Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 3 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 4 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 17 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Batman 25 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by c.d. 1 hour and 15 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 1 hour and 22 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (29 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (3 posts)
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Annie Chapman

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #301  
Old 09-12-2018, 01:06 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Some remarks, after having read the discussion about how Long will be likely to have been wrong on account of how the Brewers clock may not have had different chimes on different quarter hours.

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

So the clock had not just struck, it had in fact struck "that time". The implication is clear - it struck the half hour and no other time, not the full hour, not the quarter. "That time" was what it struck.

Furthermore, it is reasoned out here that the checking point of her arrival at the market may have been an elongation of a mistake at the brewers clock, but since she says that her arrival was in sync, it is reasonable to suggest that she had reason to do so. What is missed in this discussion is that there will have been a further checking point - her departure. If she rose at the same time in the mornings, and left home at the same time too, as we generally do, then the time at the brewers clock will have jibed with the departure too, otherwise she would have had cause to reflect "How strange, I am usually here at 5.15 and now it´s already 5.30" - but she didn´t.

The inquest noted that her timings did not jibe with the medical assessment and they accordingly asked her about the matter. In spite of her having been informed how her time was in conflict with the medical evidence, she nevertheless was absolutely certain that she could not have been wrong.

That is strong evidence, and it points away from any need to amend her certainty 130 years afterwards.

R J Palmer asks why Cadosch did not see Long or her couple if he left when he said he did. Palmer says that this can be seen as an indication of how she may have been wrong, and in isolation, yes that is true. But it can equally be used to bolster a suggestion that Long simply was not around as Cadosch stepped into Hanbury Street. A third, and much simpler, explanation is that it suffices with one of the two clocks the two relied on being a minute wrong, and Long and the couple may have had sufficient time to leave.

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves: WHY would we alter the testimony on account of Long? To what avail? Because it will make her and Cadosch corroborate each other? If so, why would this be a desirable goal of it´s own?
Why is it not equally commendable to accept the timings and the witnesses assertions that they knew they were correct - and accept that these witnesses must be discarded?

What speaks for either version? Well, if Richardson was correct in thinking that he must have seen Chapman if she was there, then that seems to allow for her being alive and kicking two hours after Phillips said she had died, and by altering Longs testimony, we can then fit all three witnesses together.

Then again, if Phillips was correct, then Chapman was long dead when Long and Cadosch said they made their observations, and their testimony must be thrown out.

So there is reason to opt for either scenario. But one of them urges us to alter the testimony given, and adjust it in retrospect, whereas the other scenario does not have that problem.
Also, it is odd that the ones voting for accepting the triumvirate Richardson/Long/Cadosch as being on the money, do so by saying that "This is what the witnesses said and we MUST believe them!"
Then, next second, they say that we should not believe Long, because she simply MUST have been wrong. Although she fervently denied it, and gave the reason that the brewers clock had struck the half hour as she arrived at the murder site. And it didn´t just strike, it struck THAT time.

It is logical and understandable to feel an urge to cut and paste until the witnesses jibe, it´s not that. I can see the attraction. It´s nice to think that we can produce an alternative truth at will and solve the problems inherent in the case. But the truth of the matter is that we must live with these problems and try to make sense of them as they stand. And they actually stand in the way of accepting the witness triumvirate as being entirely correct.

Now I will take a break from this site.

Last edited by Fisherman : 09-12-2018 at 01:09 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 09-12-2018, 01:53 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,903
Default

Where accepting stated times cannot be a help in deciding a solution to a problem,as it is in several of the Ripper murders,(Nichols,Chapman,Stride,Kelly) it might be an advantage to omit times given altogether.I find no difficulty in believing a sequence of events from Richardson stating no body was there when he was present,through to when Davies found Chapman,if I disregard time to the minute as claimed.
Same with Brown and Scwhartz in the Stride Murder.A time of 1245 given by both is improbable,but disregarding times given ,both statements can be accepted.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 09-12-2018, 02:04 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,814
Default

