Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
How did JtR see in the dark?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostHer head was almost hanging off, with the vessels on both sides of the throat deeply severed, so it's a reasonable bit of guesswork, I'd say
.Her carrying a body with a virtually severed head out to the back yard would leave no traces of blood anywhere else? Not outside, not in the passage, not on the steps?
You throw it against a hard surface and splashes will come from it
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by packers stem View Post
It was a 'smear' on the fence .
precisely what you would get by throwing an already blood drenched body to the ground
Leave a comment:
-
I try to be open to different ideas but I just think it’s several bridges to far too far to believe that carriage pulled up outside of 29 Hanbury Street which no one saw. Then two men carried a mutilated corpse into the backyard escaping unseen! It’s a ludicrous fantasy. Even if Chapman was killed elsewhere why not just dump her body somewhere in seclusion. This is palpable nonsense.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by packers stem View Post
Therefore to suggest there would 'certainly' be signs of blood elsewhere is guesswork ...If someone threw a body to the ground with a virtually severed head i would not find 6 tiny dots of blood out of the ordinary .
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostIt is described as a smear, but the blood wasn't confined to the fence: "There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall at the head of the body and some 2ft. or 3ft. from the ground. The largest spot was about the size of a six-penny piece." (The Times and other sources.) Also: "There were no drops of blood in the passage or outside, and the bloodstains were only found in the immediate neighbourhood of the body." (Ibid.) If the body was already drenched and dripping with blood, it would certainly have been found in the passage or even on the pavement/road outside 29 Hanbury Street. Given the extent of the injuries, there'd have been plenty of it, too.
How 'drenched' clothing would be at any possible point of being carried out would be an unknown and and precisely how porous Chapman's clothing may be is also unknown .Therefore to suggest there would 'certainly' be signs of blood elsewhere is guesswork ...
If someone threw a body to the ground with a virtually severed head i would not find 6 tiny dots of blood out of the ordinary .
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by packers stem View Post
It was a 'smear' on the fence
Leave a comment:
-
I've not read this whole thread yet but people please , let's get serious regarding ambient lighting .
it's been put to me a couple of times over recent weeks and seems to be the new 'in thing' whilst attempting to convince yourselves of sufficient lighting .
Cities now do have light pollution .... there was absolutely nothing back then to cause the phenomena .
No neon signs , high rise blocks with lights , electric street lights .
it is delusional and ridiculously speculative in the extreme .
We're talking poor gas lamps used as markers and candles ... No light pollution I'm afraid .
Any available light was down to moonlight.
On the night of the double event , we know it was raining on and off all night hence cloud cover and it wasn't near a full moon .
lighting was minimal
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Exactly Michael, unless Sickert cleverly flicked some blood onto the fence to make it look that way.
precisely what you would get by throwing an already blood drenched body to the ground
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostAny reasonable person would conclude from the records that the thud and soft cry at around 5:20 was almost certainly Annie and her killer, and the blood stains on the fence confirm that it was the spot where her throat was cut. Considering the killer took the extra step of removing flaps from her abdomen, its easy to see why she cooled more rapidly than the contemporary physicians estimates. If her mutilations started shortly after the thud I don't see any obstacles with her discovery time, but obviously with Mrs Longs sighting.
Mrs. Long was obviously mistaken, either about the time, or about who she saw.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by John G View Post
Yes, of course you're absolutely right, and films and TV series on the subject are primarily motivated by entertainment. That's why both the Micheal Caine TV series, and Depp film, followed the Masonic theory.
On another point, the unreliability of ToD estimates means that Parry can't be completely ruled out as a suspect in the Wallace case, i.e. on the basis of McFall The Flawed's deeply silly ,ToD conclusions. Sorry...couldn't resist!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I think it’s because it’s the most exciting theory. It reads like a horror story. A couple of times over the past few years, if I’ve been waiting for a book to be delivered and I needed a quick read, I’ve re-read Knight. It’s an enjoyable book to read. I wish it was the solution to the case but it’s not of course. Murder By Decree was a great movie too.
On another point, the unreliability of ToD estimates means that Parry can't be completely ruled out as a suspect in the Wallace case, i.e. on the basis of McFall The Flawed's deeply silly ,ToD conclusions. Sorry...couldn't resist!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by John G View Post
No problem, Herlock, many thanks. I personally think the freemason conspiracy theories are ludicrous, and not remotely supported by the available evidence. But that doesn't seem to be a problem for some people...!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Thanks for that John.
I intended to search for a quote from an expert later today. This sums it up well. And you’re not part of a Freemasonic Conspiracy I assume.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by John G View PostTime of death estimates are pretty useless as evidence even today, despite the many modern forensic science advances since 1888.
Here's the guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator:
"When providing a ToD estimate to the investigator the pathologist should take the following steps.
a) The pathologist must make clear the esimate is only an estimate and the accuracy cannot be determined.
b) The pathologist must explain that the death could have occurred outside the estimate period and, perhaps, a significant period outside it.
c) Advise that the estimate should not be uses to:
(i) Define the period in which death occurred.
(ii) Assign probabilities to likely period of death; or
(iii) Include or exclude a suspect from the
investigation."
Source: FSR-G-211, 2014, para 6.3.2.
In other words, even in a modern investigation ToD estimates are virtually worthless!
I intended to search for a quote from an expert later today. This sums it up well. And you’re not part of a Freemasonic Conspiracy I assume.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: