Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Long -vs- Cadoche

A Ripper Notes Article

This article originally appeared in Ripper Notes. Ripper Notes is the only American Ripper periodical available on the market, and has quickly grown into one of the more substantial offerings in the genre. For more information, view our Ripper Notes page. Our thanks to the editor of Ripper Notes for permission to reprint this article.

Long -vs- Cadoche
by Dave Yost

The controversy which surrounds the Annie Chapman case transcends the usual discussion of rings and coins, and brings us into the more deeper thoughts of what might have actually happened that morning. Even though most people might agree with the unspoken order in which the various witnesses saw and/or heard what they did with respect to Annie�s death, there are still conflicts, which are important enough to cover in detail. I refer explicitly to the testimonies of Mrs. Elizabeth Long and Mr. Albert Cadoche. Even Coroner Baxter noted this �conflict� during his summation of the Chapman inquest:

"�at half-past five, Mrs. Long is in Hanbury-street on her way from home in Church- street, Whitechapel, to Spitalfields Market. She walked on the northern side of the road going westward, and remembers having seen a man and woman standing a few yards from the place where the deceased is afterwards found. And, although she did not know Annie Chapman, she is positive that that woman was deceased. The two were talking loudly, but not sufficiently so to arouse her suspicions that there was anything wrong. Such words as she overheard were not calculated to do so. The laconic inquiry of the man, "Will you?" and the simple assent of the woman, viewed in the light of subsequent events, can be easily translated and explained. Mrs. Long passed on her way, and neither saw nor heard anything more of her, and this is the last time she is known to have been alive. There is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important. She was found dead about six o'clock. She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m. She was talking outside the house at half-past five when Mrs. Long passed them. Cadosh says it was about 5.20 when he was in the backyard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say "No," and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence; but if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half-hour when he passed Spitalfields clock. It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces. But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed the man and woman cannot have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, close by where she was last seen by any witness." (1)

Baxter�s reasoning for placing Cadoche�s timing differently than what was given seems sufficient if not actually reasonable - Long saw the alleged killer. Yet, there is more to be considered. It must be remembered that Baxter did not discount Cadoche�s information, but merely suggested that he erred with respect to his time. Yet, he never considers the possibility that Long might have erred, and Baxter himself slightly erred, (as we will see), in his re-iteration of Long�s statement. Before we jump too far ahead, however, it is essential that we review the testimonies of Long and Cadoche. Interestingly enough, Cadoche testified after Long, during the fourth day of the inquest, (Wednesday, September 19, 1888):

Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel�On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street. I passed 29, Hanbury-street. On the right-hand side, the same side as the house, I saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards Brick-lane, and the woman's was towards the market. They were standing only a few yards nearer Brick-lane from 29, Hanbury-street. I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.
[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.
[Coroner] Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.
[Coroner] You are certain about the time? - Quite.
[Coroner] What time did you leave home? - I got out about five o'clock, and I reached the Spitalfields Market a few minutes after half-past five.
The Foreman of the jury: What brewer's clock did you hear strike half-past five? - The brewer's in Brick-lane. (2)

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out. (3) There are four possible scenarios from which to work, using the times offered by Long and by Cadoche. The first (Scenario A) works from the point of view that both Cadoche and Long witnessed a Chapman Event, (i.e., an incident related to Annie Chapman�s death).

5:20 am	Cadoche was in his backyard and heard �no�
c.5:25 am	Cadoche was again in his backyard and heard a �fall� against the fence. He then left for work
5:30 am	Long heard the Brewers Clock. Then turned onto Hanbury Street
just after 5:30 am	Long saw Annie and her killer
5:32 am	Cadoche passed the Spitalfield�s Church
Shortly after 5:30 am	Long was at the Spitalfields Markets

Their testimonies describe the following:

Annie and her killer enter the yard prior 5:20 with an exchange having taken place. (We know this since Cadoche only heard �no� and did not hear anyone enter the yard nor did he see the door to the backyard open, which he would have clearly seen if Annie or her killer opened it while he was in the backyard � refer to photo on the right.)
Annie and her killer most likely stayed in the yard with one of them knocking into the fence. (We can assert this because three to four minutes later, Cadoche heard a �fall� against the fence.)
Annie and her killer then left the backyard, most likely after Cadoche leaves for work. (We can probably say this since Cadoche tells us he saw no "man and woman in the street" when he went out even though No.27 is west of No.29.) Yet, Annie and her killer would�ve left the backyard prior 5:30. (We can safely say this because Long does not notice them exit No.29 and walk easterly down Hanbury Street, as she walked through Hanbury Street, but only saw them standing east of No.29, where she overhears the exchange, "Will you?" "Yes."
Annie and her killer then return to the backyard where she is finally killed and mutilated.
The killer then leaves.

This is an interesting series of events. It is suggesting that Annie and her killer were in the backyard and that Annie had originally refused her client's advances, (which would not be in keeping with her purpose for having gone there in the first place). One of them then stumbled against the fence, (possibly Annie as a result of her ill health), or one of them lightly pushed by the other. Cadoche overheard all of this. They then returned to the street where the killer asks her again, which is over heard by Long. This time Annie agrees, and they return the backyard, at which time Annie is murdered.

Even though this scenario still allows us to view Annie�s death as roughly keeping within the general time frame of 5:30, it is not very likely. We know from Timothy Donovan and John Evans, who testified on the first day of the inquest, that Annie left the lodging-house to look for doss money. She would not have turned down a client, nor is it very likely that she would have agreed to return with the man if she believed that he would harm her, (especially in light of Nichols� murder and the Leather Apron scare that existed at the time). In all fairness, however, we can view the word �no�, as emanating from the man, assuming Annie asked him a question. Yet, she obviously would not have asked this very loudly (had she done so), since only the word, �no� was overheard by Cadoche. (4)

I think we can see why Baxter attempted to reconcile the respective testimonies of Long and Cadoche by proposing an adjustment in Cadoche�s timing by fifteen minutes, which will be discussed in detail later. Nevertheless, the singular aspect in what Long and Cadoche are attempting to describe for us, is Long�s position relative to her given time, 5:30. Despite the fact that Long herself told us what time she was where, her statement needs some clarification, since it can be perceived as ambiguous.

"�about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street."

Long initially states that at about 5:30 she was in Hanbury Street. While correct in a sense, this statement can be misleading, because it may imply that she was already in Hanbury Street at or before 5:30. Albeit, in her latter statement, she tells us that she heard the clock strike 5:30 before she turned onto Hanbury Street. It is fortunate for us that she did clarify what she meant by "about half past five o�clock". Therefore, we can say with certainty that it was after 5:30 when she was in Hanbury Street, because the Brewer�s Clock struck that half-hour prior her actually turning onto the street. Unfortunately, Baxter added to the incorrect implication by repeating the former statement as, Long passing No.29 at 5:30, while ignoring the important clarification of her latter statement, which completely contradicts his re-iteration. Hence, he gives the false view that Long was at No.29 Hanbury Street sooner than she actually was.

This may seem pedantic and picky, but it is not a question of semantics, because a whole series of events may be captured or completely missed within the span of a few minutes. Hence, it is important for us to review the other possible scenarios and see how plausible they are with respect to what we know. We may also see if Cadoche might have erred with respect to his timing in the process. Albeit, in order for us to properly progress, we should look at what John Richardson, John Davis and Dr Phillips have to offer:

John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
[Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes. (5)

Mr. George Baxter Phillips, divisional-surgeon of police, said: On Saturday last I was called by the police at 6.20 a.m. to 29, Hanbury-street, and arrived at half-past six�The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing�the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted. Having received instructions soon after two o'clock on Saturday afternoon, I went to the labour- yard of the Whitechapel Union for the purpose of further examining the body and making the usual post-mortem investigation�The stiffness of the limbs was then well-marked�On the left side the stiffness was more noticeable, and especially in the fingers, which were partly closed�There are various other mutilations of the body, but I am of opinion that they occurred subsequently to the death of the woman and to the large escape of blood from the neck.
[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.
[Coroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive? - I am positive of it.
[Coroner] Was there any disease? - Yes. It was not important as regards the cause of death. Disease of the lungs was of long standing, and there was disease of the membranes of the brain. The stomach contained a little food.
[Coroner] Was there any appearance of the deceased having taken much alcohol? - No. There were probably signs of great privation. I am convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death.
The Coroner: Can you give any idea how long it would take to perform the incisions found on the body?
Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. (6)

John Davies [Davis] deposed: I am a carman employed at Leadenhall Market. I have lodged at 29, Hanbury-street for a fortnight, and I occupied the top front room on the third floor with my wife and three sons, who live with me. On Friday night I went to bed at eight o'clock, and my wife followed about half an hour later. My sons came to bed at different times, the last one at about a quarter to eleven. There is a weaving shed window, or light across the room. It was not open during the night. I was awake from three a.m. to five a.m. on Saturday, and then fell asleep until a quarter to six, when the clock at Spitalfields Church struck. I had a cup of tea and went downstairs to the back yard. The house faces Hanbury-street, with one window on the ground floor and a front door at the side leading into a passage which runs through into the yard. There is a back door at the end of this passage opening into the yard. Neither of the doors was able to be locked, and I have never seen them locked. Any one who knows where the latch of the front door is could open it and go along the passage into the back yard. (7)

From these testimonies, we should note the following:

Based on the various stages of rigor mortis, Dr Phillips estimated that Annie died at approximately 4:30 am. Yet, we know from Richardson that Annie was not there, and even Phillips himself commented that �it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.� In other words, Phillips was stating that rigor mortis could have set in quicker because of the various factors he mentioned. It did. Without rectal or liver temperature, judging time of death from rigor mortis is a guess at best. Several factors can alter the state of rigor: Air temperature, blood loss, illness, body size, etc. Annie had numerous factors working to quicken her state of rigor: She was diseased, had extreme blood loss, exposed internal organs, and the air was cool (about 48-51^o F). (refer to the chart on the right)
Phillips also noted that it would take no less than fifteen minutes to perform the mutilations. And, Davis tells us that he woke at 5:45 am, had a cup of tea, then went down to the yard. Davis never mentions hearing footsteps in the passageway as he made his way downstairs, nor did he describe hearing the door to the backyard close. This would seem to corroborate the estimated 5:30 am time of death for Annie. (8)

From these statements we can obviously conclude that Annie and her killer entered the yard after 4:50 am and that her killer left at some point prior 6:00 am. However, we should be a little more precise about when Davis was in the backyard. From his statement, it is easy to say that he was there at approximately 6:00 am. Yet, there are others who testified who seem to indicate a slightly different time and their testimonies should also be reviewed:

James Kent, 20, Drew's Blocks, Shadwell, a packing-case maker, said: I work for Mr. Bayley, 23A, Hanbury-street, and go there at six a.m. On Saturday I arrived about ten minutes past that hour. Our employer's gate was open, and there I waited for some other men. Davis, who lives two or three doors away, ran from his house into the road and cried, "Men, come here." James Green and I went together to 29, Hanbury-street�

I did not go down the steps, but went outside and returned after Inspector Chandler had arrived�I got a piece of canvass from the shop to throw over the body, and by that time a mob had assembled, and Inspector Chandler was in possession of the yard. The foreman gets to the shop at ten minutes to six every morning, and he was there before us. (9)

James Green, of Ackland-street, Burdett-road, a packing-case maker, in the same employ as last witness, said: I arrived in Hanbury-street at ten minutes past six on Saturday morning, and accompanied Kent to the back door of No. 29. I left the premises with him. I saw no one touch the body. (10)

Amelia Richardson, 29, Hanbury-street, deposed: I am a widow, and occupy�the first floor, ground floor�At six a.m. my grandson, Thomas Richardson, aged fourteen, who lives with me, got up. I sent him down to see what was the matter, as there was so much noise in the passage. He came back and said, "Oh, grandmother, there is a woman murdered." I went down immediately, and saw the body of the deceased lying in the yard. There was no one there at the time, but there were people in the passage. Soon afterwards a constable came and took possession of the place. As far as I know the officer was the first to enter the yard. (11)