Quote:
. At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves: WHY would we alter the testimony on account of Long? To what avail? Because it will make her and Cadosch corroborate each other? If so, why would this be a desirable goal of it´s own?
Why is it not equally commendable to accept the timings and the witnesses assertions that they knew they were correct
Like why would we dismiss Richardson just to corroborate Phillips and thus leave you-know-who in the frame?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 09-12-2018, 02:31 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,344
Default

Annie's splayed mutilated body exposed to the winter air would've surely had an effect on measuring the body temperature for TOD. No doubt this is something a professional like Dr Phillips would've taken into consideration when estimating her TOD, but it was still an educated guess and not a scientific certainty. And when witness testimony from Long, Richardson & Cadosch directly contradicts his findings, it casts serious doubts over the 4.30am estimate.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!

Last edited by Harry D : 09-12-2018 at 02:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 09-12-2018, 03:44 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,394
Default

Cadosch's statement allows us to say that the yard next to him was occupied at 5:15, and still occupied a few minutes later when he came back out. He heard the thud and the "no" at different times. Mrs Long was sure of the time because she recalled hearing the bells chime, Mr Cadosch checked the clock of Christ Church. He didn't see Mrs Long at that time.

Mr Richardson was at one point in the yard, about 3 feet from where the deceased was found, and he saw nothing. That was at around 4:45-5am.

Someone entered the yard between 5am and 5:15. Annie is found just before 6am. She has extensive mutilations, carried out in a manner, that seemed to the medical expert, that revealed some knowledge about anatomy. And competency with a knife. Considering the lapsed time from the witnesses accounts to her discovery, its also clear he could work quickly, which implies confidence gained from experience. Annie is ill. She is found with pills, in a piece of envelope, and she complained about feeling poorly to friend that night.

I think those facts indicate a murder between 5:15 and 5:30, and the killer exiting before 6. Theres the rough TOD, which would indicate that the body cooled rapidly due to the internal structures being exposed directly to the cool morning air, something that was suggested at the time.

It also might link Annie, on her last day, with a person who might possess the "surgical" grade skills exhibited, a physician.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 09-12-2018, 07:49 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Some remarks, after having read the discussion about how Long will be likely to have been wrong on account of how the Brewers clock may not have had different chimes on different quarter hours.

I never said likely. I said a possible alternative explanation.

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

Just as certain as Richardson was that he couldn’t possibly have missed a corpse.

So the clock had not just struck, it had in fact struck "that time". The implication is clear - it struck the half hour and no other time, not the full hour, not the quarter. "That time" was what it struck.

That in no way categorically precludes the possibility that she might have misheard if she wasn’t paying attention.

Furthermore, it is reasoned out here that the checking point of her arrival at the market may have been an elongation of a mistake at the brewers clock, but since she says that her arrival was in sync, it is reasonable to suggest that she had reason to do so. What is missed in this discussion is that there will have been a further checking point - her departure. If she rose at the same time in the mornings, and left home at the same time too, as we generally do, then the time at the brewers clock will have jibed with the departure too, otherwise she would have had cause to reflect "How strange, I am usually here at 5.15 and now it´s already 5.30" - but she didn´t.

And how would she have managed to wake up at exactly the same time every day without the aid of an alarm clock. She was possibly woken by her husband who in turn was probably knocked up. Couldn’t the ‘knocker up’ have been late? What if it was a Constable who had to deal with an issue on his round which delayed his revival?

The inquest noted that her timings did not jibe with the medical assessment and they accordingly asked her about the matter. In spite of her having been informed how her time was in conflict with the medical evidence, she nevertheless was absolutely certain that she could not have been wrong.

I have no problem with you defending the accuracy of the testimony of a woman who is claiming that Annie Chapman was still alive at 5.30.

That is strong evidence, and it points away from any need to amend her certainty 130 years afterwards.

Of course we have Phillips. A man so ahead of his time that he was infallible when estimating a TOD.

R J Palmer asks why Cadosch did not see Long or her couple if he left when he said he did. Palmer says that this can be seen as an indication of how she may have been wrong, and in isolation, yes that is true. But it can equally be used to bolster a suggestion that Long simply was not around as Cadosch stepped into Hanbury Street. A third, and much simpler, explanation is that it suffices with one of the two clocks the two relied on being a minute wrong, and Long and the couple may have had sufficient time to leave.

