Coincidence?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DJA]

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

[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]

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.

A lot of surgeons do use both hands.Especially as evidenced in Eddowes case.

Jack was pretty tidy for an eviscerating serial killer.
Just look at Mary Ann Kelly at Dorset Street.
Blood on the wall and soaked through the bedding,yet everything was "placed",not thrown.

[Harry D]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Or the killer kneeled near to Annie’s right shoulder. None of us were there Fishy so we can’t just place the people involved like chess pieces on a board just to suit a viewpoint. You often use the ‘well it’s not impossible’ argument so we can say that it’s not in any way impossible or unlikely that the killer might have kneeled next to Annie’s right shoulder to cut her throat. And yes of course it’s not impossible that’s the killer might have been ambidextrous. Ambidextrous people exist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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.

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?

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.

I’ll repeat the question that I asked in an earlier post. What else could the noise have been? Unless you can prove that Cadosch was lying - and you can’t, then you are saying that he heard something else. 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?

[Sam Flynn]

It is academic as to how they died, there was clearly a need to dispose of the bodies chopping them up and throwing them in the thames is but a simple and easy way and hides all evidence to point to how they really died. You cant suggest a murder, when there is no evidence to show a specific cause of death, another big failure of the coroners court inquests into thse torsos.

Whether the torso victims were murdered or not, or whether there was one or more people responsible for them, isn't relevant to the point under discussion. The mere fact that torsos started turning up in the Thames for whatever reason could conceivably have served to inspire someone else to try something similar. Someone mused whether the Ripper murders were inspired by the torso cases, and I'd suggest that they weren't.

[FISHY1118]

A

s 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.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

It is academic as to how they died, there was clearly a need to dispose of the bodies chopping them up and throwing them in the thames is but a simple and easy way and hides all evidence to point to how they really died. You cant suggest a murder, when there is no evidence to show a specific cause of death, another big failure of the coroners court inquests into thse torsos.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, If Im correct, you are taking the position that its possible that they were perhaps "chopped up" by someone other than the person that killed them? Or that some/they were not murdered at all? If that's right, maybe the most interesting suggestion on the Torso crimes Ive read. What if one or more was found dead, sold some parts, and disposed of what wasn't needed? Interesting speculation.

[FISHY1118]

[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - Albert codosch ''They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings''.

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 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.

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.

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?

Makes sense in my world .

[Trevor Marriott]

Even if there wasn't, the torso murders could have inspired others... if only to chop bodies up and throw them in the Thames!

It is academic as to how they died, there was clearly a need to dispose of the bodies chopping them up and throwing them in the thames is but a simple and easy way and hides all evidence to point to how they really died. You cant suggest a murder, when there is no evidence to show a specific cause of death, another big failure of the coroners court inquests into thse torsos.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Even if there wasn't, the torso murders could have inspired others... if only to chop bodies up and throw them in the Thames!

While I very much agree that a killer may inspire others, I donīt think that Jack was inspired by the Torso killer. I think they were one and the same, of course, but IF there was inspiration at play, then it curiously went both ways:

The Torso killer inspired Jack to take out a heart.
The Torso killer inspired Jack to take out a colon section.
The Torso killer inspired Jack to cut faces severely.
The Torso killer inspired Jack to cut from ribs to pubes.

Then again...

Jack inspired the Torso killer to take out a uterus.
Jack inspired the Torso killer to cut away an abdominal wall in large flaps.
Jack inspired the Torso killer to steal rings from his victims fingers.

Unless, of course, the explanation is less far-fetched. Then again, that would take the fun out of things, perhaps?