are some news reports where a vendor says he sold coffee to a couple and he thought it might have been a man and Nicoles. However, unlike Long, when he viewed the body he indicated she was not the woman, and that was the end of it - so he heard of the crime, recalled selling coffee to a suspicious pair - made a connection to the crime - and then indicated that he was wrong. Packer is another example - he initially told the police he closed up early and nothing of interest happened - after a while he recalls selling grapes to a couple - then his memory for the time he closed up changes - and after various news stories his story does seem to adjust to fit.

In Long's case, though, she goes on to identify Annie as the woman she saw. While there are very good reasons to be cautious about that identification, it is important to note that Long's identification does leave open the possibility that Annie was seen alive at that time. It is also different from the coffee vendor, who indicated that Nicoles was not the woman he saw. We are right to be concerned as to whether or not she made a mistake in her identification of Annie, but we cannot and should not make the leap from "might be wrong" to "therefore wrong".

It is not clear how hearing of the murder could, for example, adjust Long's memory for the face of the woman so that it then allows her to identify Annie. The events she describes are also fairly minimal, she doesn't get into unrealistically fine details (like say Hutchinson does), which one might expect if she was creating an entirely false memory.

I have no doubt some aspects of her memory will be incorrect simply because everyone's memories for things will, in some way, be incorrect. In her testimony she says she left home around 5:00, and all of the suggested locations for her residence are of a distance that suggest she would be in the area around 5:15 rather than 5:30. Obviously there are ways to take longer to cover a distance, but it is interesting that the suggested time based on distance would be around when a chime goes off. So if we agree her memory might be "altered", then perhaps the misrecalled chimes is something worthy of consideration as an example. Alternatively, of course, perhaps she's misrecalled the time she left home, and she left closer to 5:15. Either way, there appears to be something in her two stated times that don't add up all that well, which makes me think that is a good place to be concerned about the details.

Also, while memories can be altered and so forth, that doesn't mean every aspect of a memory is altered, and it is often in the finer details, or temporal order of events, and so forth. Because memories can also be accurate too, it needs to be shown that it is likely a particular memory is in error. That's why I mentioned the chimes above simply because there is some basis (estimated travel times) to suggest that it seems more likely she would be in the area around 5:15ish, hence there is some basis to consider the validity of her memory for what chimes she heard. (There are lots of things about that example that can be critiqued, and I'm only using it as an illustration and it shouldn't be viewed as if I'm presenting it as a "strong case" of anything, it's just one of those curiosities that makes me go hmmmm).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

As you know I am not one that deals in absolutes, so I am quite prepared to consider the possibility that Long did see Annie that morning. My reservations in that regard are that she took three days to come forward, and said that she didn't think that she could identify either of the couple, and of course her caveat, that she saw lots of couples at that time of morning and that was the reason she took no notice of them. I am confident that Packer actually saw Stride because he was initially shown Eddowes body and said that she was not the woman he saw. Did Long pick Annie out of a line-up of one? This detail would clarify both our opinions I would think.

With regard to the time Long needed to get to work, there are possible reasons why it might have taken twice as long as reasonably presumed, such as stopping to talk to acquaintances on the way. The question in my mind is, would she have anticipated such interruptions and decided to leave for work fifteen minutes before the necessary time, or was she just confused about the times in general?

In terms of evidence, Long represents a very light weight on my scale of probabilities. If it could be shown that she picked Annie out of a line-up of more than one, then the weight of her evidence on my scale would become more substantial.

Best regards, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Try reading again what Swanson said about Richardson's evidence - if Phillips was correct then he found it difficult to understand how Richardson could have failed to see the body, and then he continues that the police checked Richardson's story thoroughly and could not fault it. That cannot be accepted as a statement of acceptance of Phillips' ToD without a reservation. He is clearly uncertain. As I previously wrote, when the evidence of important witnesses contradict each other, there must be doubt. Swanson was pointing out the contradiction and that there was therefore some doubt. He does not ever say that the police favoured one side over the other.

If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him.

