AC and TOD

[Fisherman]

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 itīs already 5.30" - but she didnīt.

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 itīs 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 didnīt just strike, it struck THAT time.

It is logical and understandable to feel an urge to cut and paste until the witnesses jibe, itīs not that. I can see the attraction. Itīs 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.

[harry]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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 itīs 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?

[Harry D]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 itīs already 5.30" - but she didnīt.

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 itīs 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 didnīt 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, itīs not that. I can see the attraction. Itīs 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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The word ‘revival’ should read ‘arrival.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[Varqm]

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.


--

[Varqm]

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.

---

[Wickerman]

Where Mrs Long actually was when she heard the clock is also not 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, 20 Sept.

"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, 20 Sept.

[Varqm]

Yeah exactly.How many blocks? But I'll believe it more if Long heard the Spitalfields Church clock.I believe in the theory Long heard the clock at 5:15 AM instead of 5:30 AM before reaching 29 Hanbury.That is why Long's sighting,"seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased", of Chapman/Killer at 5:16 AM-5;18 AM made sense,then 1-2 minutes later the couple went into the yard.At 5:20 AM. Cadosch,who was checking the time constantly not to be late for work,heard the "No" and at 5:24 AM the fall against the fence.Probably took 6-8 minutes to do the job like Eddowes's murder.
It's either the "No" and the fall against the fence was/were someone/people who refused to testify or the murder could have also occurred at past 5:31 AM per Long.John Davies woke up at 5:45 AM..It's hard for me to believe the former though.

---

[Varqm]

If Long was within a few buildings away from the corner of Brick Lane and Hanbury St.,within hearing distance of the Spitalfields church clock,then when she heard the brewery clock the church clock would have also sounded at the same time.I think it would have been mentioned,5:15 AM or 5:30 AM.Something was wrong with the brewery clock,it's sound was not 5:15 AM or 5:30 AM. maybe past those times,she did not have to hear the church clock.
Or Long was not within hearing distance of the Spitalfields church clock when she heard the brewery clock.This depends on how far did the Spitalfields church clock sounded,
So she then walked a few minutes to the corner of Brick Lane and Hanbury St..which would have added to 5:15 AM or 5:30AM..

------

[rjpalmer]

Bear in mind that Elizabeth Long's address has been misreported in most 'Ripper' books; if she lived on Church Street, Whitechapel Road, she would have had no need to walk up Brick Lane or Hanbury Street to reach the market--it would have been in the opposite direction. So she obviously lived in either Church Row or Church Street, Bethnal Green, and was thus walking south when she heard the Brewer's clock behind her.

As flippantly as it is dismissed, I have to admit that Fisherman makes a reasonable point; unless she was a complete idiot, she had to have a reason for believing she could distinguish between the chimes of 5:15 and 5:30; it would have been utterly stupid of her to insist on one time rather than the other if the clock didn't differentiate, and she must have been familiar with it.

[Varqm]

Yes otherwise where did she entered Hanbury street going to the market? And the couple was in the right side. Long: "On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking." So Bricklane made sense.
From what I heard and read clocks chimes differently if 1st quarter,half an hour and hour.The brewery clock and Spitalfields clock would still have sounded at the same time or almost the same time.no matter what the sound was.Maybe she had difficulty in hearing,but she heard the brewery clock.

----