Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Of Death

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • As Iíve told you. Iíve read this well written dissertation twice. You have latched on to it and appear to consider it gospel. I do not.
    Now its my turn to call you out on being a very dishonest poster , i never once said the Wolf Vanderlinden post was the gospel truth, only that my reason for posting it in the first place was to show the many possibilities and the contradictory evidence between Long, Codosch and Richardson And on that one very well written piece, it could be argued that the time of death may well have been different where the murder of Annie Chapman was concerned .

    i wont hold by breath for a ''sorry fishy''.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

      Now its my turn to call you out on being a very dishonest poster , i never once said the Wolf Vanderlinden post was the gospel truth, only that my reason for posting it in the first place was to show the many possibilities and the contradictory evidence between Long, Codosch and Richardson And on that one very well written piece, it could be argued that the time of death may well have been different where the murder of Annie Chapman was concerned .

      i wont hold by breath for a ''sorry fishy''.
      I used the phrase - appear to consider. Your every post gives the impression that you are desperate for everything that supports your theory to be considered a fact. Try checking for accurate language.

      On the other hand we have ample evidence that you openly disbelieved and even mocked the fact of the potential inaccuracy of TOD estimates. Asking for apologies from me is breathtaking hypocrisy.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • Standard response i see...... still see your struggling with the whole time of death issue. you never did understand this concept, oh well so bit it . Thought it was to good to hope for .

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

          . I think ill keep this short, im getting tired of your long winded posts about the same old things ive explained over and over again . If you dont want to admit to yourself that these people existed and theses places existed, and were possibly[cant be ruled out ] part of the jack the ripper murders, then go back to another theory and leave this one to those that want to discuss and examine the evidence with out your silly denials that the above was all made up . Utter nonsense on your behalf yet again.
          You haven’t explained over and over again. In fact you haven’t explained once. This is yet another lie. I gave you 6 points. You gave 3 dishonest answers (nothing new there) That leaves 3. So, by definition, you haven’t explained them.

          Why do you persist in talking about these places existing. The place that Annie Crook was supposed to have lived categorically, without a shadow of a doubt, did not exist. Sickert’s studio, at the address that Joseph stated, categorically, without a shadow of a doubt did not exist. The hospital where Annie was supposed to have been taken categorically, without a shadow of a doubt did not exist. We have written, documented evidence (not word of mouth) that came from Annie herself which states that she want a Catholic.

          A serious discussion on the Knight theory cannot take place until facts are accepted. You will not do that because you are hopelessly committed to the theory. You are blinkered.

          Are you so totally visually challenged that you cant see for yourself what the implications of Florence Pash saying that it was her and Alice who she claimed Netley tried to run them down , how could knight be wrong if Pash claimed her part in the incident years before his book ? . Wait dont bother , im tired of the same boring word of mouth argument you keep tossing up . Simon would have been better trying to prove Sickert right than wrong, he would have had more success bases on what we know to be true .
          And before you go and say ''oh simon has proved it wasn't this and simon says it wasn't that, wheres his proof about Florence Pash and her story BEING ALL MADE UP which just so happen to match the one Joseph told Knight in 1973 . Only hers was 35 years earlier
          So on this one fact alone man up, and please dont ever say Joseph Sickert made the whole thing up so he and knight could make a few bucks .LUDICROUS THINKING.


          Take off the blinkers Fishy. I’m saying that Knight was wrong about the story in the newspapers. What I’ve said, and again you need to be more accurate when reading, was that in Knight’s book he claimed that the Nickley story was about Netley and Alice Margaret and that he was not only incorrect but he might even have been dishonest because it was apparently very easy to check other newspapers to find the real name of the young girl. Surely as a researcher he’d have looked at other sources for further information. If he’d done this it’s likely he’d have found the real story so it’s possible that he concealed contrary evidence.

          Please explain Fishy why you are so keen to give weight to word of mouth stories passed down through the years and concerning an oddball like Sickert and yet you are quite happy to completely ignore actual, provable, concrete facts that dispute the theory. You are clutching at straws.

          At that remains is to look at the likelihood of blackmailing prostitutes, Freemasonic murder, Gull, murder in coaches, carrying mutilated corpses and dumping them. So we look. We analyse and consider. Then we conclude......obvious drivel.


          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
            Standard response i see...... still see your struggling with the whole time of death issue. you never did understand this concept, oh well so bit it . Thought it was to good to hope for .
            Give it up Fishy. We can all see your posts. We know what you said. You derided the opinion of the entirety of modern forensic science.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Give it up Fishy. We can all see your posts. We know what you said. You derided the opinion of the entirety of modern forensic science.
              Your so vain , i love the way you make it sound like the whole forums watching our post . ohhhhh were all watching fishys post [ silly boy]. like i said t.o.d in relation to jtr escapes you . just a fact .

              Comment


              • Take off the blinkers Fishy. Iím saying that Knight was wrong about the story in the newspapers. What Iíve said, and again you need to be more accurate when reading, was that in Knightís book he claimed that the Nickley story was about Netley and Alice Margaret and that he was not only incorrect but he might even have been dishonest because it was apparently very easy to check other newspapers to find the real name of the young girl. Surely as a researcher heíd have looked at other sources for further information. If heíd done this itís likely heíd have found the real story so itís possible that he concealed contrary evidence.

