|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
MACO
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 10:11 pm: | 
|
I'm trying to get a sense for the 'window of time' that Jack had available to him to perform his murders and leave the victims in the murder spots at which they were found.
I was wondering if anyone, off-hand, could compile a short list of the last noted times the (soon-to-be) murder sites were seen 'vacant' (e.g. by a policeman or pedestrian) and the first times noted when the body was found at those sites.
I suppose any info for any of the 5+1 (we'll include Martha) cannonical victims would be appreciated.
Thanks for your help!
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 763
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:17 pm: |
|
Hi Maco,
Tabram:
At about 1.50 a.m. Elizabeth Mahoney saw nothing on the stairs.
At about 3 a.m., when Alfred Crow returned home, he noticed a figure lying on the first floor landing, but he took no notice because he thought it was a drunk.
At about 4.45 a.m. John Reeves passed that spot and as it was getting light he saw Tabram's dead body lying in a pool of blood.
According to Dr. Killeen she died close to 2.30 a.m..
Nichols:
At about 2.30 a.m. she was last seen alive by Ellen Holland at the corner of Osborn St. and Whitechapel Rd.
At about 3.15 a.m. P.C. Neil walked down Buck's Row but didn't notice anything suspicious.
When he came round again about 30 minutes later he found Nichols, whose body must already have been discovered only minutes earlier by Charles Cross and Robert Paul.
As blood was still oozing from her throat wound when Neil found her, she was probably killed shortly before and close to 3.40 a.m.
Chapman:
At about 5.30 a.m. Elizabeth Long saw Chapman with a man close to Hanbury St. 29.
At about 5.20 a.m. Albert Cadosch went into the garden of Hanbury St. 27 to go to the toilet and just as he stepped back into the house he heard a voice saying "No".
At about 5.25 he was in the yard again and heard a sound as something was falling against the fence in the nextdoor yard.
Although Dr. Philips estimated her time of death at about 4.30 a.m., the testimony of especially Cadosch would put her death close to 5.25 a.m..
Stride:
At about 0.45 a.m. Israel Schwartz saw Stride being assaulted by a man.
Shortly before 1 a.m. Fanny Mortimer was standing at her front door close to Dutfield's Yard, but heard nor saw anything suspicious.
Somewhere during that time Leon Goldstein walked by, coming from Commercial Road and turning left around the corner into Fairclough St.
Very shortly after 1 a.m. Louis Diemschutz stumbled upon Stride's lifeless body in Dutfield's Yard.
According to the Dr. Blackwell and Dr. Philips Stride probably died close to 1 a.m.
Eddowes:
At about 1.30 a.m. P.C. Watkins walked through Mitre Square and found it empty.
At about 1.35 a.m. Joseph Lawende & Co. saw a man and a woman believed to be Eddowes stand near Church Passage, the entrance to Mitre Square.
At about 1.40 P.C. Harvey looked into the square from the bottom of Church Passage, but saw nothing.
At about 1.45 a.m. P.C. Watkins found Eddowes mutilated body.
Eddowes must have died between 1.35 and 1.45 a.m., probably around 1.40 a.m..
Kelly:
At about 11.45 p.m. Mary Cox saw Kelly enter her room with a blotchy faces man. Kelly was drunk and started singing then.
At about 1 a.m.she was (still) in her room singing.
At about 1.30 a.m. did not notice whether or not Kelly was (still) in her room. There was no singing then.
At about 2 a.m. George Hutchinson (alledgedly) saw Kelly meet up with a man and return to her room with this man.
Just before 3 a.m. Hutchinson (alledgedly) entered the court and listened at her window, but all was dark and quiet. At about 3 a.m. Hutchinson left the court and his post opposite Miller's Court without having seen or heard Kelly or her client again.
Between 8 and 9 a.m. Caroline Maxwell claimed she saw Kelly twice in Dorset St.
At about 10.45 a.m. Kelly's mingled body is found in her room.
The medical opinion was that Kelly died during the night.
Hope this is what you're looking for.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 905
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Here's the obligatory link showing that the police did not take various alleged witness statements in the Chapman case very seriously, and why, leaving open the possibility that she was killed much earlier in the morning than modern conventional wisdom assumes:
'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman (From the April 2005 issue of Ripper Notes)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
Dan
As you've posted this link again, and you chose not to respond to any of the points raised the last time you posted it, could you answer a couple of questions now?
Can you suggest any reason why Richardson should have been lying, when he stated under oath that he sat on the back doorstep between 4.45 and 4.50am, and that he must have seen Chapman's body had it been there then?
Based on the technique he used to measure the corpse's temperature, the state of medical knowledge at the time, and the nature of his experience, what accuracy do you think could be expected of Dr Phillips's estimate of the time of death - in terms of percentage error - considering also that he qualified it by referring to the coldness of the weather and the expectation that the body would be expected to cool rapidly owing to blood loss?
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 907
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Richardson changed his story THREE times. The version he originally told police had him just glancing over to the locked door and would not have had him seen the body if it were there. The second one was the huge dramatic one he told the inquest where he became the key witness by claiming that he sat down and cut leather off his boot with a knife and was there for a bit and clearly would have seen the body if it had been there. The third one came out after he was told to get the knife in question and returned with one that would have been incapable of cutting the leather, and then he claimed he had gone off to borrow someone else's knife instead, thus making his entire storyline utterly pointless.
And, yes, the state of medical knowledge at the time was somewhat limited, but the article covered more modern knowledge as well, and both agree that if Chapman had really been there as late in the morning as it was, it would have been warmer than it was. Yes, of course the body would have cooled a little bit faster than normal because of the mutilations, but then comparing the medical evidence with that of Eddowes' murder at the end of the month with more extensive mutilations and a more fixed time of death, we see that Chapman very likely was dead a lot longer than the coroner (who, it needs to be stressed, was not a doctor) at her inquest claimed. The police at the time and medical authorities now both agree on this point.
Those answers, as well as ones to other the questions you raised in that other thread, were already in the article. I don't think it's too much to ask that someone should take a minimal amount of effort to get the answers that are already there before trying to argue against them.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Dan
Rather than answering my questions, you repeat more of the article's assertions. I don't think they are very accurate - and you have added some further inaccuracies of your own - and I'll be happy to explain why, but please could you answer my questions first?
(1) Why should Richardson have lied?
(2) How accurate do you think Phillips's estimate of the time of death is likely to be?
And I'm sorry, but I don't think it's very helpful (or convincing) to come out with a stock response of "it's all covered in the article" - together with the usual silly personal gibes - when I've already pointed out a number of specific problems with the article, which you ignored previously.
No one forced you to bring it up. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to discuss the details sensibly.
Chris Phillips
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 397
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I don't think a doctor would be much more experienced (if as much) at estimating time of death than a coroner who worked at it every day. For that matter, a doctor from 1888 couldn't even qualify as an EMT today.
Best wishes,
Stan |
MACO
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 12:56 am: |
|
Frank,
That was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks so much for your help! Cheers!
MACO |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 770
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
You're welcome, MACO, and cheers back at ya!
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Maco, are you sure that you are not Mako?
Sort of like Dako? |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Dan Norder wrote:
Richardson changed his story THREE times. The version he originally told police had him just glancing over to the locked door and would not have had him seen the body if it were there. The second one was the huge dramatic one he told the inquest where he became the key witness by claiming that he sat down and cut leather off his boot with a knife and was there for a bit and clearly would have seen the body if it had been there.
Just to be clear about this first claim of Richardson "changing his story".
Perhaps it is worth quoting Chandler's inquest testimony, as reported by the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_chapman.html
[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.
[my emphasis]
In his article, despite giving a detailed commentary on the inquest evidence, Wolf Vanderlinden chooses to omit the crucial point that Chandler testified that Richardson told him he was sure Chapman's body was not in the yard at about a quarter to five.
The claim that Richardson "changed his story" hinges on the fact that he did not initially tell Chandler that he had sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather off his boot. Of course, Sugden commented that the cause of this omission might have been that Chandler and Richardson had time to exchange only a "few hurried words" on the morning of the murder.
At any rate, Chandler's own testimony makes it clear that Vanderlinden's alternative suggestion, that "Chandler spent only a little time talking to him because he simply saw nothing of importance in Richardson's testimony", is nonsensical. Chandler understood perfectly well that Richardson was sure the body was not there at 4.45am.
Equally, Dan Norder's claim that Richardson's original evidence "would not have had him seen the body if it were there" is completely untrue, according to both Chandler's and Richardson's evidence.