(SWANSON)


Swanson did not conclude from Richardson's apparent innocence that the body was not there at that time.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Swanson wrote:

the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt

Where did he make a similar statement about Phillips' evidence?

Try reading again what Swanson said about Richardson's evidence - if Phillips was correct then he found it difficult to understand how Richardson could have failed to see the body, and then he continues that the police checked Richardson's story thoroughly and could not fault it. That cannot be accepted as a statement of acceptance of Phillips' ToD without a reservation. He is clearly uncertain. As I previously wrote, when the evidence of important witnesses contradict each other, there must be doubt. Swanson was pointing out the contradiction and that there was therefore some doubt. He does not ever say that the police favoured one side over the other.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

From there, the mind starts leading the witness. This was my point in the example of Harriet Lilley:
Mrs Lilley added that, as soon as she heard of the murder, she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected to it.

Starting with the proposition "I was there, I must have witnessed something", the mind accommodates by adjusting memories accordingly.

Anyway, I appreciate that our views don't coincide on this. I just noticed that your turn of phrase (unintentionally) captured my opinion on the subject.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yes, but hearing of the crime is necessary for someone to make the connection. It is, of course, possible that the person is wrong, and that what they witness was not related to the crime. There is an example in the Nichols' crime as there are some news reports where a vendor says he sold coffee to a couple and he thought it might have been a man and Nicoles. However, unlike Long, when he viewed the body he indicated she was not the woman, and that was the end of it - so he heard of the crime, recalled selling coffee to a suspicious pair - made a connection to the crime - and then indicated that he was wrong. Packer is another example - he initially told the police he closed up early and nothing of interest happened - after a while he recalls selling grapes to a couple - then his memory for the time he closed up changes - and after various news stories his story does seem to adjust to fit.

In Long's case, though, she goes on to identify Annie as the woman she saw. While there are very good reasons to be cautious about that identification, it is important to note that Long's identification does leave open the possibility that Annie was seen alive at that time. It is also different from the coffee vendor, who indicated that Nicoles was not the woman he saw. We are right to be concerned as to whether or not she made a mistake in her identification of Annie, but we cannot and should not make the leap from "might be wrong" to "therefore wrong".

It is not clear how hearing of the murder could, for example, adjust Long's memory for the face of the woman so that it then allows her to identify Annie. The events she describes are also fairly minimal, she doesn't get into unrealistically fine details (like say Hutchinson does), which one might expect if she was creating an entirely false memory.

I have no doubt some aspects of her memory will be incorrect simply because everyone's memories for things will, in some way, be incorrect. In her testimony she says she left home around 5:00, and all of the suggested locations for her residence are of a distance that suggest she would be in the area around 5:15 rather than 5:30. Obviously there are ways to take longer to cover a distance, but it is interesting that the suggested time based on distance would be around when a chime goes off. So if we agree her memory might be "altered", then perhaps the misrecalled chimes is something worthy of consideration as an example. Alternatively, of course, perhaps she's misrecalled the time she left home, and she left closer to 5:15. Either way, there appears to be something in her two stated times that don't add up all that well, which makes me think that is a good place to be concerned about the details.

Also, while memories can be altered and so forth, that doesn't mean every aspect of a memory is altered, and it is often in the finer details, or temporal order of events, and so forth. Because memories can also be accurate too, it needs to be shown that it is likely a particular memory is in error. That's why I mentioned the chimes above simply because there is some basis (estimated travel times) to suggest that it seems more likely she would be in the area around 5:15ish, hence there is some basis to consider the validity of her memory for what chimes she heard. (There are lots of things about that example that can be critiqued, and I'm only using it as an illustration and it shouldn't be viewed as if I'm presenting it as a "strong case" of anything, it's just one of those curiosities that makes me go hmmmm).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

A quick list of the improbabilities and utter nonsense that have been put forward at times in the desperate attempt to bolster a very clearly unlikely earlier ToD in response to PI’s comments. I’ll mention no names but imo one poster who favours an earlier ToD takes a genuine approach (no matter how much I disagree with him) whilst at least 4 simply have no concept of an unbiased, reasoned approach. Some of the things that I’ve read on here and the other thread have been little short of jaw-dropping and were often of a level that would have been unworthy of a child. Driven purely by the desire to shoehorn an earlier ToD in the teeth of an absolute mountain of evidence to the contrary. Such is the rigid, biased thinking that all discussion has long become tedious and pointless. A mixture of desperation and whining with the odd bit of Latin thrown in to make some people feel superior.


