Coincidence?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Didn't two other threads get shut down because they devolved into repetition around Chapman, TOD, noisy fences and the validity of Stephen Knights book?

Coincidence?

[DJA]

Bold type is back,flaming is back,following people around making useless off topic accusations .....

[Wickerman]

A

Which means according to wickerman the blood was on the wall behind Annie head was caused by the throwing of the intestines over her shoulder not from the spray from cutting or her throat , therefor the killer didn't lean over her head to cut her throat . So that leaves either the left hand side or the right, try doing it from her left side between her and the fence with your Right hand cutting from left to right, while holding her chin up with your left hand . cant be done ,

Of course the only answer im expecting is the killer was most probably ambidextrous.

"....therefor the killer didn't lean over her head to cut her throat...."

Not necessarily, any arterial spray is the result of pressure in the cardiovascular system due to the beating heart. If her heart had already stopped beating then there should be no arterial spray.

Phillips already said Chapman had been strangled. Syncope is not proof of a cut throat but an indication of the result of a loss of blood to the brain. A cord held tight around the throat will produce the same effect, it also produces the black blood which Phillips mentioned.
Therefore, Chapman was strangled to death first, and her throat was only cut after her heart had stopped beating - so no measurable arterial spray.

[etenguy]

Didn't two other threads get shut down because they devolved into repetition around Chapman, TOD, noisy fences and the validity of Stephen Knights book?

Coincidence?

I so wish we could flag as funny.

[Fisherman]

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.

The medical implications have been thoroughly dealt with. We know for fact, from a plethora of authorities on the subject, that Phillips TOD was unreliable. Constantly repeating the opposite when it suits will not change things. This one is over. Phillips TOD cannot be relied upon.

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.

The second thing to keep in mind here is that the time given for the sound is in conflict with the time given by Mrs Long for her sighting of Chapman outside the yard. And both she and Cadosch were dead certain of their respective timings. If we are to accept Cadoschīs statement about the sound as belonging to the Chapman murder (which is unlikely in the extreme from the beginning), then we must rule out Long as being mistaken.

This is far from certain of course. Long may have been mistaken but equally timings could have been out. 7 or 8 minutes for either witnesses and they tie up.

It IS certain that if Cadosh and Long were correct on the times, then at least one of them was never witnessing Chjapman in any shape or form. And why would we "help" the timings to fit? Both witnesses were absolutely certain of the timings. You are following in the footsteps of Bacxter, who took it upon hi9mself to try and make the stories fit together. He saw that as his mission, and it has screwed a lot of things up. Both Long and Cadosh cannot be right, and personally, I am certain that neither of them were correct.

The third thing to keep in mind is that what Cadosh describes does not sound anything like a person falling against a fence and slumping down to the ground. Here is the wording from the Morning Advertiser:

"I went in and came back into the yard in three or four minutes, and then I heard a sort of fall against the fence which divides the yard from No. 29.

What sort of noise was it? - Well, as if something had touched the fence suddenly."

"A sort of fall" is what Cadosch speaks about. Now, what does a fall against a fence sound like? Well, that depends on what is falling against it. A flagpole, an elephant and a human being will make different noises, all of them. But there is a similarity between the two latter suggestions: once an elephant or a person falls against a fence, they will slump down towards the ground. And that produces a sound of itīs own. But no such sound is spoken of by Cadosch, he instead says that it sounded like something "touched the fence suddenly".
But the sound of something that touched a fence suddenly leads my thoughts to a ball kicked against it, somebody accidentally banging his elbow against it, a bird flying into it, soil being thrown against it from a shovel - something like that.

Perhaps a couple of kids climbed over the fence to retrieve their ball at 5.25 am and didn’t notice the mutilated corpse?

Ah - you are trying your hand at irony! Itīs not masterful, Iīm afraid. What I am saying is that the sounds described are not consistent with a woman falling against the fence, and that they are MORE consistent with a boll bouncing off it. That does not mean that I am thinking it WAS a ball, it only means that I think Cadosh never described a fall at all.

If Cadosch heard nothing more than a sudden touch to the fence, what is it that makes him think that he has heard a fall? Because a fall against a fence encompasses a slumping movement, and if that slumping movement is not there (if the falling person bounces off the fence and falls away from it): where is the thud against the ground?

If Cadosch is describing a falling person, he is not making a very good job of it, is he?

This is a straw man argument because you are implying that the noise could only have been Annie falling against the fence when it could simply have been her killer brushing against the fence. So your third point holds no water.

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.

I’ll repeat the question that I asked in an earlier post. What else could the noise have been?

1. A lie.
2. An animal, like a cat.
3. Cadoschs fantasy playing games on him.
...etcetera. There are not many suggestions that CAN explain what it was if it was not part of the murder, of course - which is why I favour that Cadosch was telling porkies or hallucinating, because I am personally utterly convinced that Chapman was long dead at the stage. Thinking, like you do, that the scarcity of good suggestions makes for evidence that Cadosh overheard the murder just isnīt true, Iīm afraid. Oh, and a piece of advice - try to stay away from the ironies about cats you are pondering.

Unless you can prove that Cadosch was lying - and you can’t, then you are saying that he heard something else.

Unless YOU can prove that he was telling the truth, then he may have heard nothing at all. And I believe I HAVE evidence in Phillips words that Cadosh cannot have been correct.

Some other noise which came from a yard where, according to Phillips TOD, there was a mutilated corpse. So I assume we can count out an innocent party? What else is left? Perhaps a couple of vultures landed and brushed their wings against the fence? Or perhaps a particularly clumsy hyena? Or....a man mutilating a corpse?

Oh, there is another try at irony - and it really isnīt very good this time either. You need to look to people like journalists to teach you the trade (and THAT, my friend is how irony should be used). A man mutilating a corpse, by the way, does not sound like a sudden sound from a fence.

Furthermore, there was a hole in the fence where the body lay that would allow for Cadosch to see the body and even the killer moving around, so whichever way we look at things, it seems that what he heard - or said he heard - had nothing to do with any mutilations.

What I said stands - there is no certainty at all that Cadosh heard anything at all to begin with. There were many people wanting to get a minute in the limelight in this case, and the discrepancies inbetween Cadosh and Long should be quite enough to make us be very careful about the value of their efforts. Saying that I canjot prove that they lied - or even that they got things wrong - is more of a kindergarten thing than any useful criticism of these facts.

Having said that, an inner voice tells me that the upcoming argumentation on offer here is going to be coungterproductive to any wish to understand the case, and so I will foreshadow a reluctance on my behalf to debate it any further with you. And - OH! - there is that voice again telling me that I may be in for having it said that I am fleeing the debate....?

Oh, well. Iīve said what I wanted to say, and so Iīm done for now.

[DJA]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

Shouldnīt "the lot" involve blue too?

[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.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Shouldnīt "the lot" involve blue too?

And lots of 's!

[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.

[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?