Henry John Holland, a boxmaker, stated: As I was passing 29, Hanbury-street, on my way to work in Chiswell-street, at about eight minutes past six on Saturday. I spoke to two of Bayley's men. An elderly man came out of the house and asked us to have a look in his back yard. I went through the passage and saw the deceased lying in the yard by the back door. I did not touch the body. I then went for a policeman in Spitalfields Market. The officer told me he could not come. I went outside and could find no constable. Going back to the house I saw an inspector run up with a young man, at about twenty minutes past six o'clock. (12)

Joseph Chandler, Inspector H Division Metropolitan Police, deposed: On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street. At the corner of Hanbury-street I saw several men running. I beckoned to them. One of them said, "Another woman has been murdered." I at once went with him to 29, Hanbury-street, and through the passage into the yard. There was no one in the yard�I remained there and sent for the divisional surgeon, Mr. Phillips, and to the police-station for the ambulance and for further assistance. When the constables arrived I cleared the passage of people, and saw that no one touched the body until the doctor arrived. I obtained some sacking to cover it before the arrival of the surgeon, who came at about half- past six o'clock. (13)

NOTE: There has been some controversy regarding Richardson�s testimony because of the statements made at the inquest by Insp Chandler. Suffice it to say that Insp Chandler misinterpreted what Richardson may have told him that morning, and we will sustain the testimony as offered by Richardson on the second day of the inquest.

Mr. George Baxter Phillips, divisional-surgeon of police, said: On Saturday last I was called by the police at 6.20 a.m. to 29, Hanbury-street, and arrived at half-past six. (14)

From the above, the general series of events is that Davis entered the backyard, discovering the body. He then ran out into the street where he beckoned Kent and Green with Holland accompanying them to the backyard. (Mrs Richardson most likely looked into the yard after Davis, et al left to get help.) Insp Chandler learned of the murder at 6:10 am, arrived at the scene and sent word to get the doctor. Phillips was notified at 6:20 am and arrived at 6:30 am. However, we seem to have some conflict with respect to when Davis might have seen the body. According to Kent, Green, and Holland, this occurred around 6:10 am. Yet, Insp Chandler states he learned of the murder at the same time, which would be impossible. Giving Insp Chandler the greater benefit of the doubt because of the report he prepared on 8 September, (the day of the murder), then most likely he was summoned to the scene at 6:10 am, which indicates that Kent, Green and Holland looked into the backyard prior this time. Allowing for a certain amount of time that would be required for Davis to see the body, recover from his shock, go out into the street and beckon Kent, et al, it would therefore seem to be more reasonable to accept that Davis first saw the body at approximately 5:55 am and that Kent, et al saw the murder scene a few minutes later. Word spread and Insp Chandler spoke to the man he mentioned, at 6:10 am. This is still keeping within the "shortly before 6.00 a.m." time frame and would also coincide with Davis� statement about having tea at 5:45 prior heading off to the yard. (15)

With this in mind, it should be interesting to review Baxter�s view of the events and see what they might look like:

just after 5:30 am	Long saw a man and a woman
c.5:32 am	Annie and her killer enter the backyard
c.5:35 am	Cadoche was in his backyard and heard �no�
c.5:40 am	Cadoche was again in his backyard and heard a �fall� against the fence then left for work
c.4:42 am	Annie dies
c.5:55 am	Davis discovers the body
c.5:57 am	The killer finishes the mutilations and leaves

As we can see, this has difficulties, because it shows that Davis would have caught the killer, which did not happen. So again, we must turn to Long and Cadoche. Presently we have Cadoche hearing what he did between 5:20-5:24 am and Long turning onto Hanbury Street immediately after 5:30 am, then seeing what she did, with Davis finding the body at approximately 5:55 am. Since Davis never noted any footsteps in the passage as he made his way to the backyard, we can readily accept that the killer had left before Davis took to the stairs. We again should refer to Phillips� comment about how long it would take to perform the mutilations � fifteen minutes, minimum. Therefore, if we allow a minimum time, (say two minutes), for the killer to leave to account for Davis not hearing him do so, then this would indicate that the killer had left the yard at approximately 5:53 am, at the latest.

Now that we have a decent idea of the background, we can begin to take a closer look at how Long and Cadoche fit into all of this. We have already looked at Scenario A, and there are three possible scenarios yet to cover:

That neither Long nor Cadocher were a witness
That Cadoche was a witness and that Long was not
That Long was a witness and that Cadoche was not

Scenario B

The idea that neither of these two people witnessed a Chapman Event may seem strange, but (like with many other things) it is possible.