On the contrary, it is clear that Richardson was perfectly consistent in stating from start to finish that he was sure Chapman's body was not there when he visited the back yard - in his initial conversation with Chandler, in his statement to the Star the same day, and in his inquest testimony.
More to follow.
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 914
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Well, if you had read the article in the first place you would have had these all answered, but instead you seem to be on a vendetta for that monstrous screw up you made on another thread that I pointed out and now you are just following me around to say nonsense and be rude.
The point is, the story changed three times, and the first story, although he claimed he would have seen the body had it been there there's absolutely no reason to think that he actually would have (from his position in the passageway and the direction he was looking). Then he changed the details so that he could justify why he would have had to have seen the body, details which contradicted what he said earlier. And then when he was confronted with the fact that his details there did not match up with the condition of the knife he provided, he changed the story completely again. The guy was just as bad as Matthew Packer, which explains why the police at the time ignored them both.
But then apparently you want to ignore these facts on concentrate on phrasing things inaccurately so you can try to justify your own initial assumption that you were right in your judgment, even though it goes against the evidence. You and Richardson have a lot in common, then.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:36 am: |
|
Dan
I'm very happy for people to make up their own minds who is "concentrat[ing] on phrasing things inaccurately so [they] can try to justify [their] own initial assumption". Happily, the inquest evidence is only a click away:
http://casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_chapman.html
But I find it very strange that you should get so annoyed that somebody should want to discuss your assertion about the time of Chapman's death. It's a pretty sweeping revision, which I should thing most people would want to know the truth of. It's not good enough to try to sweep the details under the carpet.
And is there any chance of you cutting out the personal insults, and just discussing the facts, please?
Chris Phillips
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 107
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Dan and Chris,
It seems to me that Richardson's testimony changed, but not because he was making up anything intentionally. He was rationalizing his position when it was challenged. Richardson was absolutely sure the body wasn't there, but that doesn't mean it wasn't. It's a good debate, but eventually it can't be proven one way or another.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Dan Norder
Ok. Continuing on with the facts of the matter.
Richardson changed his story THREE times ... The point is, the story changed three times
Well, you're claiming there are three different stories, which in most people's books would amount to two changes (though as I've shown for the first, and am about to show for the second, they are actually additions rather than changes).
But if you're more comfortable with your own variety of arithmetic rather than the standard one, don't let me stop you.
although he claimed he would have seen the body had it been there there's absolutely no reason to think that he actually would have (from his position in the passageway and the direction he was looking)
Absolutely no reason - apart from the fact that he consistently said he was sure the body wasn't there every time he was asked, and testified to the same effect under oath.
Perhaps we should allow that to bear some weight - along with the fact that Richardson was there and knew the truth of the matter, whereas you don't know actually what his position was or in which direction he was looking.
But perhaps you know better now than he did at the time.
And then when he was confronted with the fact that his details there did not match up with the condition of the knife he provided, he changed the story completely again.
"He changed his story completely". Or, as you previously claimed he "returned with [a knife] that would have been incapable of cutting the leather, and then he claimed he had gone off to borrow someone else's knife instead, thus making his entire storyline utterly pointless. "
What is the evidence for these claims?
Wolf Vanderlinden's view is a bit less "utterly and completely". He describes it as "a not insignificant change to his story", on the basis that "in fact he had been unsuccessful in cutting the offending leather".
But what did Richardson actually say?
This is Vanderlinden's version:
The coroner, who examined the blade, wondered how such an implement could be used to cut boot leather and Richardson amazingly stated "as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market" to do the job.
[referring to The Daily Telegraph, 13 September, 1888]
And here is what the Telegraph report said:
John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.
Now maybe there is some evidence in some other source to back up what Vanderlinden and Norder claim, but it is not there in the reference that Vanderlinden cites.
No mention of the coroner remarking on the bluntness of the knife, no mention that he had been unsuccessful in cutting the leather, and certainly no complete change of his story.
The natural interpretation of the statement that "the knife ... with which he had cut his boot .... was not sharp enough" is certainly not that he had been unable to cut his boot with the knife! Not in countries where English is spoken, anyway.