1. That Doctor Phillips could estimate a ToD to a greater degree of accuracy than a 21st century Doctor.

2. That posters like PI and FM know more about forensic medicine than the worlds authorities.

3. That clocks and watches in a Victorian slum were more accurate and better synchronised than modern day clocks and watches.

4. That serial killers work to some kind of timetable and rule book.

5. That serial killers are somehow completely risk-averse.

6. That Victorian prostitutes are so careful of their diets that they won’t eat again after even the meagrest of meals.

7. That a Victorian prostitute would turn down a punter if she ran into one at around 5.20 am. (Possible saying “sorry mate, I haven’t clicked on yet.”)

8. That the fence between number 29 and number 27 had large gaps along it…deduced from a couple of clearly inaccurate sketches.

9. That anything written in a newspaper report which appears to challenge, even in the remotest way, a later ToD must be accurate.

10. That Inspector Chandler couldn’t possibly have made the slightest error in his reporting of the conversation between himself and Richardson.

11. That Dr. Phillips caveat actually meant the opposite of the only possible interpretation. The interpretation that Coroner Baxter also made.

12. That even though many people agree that it’s possible, even likely, that Cadosch meant that he couldn’t tell from which side of the yard of number 29 the ‘no’ came from, those desperate to bolster an earlier ToD won’t even consider the possibility such is the rigidity and bias of their thinking.

13. That John Richardson was such an utter imbecile that he told a lie to ‘prove’ that he couldn’t have missed seeing the body and that lie actually made matters worse. He could have said that he’d pushed the gate all the way back or that he’d gone into the yard and job done. But no, according to the early ToD brigade he puts himself in a position where it might be suggested that the door could have blocked his view and he put a knife into his own hands into the bargain. And this passes for ‘reason.’

14. That Richardson could have descended to the flags without opening the door wide enough to have made the body clearly visible.

15. That he couldn’t have seen an horrifically mutilated corpse lying with the knees splayed outward and with entrails over the right shoulder beneath a door with an absolutely huge gap. And where the feet would have been sticking out 2 or 3 feet from the end of the door. He actually missed this nightmare scene that was just a few inches from his left boot.

16. That John Richardson at the time didn’t realise or accept the possibility that a door can block a view.

17. That at the inquest Richardson said, in the same breath, the equivalent of “I cut some leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut some leather from my boot.” And neither the coroner or the jury spotted this obvious gibberish and questioned him on it despite the fact that the coroner made him go and fetch his knife and so clearly gad a focus on anything knife-based. Rather than accepting this was an obvious example of poor transcription the early ToD brigade prefer to believe that Richardson’s gobbledegook was a sign of guilt.

18. That the use of the Police ADVOKATE system has Elizabeth Long as a more reliable witness that Joseph Lawende, the early ToD brigade dismiss Long but assume Lawende a good witness.

19. That Long just happened to see a woman who just happened to look like Annie Chapman at just the right time and in just the right place. But according to you-know-who she must have bern mistaken (because she isn’t following the script)

20. That somehow because Cadosch might have expressed caution about the ‘no’ this somehow makes him less reliable on the noise even though he expressed no doubt whatsoever about it. That passes as logic for one poster.

21. The bizarre and desperate claim that someone or something else could have made the noise from number 29 while Annie’s mutilated corpse was lying there.

22. That because Annie might have sold items at number 29 previously that she would have known the occupants habits including toilet visiting!

23. That Mrs. Richardson had a brief look at Annie’s bloated face and her ID was apparently totally reliable but Long was somehow totally unreliable.