4:50 am	Richardson leaves the yard
c.4:55 am	Annie and her killer enter the backyard
c.4:57 am	Annie dies
c.5:12 am	The killer finishes the mutilations and leaves
Prior 5:20 am	A vagrant enters the backyard, seeing the body
c.5:20 am	Cadoche was in his backyard and heard �no�
c.5:25 am	Cadoche was again in his backyard and heard a �fall� against the fence. He then left for work
c.5:25 am	The vargarnt leaves the backyard
just after 5:30 am	Long saw Annie and her killer
c.5:55 am	Davis discovers the body

Here we have a possibility that Annie and her killer enter the yard after Richardson leaves. Roughly, this may still be within the estimated 5:30 am time frame, since we know that time of death was judged from rigor mortis, which is not accurate. Albeit, this still allows us to sustain Phillips estimation of how long it took to perform the mutilations. The reason we should look at this scenario stems from the following:

"[Coroner] Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them." Long herself admits that such activities were common and that she did not pay much attention to them, nor looked back after she passed them. Plus, it was not until 12 September (four days later) when she viewed the body. This does offer some doubt as to her credibility. (16)

"[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not." Here we have a man who was used to hearing occasional �thumps� against the fence. He did not see what caused the noise and admitted that he was uncertain from which yard (No.29 or No.25) the word, �no�, was uttered. Some doubt on his credibility can be cast also.

Scenario C

The idea that Long was not a witness, but Cadoche was can be more readily accepted because of the time each offers (5:30 and 5:20-5:24 respectively), and because of what was previously mentioned with respect to doubt on the part of Long�s credibility.

Prior 5:20 am	Annie and the killer enter the backyard
5:20 am	Cadoche was in his backyard and heard �no�
c.5:25 am	Cadoche was again in his backyard and heard a �fall� against the fence then left for work
c.5:27 am	Annie dies
just after 5:30 am	Long saw a man and a woman
c.5:42 am	Killer finishes mutilations and leaves the yard
c.5:55 am	Davis discovers the body

Here we have Annie dying before Long even turns onto Hanbury Street. Hence, the couple she saw would not have been Annie and her killer. She may have convinced herself that she had in light of what she may have read in the papers or heard from others about the murder prior her viewing of the body.

Scenario D

The idea that Long was a witness, but Cadoche was not can also accepted because Long saw a couple at or around the time of Annie�s death. Yet, Cadoche only heard without verification of what or from where.

Prior 5:20 am	A drunk enters the backyard
5:20 am	Cadoche was in his backyard and heard �no�
c.5:25 am	Cadoche was again in his backyard and heard a �fall� against the fence then left for work
c.5:26 am	The drunk leaves the yard
just after 5:30 am	Long saw Annie and her killer
c.5:35 am	Annie and the killer enter the yard
c.5:37 am	Annie dies
c.5:52 am	The killer finishes the mutilations and leaves the yard
c.5:55 am	Davis discovers the body

Again, we have another possible series of events. Like with Long in Scenario C, it is possible that Cadoche convinced himself that he witnessed a Chapman Event or that those who heard/read his testimony merely assumed he had. Yet, even this scenario might easily give way to the possibility that Davis could have heard or saw the killer exiting the building, which did not happen.

As we can see, each of the various scenarios is possible within its own right, and will be accepted or rejected based on what one wishes to perceive as correct. Nevertheless, I think we can readily accept that both Long and Cadoche had witnessed a Chapman Event, based on the closeness in time to when each had heard/saw what they did, not only with respect to each other but also with respect to the estimated time of death. Yet, the previous arguments indicate that a post-5:30 sighting of Annie and her killer (while possible) is not very likely, because of Davis. Does this put us back at square one? - No. There are still other bits of information we may find useful in determining what may have happened that morning, and when.

One of the last aspects we must look at is the other times given to us by Long and by Cadoche. It was previously mentioned that Long left home at 5:00 am, and that she was not passing No.29 at 5:30, but after. She also noted that she arrived at the markets shortly after 5:30 am. Cadoche noted that he passed the Spitalfields Church at 5:32 am. The big question is, Is it possible for Long to have turned onto Hanbury Street immediately after 5:30, arriving at the markets "few minutes after half-past five"? A similar question can be asked of Cadoche, Could he have reached the Spitalfields Church by 5:32 if he left the house at around 5:26 am?

