Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coincidence?

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

  • Originally posted by DJA View Post
    Bold type is back,flaming is back,following people around making useless off topic accusations .....
    You just can’t resist the digs can you?

    Im attempting to discuss the case without the perpetually snide, personal comments that you specialise in. It might be difficult for you to understand but - I only type in bold print when I’m responding point by point within a post (as I was in the post you’re referring to) so that my responses don’t appear as part of the original quote. It’s pretty simple stuff.

    And there’s only one poster here in the habit of posting in bold type all of the time. The poster that you defend purely because he usually disagrees with me.


    We are supposed to be trying to debate without acrimony and insult but you just can’t help yourself can you?

    Grow up Dave you’re becoming an embarrassment and an irritation.
    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 etenguy View Post

      Yes, it is true, if a witness has some motivation, they may lie. In this case there is no motivation to lie for either Richardson, Long or Cadosche.

      Then why did you take the road over Richardson to find yourself proof? You could just as well have stated from the outset that both Long and Cadosch were correct too, their tinings included. Of course - ALL the thiongs witnesses say are correct if we cannot identify any motivation for the to lie. TRight?

      Then again, limelight was always a reason for some people to lie. How do we know that Long and Cadosch and Richardson did not belong to that rank of witnesses? Any idea? Becasue we have no indications of it?
      Do we have indications to the contrary, though?

      I think we may need to be less idealistic and more realistic.


      You might speculate their motivation to lie was merely for their five minutes of fame. I think this unlikely in light of a serious murder investigation, but it is not impossible all three lied, just unlikely in the extreme.

      No, no, no - you cannot establish the degree to which it is unlikely. You cannot even establish that it IS unlikely, in fact. That hinges on their motivavtions and driving forces, and you know nothong about that. That is something we CAN establish.

      This information does not emerge out of thin air but rather from three separate witness statements.

      Indeed. Then again, I never said it was the information that emerged out of thin air, I said that "facts" suddenly did.

      These three statements substantiate each other in so much as they all lead to the same conclusion, or at least do not contradict each other.

      "Or at least"? So you realize that there are flaws? Good on you!

      For three people to separately and independently lie (and under oath), all without contradicting each other and in fact each adding credence to the other, is of course possible but again extremely unlikely.

      Yes, that IS unlikely. But it is LESS unlikely in a high profile case like this. And letīs be frank, what a pork-serving witness WOULD do would be to say that he or she heard or saw the murder or something leading up to it. Which was what Long and Cadosh did. Unfortunately, they screwed up the timings, and seriously so. They were ready to take posion on being correct on the timings, a trait that is not uncommon amongst those who do not tell the truth; they offer detail so as to make things look right. But when two "corroborating" witnesses offer unreconcilable times and bolster then by citing clock strokes, we know that something is very wrong. Once again, we can NOT rely on what Long and Cadosch said, becasue it is a proven thing that at least one of them was not telling the truth. WHich is not to say that one of them must have lied - but it IS to say that at least one of them provided the police with incorrect information.

      That Phillips incorrectly estimated the TOD is not only much more likely, but given the method he used, almost inevitable.
      No, not at all. Using the method Phillips used was never something that "almost inevitably" provided the wrong result. The mere idea is preposterous. It was a method that COULD go wrong, but taken together with the rigor, things are in line, and that must count for something. Using the uncertainty built into the method in a 100 per cent generalistic way is not wise. But once again, letīs not go there. We differ, quite simply.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

        And lots of 's!
        Mmmm. And a or two.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          Just to finish off the thought here Fisherman, Kate was found minutes after her murder, therefore a fairly reliable TOD there is obvious. Annie may have been found 1/2 hour after hers.
          Kate Eddowes temperature was checked for by way of feeling for wamth around forty minutes after she died. She was then "quite warm" and showed no signs of rigor. She was lying more exposed to the wind and chill on a colder night than when Chapman died.

          Once again - this has been discussed, and unless you think you can make progress, letīs leave it there.