On this evidence, we don't know what Richardson actually said. But if - as Vanderlinden and Norder imply - it had revealed his previous testimony as a tissue of lies, then it would be fair to assume that the coroner, or somebody in court, or perhaps the newspaper reporter himself would have noticed - and commented on - this rather crucial fact.
On the contrary, in his address to the jury, the coroner - having heard the evidence in its totality, and having seen the witnesses give it - completely accepted Richardson's evidence:
She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m.
Surely, if somebody is going to be accused of perjury, we're entitled to expect better evidence than is provided by this game of Chinese Whispers.
More to follow.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Moving on to the most important question - What level of accuracy can we expect from Dr Phillips's estimate of the time of death?
When Phillips was asked at the inquest how long he thought Chapman had been dead when he saw her at 6.30, his reply was:
"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."
The first thing to note is that Phillips's estimate was clearly based on his observations of the temperature of the body, not on other factors such as stiffening, or the contents of the stomach. Modern commentators can try to interpret that other evidence if they wish, but clearly it's a separate question.
Specifically, what Phillips observed about the temperature was this:
"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body."
The problem is that phrases like "cold" and "some remaining heat" are not quantitatively defined. No absolute temperatures are given, and as a result no one but Phillips, either now or in 1888 , can make an estimate of the time of death based on these observations.
The best we can do is to take Phillips's estimate as a starting point, and try to work out how big the margin of error is likely to be.
Some basic background information on the estimation of the time of death is available on the web pages of the Department of Forensic Medicine at Dundee University. This is a little out of date, but gives a rough idea of the parameters involved (and a rough idea is all we shall need):
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/llb/timedeath.htm
Now, Wolf Vanderlinden interprets Phillips's evidence as follows: "In effect the doctor stated that the body was stone cold except for some "remaining heat" in the abdominal cavity underneath the intestines." Vanderlinden goes on to say that the body "was found to be almost completely cold", and finds it unbelievable that in only an hour, "almost all body heat would have dissipated into the morning air."
Is this really the correct interpretation?
The Dundee webpage mentions several simple formulae that have been used in the past. It says they are all inadequate, but to get some rough figures, let's use the "hallowed rule of thumb", according to which the temperature is supposed to drop by 1.5 degrees F each hour after death.
(For those who are really curious about the intricacies of estimating the time of death from body temperature, a nomogram in PDF format can be downloaded (2MB) from the same website:
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/llb/HenssgeNomogram-upto23C.pdf
Note that the minimum error attributed to such a estimate is 2.8 hours either way!)
Now Chapman had certainly been dead for less than 5 hours by the time Phillips saw her body at 6.30am. So the "rule of thumb" would suggest that the post mortem fall in temperature would be only 8 degrees F at the very largest. Far from the body having cooled down nearly to the ambient temperature, it would have fallen only a small fraction of that distance.
(Of course, it's perfectly true that the "rule of thumb" is an inaccurate approximation, and can be expected to apply only in "normal" circumstances. The circumstances of Chapman's death were far from normal. But that only increases the expected error of Phillips's estimate.)
Anyhow, what Phillips must have meant, was that Chapman's skin felt noticeably cooler to his touch than it would in life, and that based on his experience, this would correspond to death having taken place two hours or more before.
I very much doubt that Phillips went through the stages of trying to estimate the body temperature by touch, then substracting it from normal body temperature, and then dividing by 1.5. But supposing he had, and supposing the "rule of thumb" held true, what accuracy could have been expected then?
Well, to start with, according to the Dundee information, the normal oral temperature in life varies between 96.7 and 99 degrees F. So that variation introduces quite a large uncertainty into the calculation at the outset. The best Phillips could have done would be to use the average - 97.9 - and allow for 1.1 degrees error either way. So according to the "rule of thumb", that would immediately incur an error of up to 45 minutes. (This uncertainty is one of the reasons why the Dundee page says, "assessment of time of death from body temperature clearly cannot be accurate, (even approximately), in the first four to five hours after death".)
On top of this, how accurately could Phillips have estimated the body temperature by touch? Let's be very generous, and view him as a kind of walking thermometer, capable of determining temperature by touch to within an accuracy of 0.5 degrees F. According to the "rule of thumb", that adds another error of 20 minutes, bringing the total expected error to more than an hour.
