Coincidence?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

And lots of 's!

Mmmm. And a or two.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has it ever been postulated that the sound brushing against the fence was not Annie in her death throes but the killer? He may have been positioning himself or ducking close to the fence because he heard Cadosch coming in from the yard?

Hello Harry

Ive said it on the other thread many times. I think it’s far more likely that it was the killer brushing against the fence, as you say, perhaps repositioning himself to continue the mutilations. It accounts for the time gap between the ‘no’ and the noise. To those desperate to discredit Cadosch it’s an outlandish suggestion of course. The question also has to be asked - if it wasn’t the killer what else could it have been?

[Michael W Richards]

And Eddowes proved to us some little time later that a body will not cool off on account of cold conditions at anything like the rate suggested for Chapman. But once again, letīs not do this all over again. I am casting a vote of unreliability on account of Long and Cadosch, thatīs all - AND what the thread is about.

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.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Shouldnīt "the lot" involve blue too?

And lots of 's!

[etenguy]

So can I conclude that you regard whatever a witness says as unshakeable facts...? Becasue in my world, we have actually no proof at all that Richardson was even in the backyard. And in my world, there are witnesses that cannot be relied upon. Some even lie.

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. 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.

How is that compatible with accepting unsubstantiated witness testimony as proven facts in YOUR world? I am asking out of interest, purely, because I will not enter debate as such. But I am genuinely curious to how facts like these can suddenly emerege out of thin air.

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

That Phillips incorrectly estimated the TOD is not only much more likely, but given the method he used, almost inevitable.

[Fisherman]

We've got the lot now ..... in bold,capitals and red.

Shouldnīt "the lot" involve blue too?

[Fisherman]

The neighbor heard a sound in that yard twice in 15 minutes, once a soft "no" and the second a thud. It is virtually impossible that there were people in that yard at that time and that it was not the murderer and his victim.

But it is not in any way impossible that Cadosch was not telling the truth, is it? In fact , that is what this thread is all about, whether he was reliable or not. And it does not mean that you are reliable just because you cannot be proven wrong. The timings given by Long and Cadosh are actually proof that one or both of them WERE unreliable.

When you have evidence that the physician who estimated an earlier TOD had the opportunity in his career or even during the studies that led him there to assess the time of death of someone who was opened and eviscerated outdoors in the cold morning air, then you have some evidence that Phillips had any idea how to calculate the timing accurately. As is, it was a situation he never anticipated, never encountered, and as such, had no experience with estimating the time of death. He acknowledged as much.

And Eddowes proved to us some little time later that a body will not cool off on account of cold conditions at anything like the rate suggested for Chapman. But once again, letīs not do this all over again. I am casting a vote of unreliability on account of Long and Cadosch, thatīs all - AND what the thread is about.

[Fisherman]

We know from Richardson that Annie's corpse was not in the yard at 4.50am.

So can I conclude that you regard whatever a witness says as unshakeable facts...? Becasue in my world, we have actually no proof at all that Richardson was even in the backyard. And in my world, there are witnesses that cannot be relied upon. Some even lie.

How is that compatible with accepting unsubstantiated witness testimony as proven facts in YOUR world? I am asking out of interest, purely, because I will not enter debate as such. But I am genuinely curious to how facts like these can suddenly emerege out of thin air.

[Michael W Richards]

Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
The first thing to keep in mind here is that there is likely not any reason to believe that the sound had anything to do with the murder of Annie Chapman - the medical implications are against such a thing.

[/COLOR]

There is no such valid reason Fisherman, in fact there is ample evidence that suggests someone was on the very spot where a murder victim is discovered at near 6am. The victim had wounds which suggest that the killer needed some time to accomplish them...the physician who examined her stated he would need a "quarter of an hour". This murder had not taken pace at 4:45am, due to the eyewitness statement about that specific location. The neighbor heard a sound in that yard twice in 15 minutes, once a soft "no" and the second a thud. It is virtually impossible that there were people in that yard at that time and that it was not the murderer and his victim.

Ergo...Long, incorrect, TOD estimates wrong, and TOD actually between 5:15-5:30.

When you have evidence that the physician who estimated an earlier TOD had the opportunity in his career or even during the studies that led him there to assess the time of death of someone who was opened and eviscerated outdoors in the cold morning air, then you have some evidence that Phillips had any idea how to calculate the timing accurately. As is, it was a situation he never anticipated, never encountered, and as such, had no experience with estimating the time of death. He acknowledged as much.

[etenguy]

No, what we know is that you persist in claiming that Phillips was unreliable, supporting that belief on an inability to undetand the sources you quoted - but thatīs water under the bride until further notice. The question at hand is another one.[/B]

The facts argue against the stance you describe:

1. It is known that the methodology being used by Phillip's is unreliable even if he had used a thermometer, which he did not.

2. There is proof that not only was the method used by Phillip's unreliable - but he was wrong. We know from Richardson that Annie's corpse was not in the yard at 4.50am.

Throw in Long and Cadosch statements and we have to conclude that Annie died close to 5.30am. Without further evidence to the contrary it is not logical to come to any other conclusion.

[DJA]

We've got the lot now ..... in bold,capitals and red.