          Comment


          • .
            It was not a brush, though, it was a sudden sound. If it had been a brush, Cadosch would have said so. And, of course, a brush sounds nothing like a fall. So once again, what was it that sounded like a fall? A sudden thump against the fence does NOT sound like a fall. Nor does a brush. And no, I am not saying that it could only have been Chapman - I am saying that whatever it was (if indeed it WAS something, which we do not know), it was NOT Chapman.
            Has anyone ever heard of such a desperate attempt? Why are you so determined to try anything to discredit Cadosch? A witness that 99% of voters in the poll saw as honest? We are now reduced to debating Cadosch’s vocabulary! The noise was overwhelmingly likely to have been the killer. An arm, a shoulder, an elbow. Not a ghost, not a bloody cat, not an hallucinating Cadosch (as you suggest) It was a man hearing a noise that came from probably six feet from where he was standing. From a backyard where a woman was killed and mutilated and nothing else happened apart from that. How much clearer does it need to be? Unless you are desperate to prove otherwise for some reason.

            But, as Al has pointed out, this thread is being drawn the way of the others. I’m heartily sick of poor logic, bias and stupidity to be honest. I’m out.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 10-14-2019, 06:04 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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

              And there’s only one poster here in the habit of posting in bold type all of the time. The poster that you defend purely because he usually disagrees with me.
              See post 213. And a few hundred others. Like this one.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Has anyone ever heard of such a desperate attempt?

                Oooooooh YES!!!

                Why are you so determined to try anything to discredit Cadosch?

                I am not determined to discredit him at all. I am determined to discredit the idea that he must have been telling the truth.

                A witness that 99% of voters in the poll saw as honest?

                And how do you suppose they researched his honesty? They were perhaps personal aquaintances of his, and did not need to research it? Or? I can assure you, Herlock, that there is nothing I can do to prove that he was not honest. Likewise, no childish poll can prove that he WAS honest. Or 99 per cent honest.

                We are now reduced to debating Cadosch’s vocabulary!

                Yes, indeed! And if you think that what he said is not the best tool we have to try and weigh him up, you really need to explain how that works.

                The noise was overwhelmingly likely to have been the killer.

                No, it was not. There is no way to gauge that. I am absolutley certain that it cannot have come from the murder, because realistically, she was loooong dead.

                An arm, a shoulder, an elbow.

                A head, a penis, a toe? A butt? Thereīs always a but, you know. Guess away, by all means.

                Not a ghost, not a bloody cat, not an hallucinating Cadosch (as you suggest)

                So YOU must be right and I must be wrong? Now, where have I seen that delusion before?

                It was a man hearing a noise that came from probably six feet from where he was standing.

                No, we donīt know that. It was a man who CLAIMED to have heard a sound - that was not consistent with "a fall".

                From a backyard where a woman was killed and mutilated and nothing else happened apart from that.

                And once again, you have no idea. That is the nature of the beast, we canīt tell whether something else happened. There ARE "bloody cats", you know. And they DO sound when they touch something. It may even sound like an arm, a shoulder or an elbow touching something. No wait - you just told us that it CAN NOT have been a cat, so I must be wrong again. And you right.
                Right?


                Although iHow much clearer does it need to be?

                Much, much clearer before interpretation and guesswork turns into fact.

                Unless you are desperate to prove otherwise for some reason.

                I would not say that I am desperate. If I am, then YOU are equally desperate to make Cadoshīs statement true and fact. Me, I am more like eager not to have people doing that. And the reason is that I donīt like prematurely construed "facts". It has only been a few posts since etenguy told me that Richardsons testimony is proof that Chapman was not there at the time Richardson was.
                We cannot treat testimony like gospel. it is that simple. If we like what we hear and want to believe it, fine. If we think it is something we can present as near certainties, then do so. But prepare to have it factually denied.


                But, as Al has pointed out, this thread is being drawn the way of the others. I’m heartily sick of it to be honest. I’m out.
                Fare thee well!
                Last edited by Fisherman; 10-14-2019, 06:30 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  There ARE "bloody cats", you know. And they DO sound when they touch something. It may even sound like an arm, a shoulder or an elbow touching something.
                  I am of the view that any noise was most likely the murderer bumping against the fence during his work - however, if I am wrong and it was an animal, I think a dog might make a more discernible noise rather than a cat - but I certainly do not want to argue the case, I have absolutely no evidence.

                  I think you (Fisherman) and I have agreed to differ on which was more likely to be correct (Phillips or the three witnesses) and I think neither of us is likely to change their view without further evidence to help us. So I would like to ask instead if you find the number of coincidences in this case to be simply coincidences or whether you think they begin to mount to suggest that something else might be going on?