But this margin of error of over an hour is very much a "best case"! In estimating it, I have assumed: (1) that conditions were normal; (2) that an accurate formula was available and (3) that Phillips used such a formula. In fact, I very much doubt whether Phillips attempted anything so scientific, and we know that the "rule of thumb" is very inaccurate, and we also know that conditions were anything but normal. The facts that Chapman's lower half was unclothed, that her abdomen had been opened and much of its contents removed, and that the body was lying on a cold surface would all tend to increase the rate of cooling significantly.
With the best will in the world, Phillips was simply making the best guess he could about the time of death. If he had actually done a calculation, the intrinsic error in his estimate would have been at least an hour, even in normal conditions, and even if the inadequate formulae known at the time had been accurate. The exceptional conditions, which must have been outside Phillips's professional experience, could only compound the uncertainty.
To insist on the accuracy of his estimate of the time of death against direct witness testimony, and even to make perjurers of the witnesses concerned, is wholly unjustified.
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 919
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
First off, nobody has to "make perjurers" out of the witnesses involved. Cadosch reported something of very little relevance. Long reported seeing a couple at some distance away who weren't acting suspiciously and for whom she had no reason to remember any details. Richardson changed his story three times all by himself, so the perjury part was already over and done with a long time ago.
All the facts you claim for Chapman's body cooling rapidly would also have applied in Eddowes' case, but moreso due to colder temperature, more extensive mutilation, and so forth. Comparing the two cases shows that Chapman's body had significantly more time to cool before she was discovered, which automatically pushes her death back before Long and Cadosch were there.
Your arguments have already been covered and shown to be inaccurate by the article linked to earlier. All you are doing is going in circles saying the same things said by earlier authors that were shown to be sloppy thinking. You are just reasserting things as if they were true and ignoring the reasons why they should not be considered so.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 3:14 am: |
|
Dan Norder
It seems from your reply as though you have only glanced at the final three paragraphs of my last message.
If you don't have time to read the whole thing, fair enough, but in that case please don't claim "it's all in the article". That's a very silly thing to say, because anyone who takes the trouble can see that it's not true.
If you have any genuine interest in the truth of the matter, I would urge you to look at the information on the Dundee University website, and try to come to an honest judgment about whether Phillips could have got within an hour of the true time of death.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/llb/timedeath.htm
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
And (albeit against my better judgment) I will dissect your first paragraph on the witnesses (because I can't help worrying that people may tend to believe stuff that concludes with "Editor Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies", as if that's a seal of approval):
Cadosch reported something of very little relevance.
As anyone who's taken any serious interest in the case knows, Cadosch stated under oath that:
"While coming back [after returning to the yard 3-4 minutes after 5.20am] 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."
By no stretch of the imagination could any fair commentator describe this as "of very little relevance".
Moreover, Cadosch also testified that at about 5.20, "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"
Now, as Cadosch expresses uncertainty on this point, you can argue that the word "No" came from the other side.
You can even argue - although he expresses no uncertainty - that he was either lying or mistaken about the other point, and did not hear a fall against the fence of no 29.
But to claim that his testimony was irrelevant is simply ridiculous.
Long reported seeing a couple at some distance away who weren't acting suspiciously and for whom she had no reason to remember any details.
I have some sympathy for Vanderlinden's argument that Mrs Long may have been mistaken.
But even if you are going to argue this, you must be willing to face up honestly to the certainty that Long expressed. There is no getting round the fact that she swore under oath, "I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased"
Richardson changed his story three times all by himself, so the perjury part was already over and done with a long time ago.
On Richardson, you should read my posts above. (Among other things, "three times" is plainly wrong even on your own account. But probably you will refuse to admit making a mistake, even if it's a matter of simple arithmetic.)
If you want to persist in your claim that Richardson was a perjurer - a claim that Vanderlinden is careful not to make, incidentally, though he discusses the possibility - you had better refresh your memory of the dictionary definition of "perjury". (That's the dictionary definition - no Googling please!)
And then show us - if you can - one statement made by Richardson under oath which you can demonstrate to be false.
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 924
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
It is absolutely ridiculous that you can accuse me of not reading your posts when it's clear that you have not read Wolf's article for meaning, as the article absolutely did cover the points you raise. What's worse than that is that you somehow think that you can Google some site on forensics out of nowhere and immediately have more knowledge on the topic than the 12 medical experts Wolf consulted while writing his article.