(17)

Cadoche left for work after he returned from his backyard for the second time which would be about 5:26 am. He then claims to have passed the Spitalfieds Church at around 5:32 am. Via Wood Street, the approximate distance from No.27 Hanbury to the church is 680 feet. Using an average walking time of 500 yards in 8-1/2 minutes, then Cadoche could have arrived there in about four minutes. Hence he would have arrived at the church by about 5:30 am, which means that he was either walking slower than "average" or he was off in his time by about two minutes. Yet he indicates that he was thinking about getting to work, so it is doubtful that he walked slower than "average". Therefore, it is more reasonable to accept that he was off his original estimates for being in the yard by about two minutes. However, given the purpose he most likely had for being in the backyard, these two minutes may readily be accounted for and, as we will see this does not affect the series of events. It also tallies with Long�s testimony, since she never claimed to see him (or anyone) exit No.27 and walk ahead of her.

From the junction of Hanbury Street and Brick Lane to the markets is about 575 feet, which would take Long about four minutes to travel. Since Long turned onto Hanbury Street at 5:30, she would have arrived at the markets at around 5:34 am, which corresponds with her description of a "few minutes after half-past five". However, Long also tells us that it took her a half-hour to travel from her home in Church Row to the corner of Hanbury Street and Brick Lane. From the corner of Church Row and Hare Street to the junction of Hanbury Street and Brick Lane is about 2100 feet. This would take Long about twelve minutes to walk. Because she did not mention that she stopped somewhere along the way, we can not merely assume that she might have. Even if we allow some extra time, this means that she would have arrived at Hanbury Street at about 5:15 am. Remember that after she left home, Long was only mentions the time via the Brewer�s Clock, which she had already passed. She heard the clock chime and most likely assumed it was 5:30 am. By the time she had arrived at the markets it would have been closer to 5:20 am, instead of 5:34 am. (18)

Accepting that both Long and Cadoche witnessed a Chapman Event, I submit that it was Long who erred in her time by about fifteen minutes and propose the following series of events for what may have happened that morning:

c.4:50 am	Richardson left the yard, seeing no body
5:15 am	Long heard the Brewers Clock, turning onto Hanbury Street. Cadoche woke up.
5:16 am	Long saw Annie and her killer just east of No.29 Hanbury Street.
c.5:18 am	Annie and the killer enter the yard
5:20 am	Cadoche enters his backyard
c.5:21 am	Upon leaving the backyard, Cadoche hears the word �no�.
c.5:24 am	Long arrives at the markets.
c.5:25 am	Cadoche returns to this backyard.
c.5:26 am	Cadoche heard a �fall� against the fence then left for work.
c.5:27 am	Annie dies
c.5:32 am	Cadoche passes the Spitalfields Church
c.5:42 am	The killer finishes the mutilations and leaves the yard
c.5:55 am	Davis discovers the body

SOURCES:

The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, September 27, 1888, Page 2
The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, September 20, 1888, Page 2
ibid
The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 11, 1888, Page 3
The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, September 13, 1888, Page 3
The Daily Telegraph, Friday, September 14, 1888, Page 3 and Thursday, September 20, 1888, Page 2
The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 11, 1888, Page 3
The Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, Brian Lane, Headline Book Publishing, London, 1992, pg616-620; U.S. Naval Observatory web site; Meteorological Office, Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, September 13, 1888, Page 3
ibid
ibid
ibid
The Daily Telegraph, Friday, September 14, 1888, Page 3
ibid
MEPO 3/140, f9; The Jack the Ripper A to Z, 1996 ed, Begg, Fido, Skinner, p76
The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, Robinson Publishing Ltd, 1994, Sudgen, p103
1873 ordnance map of Whitechapel - The Godfrey Edition
The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, Robinson Publishing Ltd, 1994, Sudgen, P488; Old Ordnance Survey maps of 1894 Bethnal Green and 1893 Shoreditch - Godfrey Edition.