24. That Mrs R heard no one in the passage at around 5.30 is somehow significant (despite the fact that she admitted that someone being quiet would have escaped her attention) but the fact that she also heard no one earlier either is somehow insignificant.

25. That the police, before they even knew about the boot repair, should have found a tiny piece of leather a clue to the murder and would have picked it up.

26. That John Richardson, rather than stepping down onto the flags, would have balanced on the edge of the top step, held onto the doorframe, leaned out and bent double to look under the canopy to check the lock in one of the most ludicrously illogical acts of laziness ever.

27. That despite us not knowing the location of the cellar lock it’s assumed that it couldn’t have been on the right hand side making it impossible to see from a standing position.

28. That John Richardson, according to one person, couldn’t possible have made two unsuccessful attempts to fix his boot.

29. That Annie Chapman eating again after she’d left the lodging house would have been an occurrence on a par with the Roswell Incident.

30. That you can estimate a ToD by comparing a completely different body.

31. That some believe that they know how a Victorian prostitute would think and act…enough to make predictions.

32. That some believe that they know how a Victorian serial killer would think and act…..enough to make predictions.

33. That some believe that a Doctor can judge temperature and therefore the ToD by the act of simply laying on of his magic hands.

34. That Albert Cadosch was probably mistaken about what he’d heard but he couldn’t possibly have been 5 minutes out on the time that he got up. Selective infallibility.

35. That Albert Cadosch was probably mistaken about what he’d heard but he couldn’t possibly even have been slightly wrong in his estimation of periods of time.

36. That Cadosch should have seen the fence move even though it was behind him when he heard the noise. A cracker from PI.

37. That the cellar door couldn’t possible have been recessed when the photographs show that it’s at least a possibility.

38. That the killer couldn’t possibly have worn a coat, taken it off to perform the mutilations and then put it back on to cover up and blood contamination.

39. That the ‘no’ must have been the start of the attack. Used in a spurious attempt to claim that the gap between the ‘no’ and the noise was too long.

40. That the nouse must have been Annie’s body falling against the fence. Used in a spurious attempt to show that it was too long after the ‘no’ to have been connected to the murder.



Just a quick 40 examples of the nonsense that has been suggested by the earlier ToD supporters. I could have done more of course but I lost interest. These are just some of the ways that have been employed to subvert reality. To manipulate and distort evidence and it’s been done purely because some have set their mind on an earlier ToD and are determined to try anything to discredit anything which clearly points to a later ToD. A naive faith in a Victorian Doctor can’t account for this entirely. It’s simple not a search for truth. It’s an attempt to try and win an argument at all costs. Despite the evidence. Despite reason. Despite common sense.


So I’m happy to stand with Jeff, Wickerman, AP, Lewis, Doc, Fiver, Abby, NW and others. I’m going to try and have a break from this embarrassing insanity. There’s only so much biased nonsense I can take. I dread to think what points will be thrown up next. Laughable responses might follow but I really couldn’t care less.

[Fiver]

Thats not quite correct she had a bed at the common lodging house and stated she was going out to get some money to pay for the bed. So as she was not seen after leaving the lodging house we can draw an inference that she found a punter who would turn out to be her killer long before 5.30 am

But I say again who would be looking to use the services of a prostitute at 5.30am?

I think George posted an article which is interesting

Star Sep 10:
Description of a Man "Wanted."

The series of murders which now even the police believe to be the work of one man, is engaging the attention of a large force of plain clothes detectives. At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities circulated a description of a man who, they say, "entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th." They give his age as 37, height 5ft. 7in., and add that he is rather dark, had a beard and moustache; was dressed in a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; and spoke with a foreign accent.

If this can be corroborated then its game over for you and the other later TOD chaps.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If this is corroborated, it proves Chapman was killed after 2am. Nothing more. It doesn't prove that the prostitute seen at 2am is Chapman. That prostitute is the most likely source of the description. It doesn't prove that the client was the Ripper.