You can't just get a full head of steam, toss off some insults, and make claims like that and expect to be taken seriously.
Richardson did change his story three times, and he most definitely did contradict himself on the story of cutting his boot with the knife. In the first version (which was his second story by that point) he cut it straight away and sat there and that's how he knew the body wasn't there. When it was pointed out to him that the knife he showed couldn;t have possibly accomplished what he claimed he then said he actually went off and borrowed someone else's knife -- making his whole first knife story completely pointless.
You've demonstrated yourself her over the past couple of weeks to go off completely half cocked and misinformed to try to start arguments, and even worse when caught in outright undeniable mistakes you switch the subject and cover it up and then later try to claim you weren't wrong at all.
You aren't trying to discuss things rationally and read for understanding but simply finding whatever argument you can come up with off the top of your head or at a glance at some website to justify your own opinion and lash out. It's already quite tedious. I don't have the time to continue to point out things you ignored just so you can ignore them again and make more false claims.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 4:41 am: |
|
Dan
I've been very patient, but I've asked you the question about the accuracy of Phillips's estimate of the time of death at least three times now, and you haven't answered.
You have posted the link to Vanderlinden's article on a number of Casebook boards over the past few weeks, and it's reasonable to ask you for an answer.
How big do you think the inherent error would have been in Phillips's estimate of the time of death based on post mortem cooling? If you think it would be less than an hour, please say what you think is incorrect in my discussion of this above.
And I'll also ask you this again: please cut out the personal stuff.
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 929
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 5:37 am: |
|
Chris,
And I'll ask you again: Have you not even read the article in question yet? Because you keep claiming I haven't answered things when they have already all been fully spelled out. When I do take the time to repeat back to you the things in the article you just ignore them and repeat your claim that they aren't true and demand that the questions be answered again. Do you expect the answers to change just because you don't want to hear the ones you were already given?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4098
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
Mike,
"Richardson was absolutely sure the body wasn't there, but that doesn't mean it wasn't. "
That is absolutely impossible and an unacceptable statement.
Either the body was there or it wasn't - there is no way in hell he couldn't have noticed it. Check out Jane's reconstruction pics.
Even if it was dark at the time (or a small degree of early morning light), he couldn't have missed it. He sat at the stairs (which only had three steps), and the body was lying practically to the left of him and below.
Not to mention the smell from a body opened up, which is very distinct and appalling. He couldn't have fail to notice that either.
So - if the body was there, he without a shadow of a doubt would have noticed it. Although I personally believe he was one of those witnesses that injects himself in the case. I don't think he's trustworthy.
That said, I can't agree with the modern tendency to discredit Elisabeth Long. She was very sure of what she had seen. There is of course a possibility, of course, that the man was not Jack the Ripper but another client of Chapman's that night, and they went into the yard as well at this time, but I'd say the chances for that are microscopic.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Dan
Yes, of course I have read the article.
Now, will you give us an asnwer?
Chris Phillips
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1910
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Glenn,
That is absolutely impossible and an unacceptable statement.
Either the body was there or it wasn't - there is no way in hell he couldn't have noticed it. Check out Jane's reconstruction pics.
Why couldnt he have noticed it?
You know as well as I do that witnesses are unreliable.
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4100
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
Monty,
"Why couldnt he have noticed it?"
Elaborate, Monty. I didn't get that. Are you sure you put that question correctly?
My point was the he couldn't have been there without noticing it (if the body was there the same time as he was), and for the very reasons I pointed out.
There is no way he could have missed the body if it was there. It was so close to him that he couldn't missed seeing it, and then we have the smell. The body would have been positioned practically beneath his feet and to the left. It is not a question of unreliability or mistakes here.
So... the options are that
a) the body wasn't there at the time he was, and the timing of events are uncertain or incorrect
or
b) he simply wasn't there at all and was lying in order to inject himself in the case and hit the papers - that is, he did a Packer.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 03, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1912
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Hey Glenn,
You stated (with reference to Richardson sitting on the yard step next to the spot where Chapmans body was found) that there is no way in hell he couldn't have noticed it.
My point is how do you know this? Have you visited the spot, have you sat in the exact location under the exact same conditions that Richardson had experienced?
As for the smell, was there a smell and if so why are you certain Richardson would have smelt it?
You cannot state for certain that Richardson was incorrect about his time or that he was lying. Its fine to state that its not a question of mistakes or unreliability but unfortunately these criteria are often present, whether people like it or not.
Why are you certain Chapmans body was there at the same time as Richardson?
Cheers,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4102
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
Monty,
"Why are you certain Chapmans body was there at the same time as Richardson? "
I am NOT! Which is why I delivered different options.
I was merely saying that IF - not the word 'if'!!! - Richardson was there while the body was at the spot in question (which I do not believe is totally determined or clarified), then he definitely would have noticed it.
By looking at photos and pictures - and comparing them with the descriptions of the body's location - one can easily determine that it, without a shadow of a doubt, would have been absolutely impossible for him not to see it, if it was there at the time when he was present. You don't need to have been there for that. The body was lying directly beneath and to the left of the stairs (which were only three steps). he would have been blind not to notice it. In other words, he would have been directly over it and VERY close to it.
And yes, as far as I know, a body that has been opened up, does from what I've been told, release a somewhat particular smell, although I am only basing that on second hand information.
So if he was there after the murder had been committed, and the body was there, then he lied through his teeth.
Now, if he was there BEFORE the murder took place, then... that's another question.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 03, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Chris Phillips--Brilliant analysis. Vanderlinden wrote a scholary article. You rebutted it in a scholarly fashion, responding to the specific points. This is what we do here (or ought to do). Well done. RP |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 930
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
..if you call Googling a single site to try to set oneself up as an expert on determining time of death and contradicting 12 professionals questioned during the writing of the article in question and also simply saying "nuh uh" without anything to back it up as rebutting in a "scholarly fashion".
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 931
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Glad to hear you have finally read the article that you've been criticizing already for days. When you did you should have noticed the answer to your question in there. If you still have not I suggest taking your time when you read it for real.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Dan Norder
If you're unwilling or unable to answer the simple question I have asked you half a dozen times now - or of discussing the question you raised in a mature fashion - then that's your prerogative.
Either way, you would certainly do yourself more good by remaining silent than behaving as you are doing now.
Chris Phillips
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2618
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
I'm with Chris Phillips one hundred per cent here.
Test them, bust them and then break them.
No prisoners, hit them where it hurts.
If you can't take the return fire then get out of the frikking battle. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1913
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 4:11 am: |
|
Glenn,
I understand now, my apologies.
Cheers,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 804
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Dan -- I just went back and read the article. It was excellent. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 933
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
Thanks. And I'll pass that along to Wolf if he doesn't happen to read it here first.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 724
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
What I like about the above is that on one side we have the Doubting Duo, Ripper Notes, the enemies of anecdotal evidence, Skepticism, Pathology, and Science, and on the other side we only have lowly Albert Cadosch in his suspenders who doesn't give a damn about Whitechapel Studies, he only wants to relieve himself. And damn it, if Cadosch wasn't right.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2628
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Hey, RJ, I'm really getting to be very fond of you.
Like your style. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5121
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
RJ, not meant as a frivolous question (though it has no particular importance) : do we know that it was to relieve himself? Didn't he come out twice?
Robert |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 934
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
I would imagine (based upon your comments elsewhere) that you didn't intend to call Ripper Notes the enemies of skepticism, pathology and science and that it was just a sloppy construction of the sentence. AS you know, those are all things I support. I won't disagree that I consider the main tools of rational and informed thought to be very good things... and ones that are often lacking in this field. If you considered that post to be a criticism of me I would think that says more about you than it does about me.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
That reminds me, I've been meaning to post a link here to a post by Jeff Hamm, from 16 August. This was in response to an earlier posting by Dan Norder of a link to Wolf Vanderlinden's article. Jeff raised some of the same concerns I did, but goes on to discuss in detail the arguments about rigor mortis and the contents of Chapman's stomach (which I haven't got on to so far).
I don't know whether Dan Norder has seen this post.
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4926&post=139095#POST139095
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on October 05, 2005) |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 807
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
If Dan is right it raises some interesting questions. If Chapman was killed about 3 or 4 in the morning then with the exception of the double event we have a pattern. He would have had a consistent pattern timewise. Why? If it is a true pattern then it means something about him or his lifestyle or his method of stalking.