                Please explain Fishy why you are so keen to give weight to word of mouth stories passed down through the years and concerning an oddball like Sickert and yet you are quite happy to completely ignore actual, provable, concrete facts that dispute the theory. You are clutching at straws.

                At that remains is to look at the likelihood of blackmailing prostitutes, Freemasonic murder, Gull, murder in coaches, carrying mutilated corpses and dumping them. So we look. We analyse and consider. Then we conclude......obvious drivel.
                Yep as suspected more nonsense, totally ignored the post about Pash, called Sickert an oddball, and wont entertain any other theory but the Gladstone ,top hat, mad man running through the streets of whitechapel mutilating prostitutes . Yup that about sums you up NARROW MINDED.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  Your so vain , i love the way you make it sound like the whole forums watching our post . ohhhhh were all watching fishys post [ silly boy]. like i said t.o.d in relation to jtr escapes you . just a fact .
                  What are you waffling on about?

                  You were told how inaccurate TOD estimates could be.

                  You quite clearly showed that you didnít accept this fact.

                  You were wrong.

                  Simple as that.
                  Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-30-2019, 02:35 PM.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    Yep as suspected more nonsense, totally ignored the post about Pash, called Sickert an oddball, and wont entertain any other theory but the Gladstone ,top hat, mad man running through the streets of whitechapel mutilating prostitutes . Yup that about sums you up NARROW MINDED.
                    Oh weíre back to the Gladstone bag lie are we? Even though I explained to you, in very easy to understand terms, how the Gladstone bag derived from the belief that JTR was a Doctor.

                    Remind me again Fishy.....which one of us promotes a theory where the ripper was a doctor?
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      Your so vain , i love the way you make it sound like the whole forums watching our post . ohhhhh were all watching fishys post [ silly boy]. like i said t.o.d in relation to jtr escapes you . just a fact .
                      Maybe one of these days we will see an example where you donít dishonestly misinterpret what I post. I said:

                      . We can all see your posts. We know what you said.
                      This in no way means that I think that everyone is reading this thread. It means that anyone can read back and check what youíve said should they wish to, as any reasonable minded poster would realise.

                      Do I have to explain everything to you Fishy? Itís very tiresome.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • What are you waffling on about?

                        You were told how inaccurate TOD estimates could be.

                        You quite clearly showed that you didnít accept this fact.

                        You were wrong.

                        Simple as that.
                        Not when it came to the doctors in the Stride, Eddowes, and Nichols they weren't, neither was i in saying it , i told you, you didnt get it .

                        Maybe one of these days we will see an example where you donít dishonestly misinterpret what I post. I said:
                        Thats rich coming from king Mr Misinterpret himself

                        This in no way means that I think that everyone is reading this thread. It means that anyone can read back and check what youíve said should they wish to, as any reasonable minded poster would realise.

                        Do I have to explain everything to you Fishy? Itís very tiresome.
                        People are of course free to go back and read all they like , i just hope they have a better understanding of how to interpret the evidence and witness statements and to explore more than just one possibility on how the murders were committed.

                        Save your explanation Herlock, and take a nap .



                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          Not when it came to the doctors in the Stride, Eddowes, and Nichols they weren't, neither was i in saying it , i told you, you didnt get it .
                          I keep trying to think of a simpler way of explaining the obvious to you but I canít. This is deliberate on your part. It has to be.

                          Again Fishy.....I have never said, or even insinuated, that Phillips TOD estimations had to have been wrong. Or that doctors in general couldnít have gotten TODís correct at times.

                          Nichols, Stride and Eddowes are completely irrelevant. If you toss a coin and get it right three times running this does not prove that predicting a coin toss is infallible!

                          The very obvious difference with Nichols, Stride and Eddowes is that there was no evidence that contradicted those estimates. This is not the case with Chapman. We have three witnesses that all contradict Phillips. Again Fishy, before you start jumping up and down, yes they could all have been mistaken or lying but we cannot know that for anything like certain. And we certainly cannot say that they were definitely mistaken or lying because Phillips was a doctor and therefore infallible.

                          Is there another person in the world that canít understand this....or are you the only one?


                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                            People are of course free to go back and read all they like , i just hope they have a better understanding of how to interpret the evidence and witness statements and to explore more than just one possibility on how the murders were committed.

                            Save your explanation Herlock, and take a nap .


                            Every single poster on here has a better understanding of how to interpret evidence than you Fishy and this is why no one agrees with you on anything. You donít even seem able to interpret the words - possibly, might or could from the words definitely or probably or did. You donít respond to what Iíve actually said, you respond to what you believe that Iíve said.

                            Its boring.

                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • Any chance of hearing youír proof that Simon was wrong on those 6 points?

                              I guess not.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • I can see why you get tired , . Anyway when it comes to Chapman and i know you dont agree thats ok, but ill reserve my right to agree with the the Wolf Vanderlinden post, if thats ok with you.

                                Now if you dont mind im off like a vomiting dog .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X