Ok

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves: WHY would we alter the testimony on account of Long? To what avail? Because it will make her and Cadosch corroborate each other? If so, why would this be a desirable goal of it´s own?
Why is it not equally commendable to accept the timings and the witnesses assertions that they knew they were correct - and accept that these witnesses must be discarded?

It’s simply an alternative viewpoint which doesn’t require 3 witnesses to be either honestly mistaken or dishonest. An error of 15 minutes by Long is hardly a massive leave of faith. Hardly an impossibility. Unlikely it may be but stranger errors have occurred.

I’d also add why then is it ok to state that Richardson was either wrong or a liar?

What speaks for either version? Well, if Richardson was correct in thinking that he must have seen Chapman if she was there, then that seems to allow for her being alive and kicking two hours after Phillips said she had died, and by altering Longs testimony, we can then fit all three witnesses together.

And why not?

Then again, if Phillips was correct, then Chapman was long dead when Long and Cadosch said they made their observations, and their testimony must be thrown out.

From your point of view it’s simply a matter of ‘Phillips being spot-on fits my theory.’ And so, despite the mountain of expert testimony as to how estimating TOD was ripe for inaccuracy, you choose to become Chairman Of The Dr Phillips Appreciation Society. Whilst simultaneously having no issue with claiming that Richardson was such an unmitigated dimwit that he could grasp the idea that a door might obscure his view of the yard.

So there is reason to opt for either scenario. But one of them urges us to alter the testimony given, and adjust it in retrospect, whereas the other scenario does not have that problem.

Yup. Phillips was right everyone else were either liars or cretins.

Also, it is odd that the ones voting for accepting the triumvirate Richardson/Long/Cadosch as being on the money, do so by saying that "This is what the witnesses said and we MUST believe them!"

Nope. We say that we should have good reason not to believe them.

Then, next second, they say that we should not believe Long, because she simply MUST have been wrong.

Again, no. All I said was that it’s a possibility that she may have been wrong.

Although she fervently denied it, and gave the reason that the brewers clock had struck the half hour as she arrived at the murder site. And it didn´t just strike, it struck THAT time.

The half Pat not the quarter past. Stop trying to read too much into the wording.

Richardson was equally confident but.....


It is logical and understandable to feel an urge to cut and paste until the witnesses jibe, it´s not that. I can see the attraction. It´s nice to think that we can produce an alternative truth at will and solve the problems inherent in the case. But the truth of the matter is that we must live with these problems and try to make sense of them as they stand. And they actually stand in the way of accepting the witness triumvirate as being entirely correct.

Surprise, surprise. In other words - just accept that Phillips could have been wrong - that Richardson was an imbecile - that Long was delusional - and that Cadosch was a liar. And whoopee Lechmere might not have been at work.

Now I will take a break from this site.

I’ll try and cope.
It comes to something when a simple suggestion, not even put forward as fact, which might explain certain discrepancies is treated like an act of intellectual treachery.

And this from someone who, despite an Everest of testimony, cannot (or more accurately, will not) accept that it’s not at all unlikely that Phillips was in error.


__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 09-12-2018, 08:26 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,814
Default

The word ‘revival’ should read ‘arrival.’
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 09-12-2018, 12:45 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,814
Default

In the sentence that begins ‘surprise, surprise...’ it should read “phillip’s couldn’t be wrong....” of course
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 09-12-2018, 06:43 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 596
Default

If Long did not hear hear the Spitalfields Church clock struck 5:30 AM it was not 5:30 AM .John Davies could hear the clock strike. Something was wrong with that brewery clock.


--
__________________
Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
M. Pacana
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 09-13-2018, 12:46 AM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 596
Default

After hearing the brewery clock at 5:30 am .a few minutes walk to the market she said/assumed "I reached the Spitalfields Market a few minutes after half-past five.". It's not the same as "I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street" or saw the clock at the market.The times all hinges on that brewery clock.

---
__________________
Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
M. Pacana
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.