                  I am of the view that they are just coincidences at the moment, but if we collect many more I think my view might begin to change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    Certain details were reported in the Star of Dec. 24th in reporting on the death of Rose Mylett the article reflects back on the Chapman murder case and the testimony of Dr. Phillips:

                    "The evidence given by Dr. Phillips on 18 Sept. at the Hanbury-street inquest is incontrovertible proof that Annie Chapman was partially strangled before her throat was cut. When Dr. Phillips was called to see the body he found that the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger-nails and lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation. In Dr. Phillip's own words, "I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, but that death arose from syncope consequent on the loss of blood following the severance of the throat."
                    https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s881224.html

                    "All these appearances", not just the tongue protruding between the teeth.
                    P.S. I think the "18th Sept" date is an error.
                    Seems the press report is in error
                    Phillips stated himself that the brain was diseased at the inquest
                    That will be behind the blood
                    You can lead a horse to water.....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                      Hi Blotchy's Beer Bucket

                      According to the list of possessions for Eddowes, she had no money on her. Isn't it likely she went out to earn her doss money? What is your suggestion for her spending about half an hour hanging about the streets at that time of night?
                      Why ?
                      All she had to do was stop singing ,roll over and go back to sleep .....
                      She had a 'free' doss and apparently gave it up in order to wander around in the rain
                      You can lead a horse to water.....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                        As you can see from Wickerman’s post #170 we have an explanation for the blood on the wall therefore the rest of the suggestion that the killer couldn’t have cut her throat from the position that I suggested collapses. I’m not saying that that’s what definitely happened just that it’s a plausible possibility.

                        I don’t see why you have to talk about cartwheeling and kicking fences? There’s nothing unbelievable or far-fetched about the suggestion that the killer might have changed positions during the mutilations to get better access. The gap between Annie’s body and the fence was relatively narrow so it’s entirely plausible that the killer might have brushed his shoulder against the fence.

                        Ill ask a question Fishy (anyone else can give an answer too of course) It’s a question that I’ve asked before but I’ve never gotten a specific answer from you.

                        If the noise of something brushing/falling against the fence heard by Albert Cadosch at around 5.25 wasn’t made by Annie or her killer what could it have been made by? You previously suggested packing cases but I pointed out that there weren’t any in the yard at the time.
                        The packing case makers were at 25
                        Cadosch wasn't sure which side he heard from
                        Not wishing to speak for fishy but maybe that's what he was pointing to
                        You can lead a horse to water.....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                          I am of the view that any noise was most likely the murderer bumping against the fence during his work - however, if I am wrong and it was an animal, I think a dog might make a more discernible noise rather than a cat - but I certainly do not want to argue the case, I have absolutely no evidence.

                          I think you (Fisherman) and I have agreed to differ on which was more likely to be correct (Phillips or the three witnesses) and I think neither of us is likely to change their view without further evidence to help us. So I would like to ask instead if you find the number of coincidences in this case to be simply coincidences or whether you think they begin to mount to suggest that something else might be going on?

                          I am of the view that they are just coincidences at the moment, but if we collect many more I think my view might begin to change.
                          Exacty which are the coincidences you point to? Incidentally, I have a cat and a dog myself, and both can be quite noisy. The cat is more prone to get scared and jump sideways, though...

                          Going to bed now, so you will have my answer tomorrow.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            Even if there wasn't, the torso murders could have inspired others... if only to chop bodies up and throw them in the Thames!
                            Which torso murders are you suggesting?

                            If we're talking only of Whitehall then the arm wasn't found until after Chapman ,although probably deposited on the same day and the torso wasn't found until a couple of days after Stride and Eddowes were killed

                            I fail to see how a torso victim from the previous year could 'inspire' a serial killer ..... but I can see the clear and obvious chronological links from the Whitehall torso
                            You can lead a horse to water.....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              Just to finish off the thought here Fisherman, Kate was found minutes after her murder, therefore a fairly reliable TOD there is obvious. Annie may have been found 1/2 hour after hers.
                              Brown didn't examine the body until 2 20
                              You can lead a horse to water.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                                Why ?
                                All she had to do was stop singing ,roll over and go back to sleep .....
                                She had a 'free' doss and apparently gave it up in order to wander around in the rain
                                Agreed Packers,easy for her to to keep a roof over her head by just nodding off again for a few hours out of the rain.
                                But we see somebody desperate to be released,and remarkably sober considering they had to be held up not long before.
                                Don't know about you,but the last time I was that drunk,I was ill for days ;-)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X