He only would have broken that pattern once. Why? What was special about the night he killed Stride and Eddowes? Why did he go out earlier? Was something different going on in London or in Whitechapel that night? If there was something different that night what does it tell us if anything about him? |
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 27
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Here is a summary of Mr. Norder’s classic techniques of obfuscation in argument. All of them can be clearly discerned on this thread. And he employs the same tactics here as he does on the A?R thread, and on other threads of this website.
With respect to his opponent in dialogue, Mr. Norder…
1. Rigidly insists that ample proof of his position is available at another site, and he even gives the link to this place. However, the site provides no or inadequate information to back him up.
2. Refuses to respond to germane questions directly and repeatedly put to him, obliquely referring the other to some other source of information elsewhere. Absence of critical thinking about the matter at hand.
3. Accuses the other of making errors elsewhere without specifying what the errors are.
4. Repeatedly accuses the other of rudeness and nonsense as a cover for having no valid point to assert against the other.
5. Broadly accuses the other of contradicting himself, or of “phrasing things inaccurately,” with no example or correction given.
6. Continuously uses personal insults. Accuses the other of “sloppy thinking,” which is a vague and indefinable charge, albeit it sounds good to make.
7. Repeatedly insists that he has already “covered” or debunked the other’s arguments elsewhere.
8. Accuses the other of not having read his (Mr. Norder’s) posts. Attempts to arbitrarily pronounce upon the dimension of reality of the other, indicating an inability to discount the relativism of his own thinking.
9. Broadly accuses the other of using inadequate research techniques, but gives no indication of how and why the research was inadequate.
10. Accuses the other of many specific deceits and tricks, all of which Mr. Norder obviously employs against the other himself.
11. Claims he is about to show a specific error in the other’s thinking, then makes a few vacuous points tangently related to the claimed error, then claims the said vacuous points in fact do show the specific error in the other’s thinking. Switching the subject.
12. Uses over-the-top language to denounce the other, such as by referring to his “outright undeniable mistakes.”
13. Covering his tricks by repeatedly accusing the other of the same tricks.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 479
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
To post or Not to post
That should be the question.
Whether tis nobler on the board
to suffer rambling obfuscations
or to say firmly
"nyah nyah so's your old man"
and,by replying, egg them on.
Mags
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Robert--Concerning your post. A similar question was asked of Cadosch by a member of the jury. (See Times, Sept 20th.)
"He [Cadosch] did not go into the yard twice out of curiosity. He had been under an operation at the hospital."
The implication is that the operation left Cadosch with a 'condition' that forced him to make frequent trips "out back."
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 947
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Hi Mags,
Message received. I'll be over on the other threads now... like the new Uncle Jack one, I hear something big is going on there...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5137
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
RJ, thanks for sorting that one out.
Robert |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Unless Richardson was as oblivious to his surroundings as Cadosch ostensibly was...and I know what Glenn meant about smell...the eviscerated body of A.C.,which would have smelled like the community loo....then he would have had to have had blinders on to not see A.C.
...or smell her.
Who sits down and does not scan the perimeter?
Who sits down and like an automaton does not look around when outside?
There's no reason for Richardson to sit down..and like a frigging zombie...concentrate only on that boot,without casually looking around.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 28
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 8:17 pm: |
|
Why don’t we ask your Editor and hero a simple and direct question, Ms Giordano? Mr. Norder has many times claimed superior educational status to mine. He repeatedly stated on the A?R and other threads that his superior education equipped him to find a great number of substantive errors in the ‘A?R Summary,’ although he gave no specifics about his schooling. I don’t believe his claims. I think he’s an abject liar without any qualifications to back up the things he says on this web site. So let’s ask him, shall we, to give complete information about his education here that we can check. Mr. Norder, please list the names of your degrees, the institutions that granted them, and the years. Also, please list this information in your profile. My three academic degrees are listed in my profile, so I’ve been forthright with everyone about this matter.
You will see, Ms Giordano, that your beloved emperor has no clothes. He will not respond to this post. Let’s hope you finally learn something from this.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Oh surely, David, this cannot be right?
The Emperor of Ice Cream asks the Emperor with no clothes whose lemon sorbet will melt first?
I couldn't give a rat's arse whether Mr Norder had academic degrees or an umbrella up his asp.
His salt is his worth.
I'm glad to hear you have degrees, if you could get them to a boiling point I'd be happy. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
