Originally posted by Lewis C
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Profile of Jack the Ripper
Collapse
X
-
'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
-
Originally posted by Lewis C View Post
The Police determined that Chapman's TOD was about 5:30, and if that's the case, Richardson is a very unlikely suspect, so it's understandable that they cleared him. The case for Richardson as a suspect is stronger if the TOD was earlier.
My understanding is that the police did not agree with the coroner's conclusion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
No not really , whether its was 5.30am or 3.30 am Richardson was cleared as a suspect /person of interest which ever way you want to phase it , of the murder of Annie Chapman on the morning of the killing .
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lewis C View Post
Are you saying that they cleared him before they determined the TOD?
'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
It was determined on the day to be 5.30 am which he was excluded from being the murderer, if as we have been shown also it could have been as early as 3.30 am it would not have made any difference.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lewis C View Post
The reason why it matters is that suspicion about Richardson arises from the possibility that the murder may have been earlier than 5:30. If the murder occurred at about 5:30, then the reason for suspecting him is eliminated and it follows that in that case, he would be cleared.'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
Richardson was cleared Of any involvement in Chapmans murder 5.30 am or 3.30 am . i think we can move on from there .
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lewis C View Post
Everybody was cleared of a 3:30 murder because it was determined that there was no murder at 3:30. This article should help clarify the relationship between the question of Chapman's TOD and the viability of Richardson as a suspect: https://casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html
Lewis ive read more articles on Annie's chapman than most , I started a thread on John Richardson that has over 3500 post. I suggest you go do your own research and read that thread to fully understand everything regarding the death of Annie chapman
John Richardson had no involvement in her death no matter what time she was murdered..
'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
It was never determined that at all, it was suggested not proven .
Lewis ive read more articles on Annie's chapman than most , I started a thread on John Richardson that has over 3500 post. I suggest you go do your own research and read that thread to fully understand everything regarding the death of Annie chapman
John Richardson had no involvement in her death no matter what time she was murdered..
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mark J D View Post-- Can anyone think of a suspect with a strange, mysterious and seemingly very assertive mother...? <*cough*...>
But there's no evidence that Druitt's mother or the mother of any other suspect was mysterious or very assertive.
And being strange or mysterious or assertive is not a sign that a woman's child will become a serial killer.
"The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lewis C View Post
I can see that you've made up your mind, so there's no point in my commenting on this any further.
After that may post on the John Richardson thread, I should think not .
'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fiver View PostAnd being strange or mysterious or assertive is not a sign that a woman's child will become a serial killer.
"You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fiver View Post
Strange - the closest to that is Druitt's mother ended up in an asylum.
But there's no evidence that Druitt's mother or the mother of any other suspect was mysterious or very assertive.
And being strange or mysterious or assertive is not a sign that a woman's child will become a serial killer.
If Jack's mother made him a serial killer, I wonder if she would kindly make one for the Lechmere theorists if they gave her the wool.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment