Annie's last meal

[Damaso Marte]

I don't have a favorite suspect or theory that requires either an early or late TOD for Annie; that said I lean towards a late TOD.

At the end of the day, believing in an early TOD for Chapman requires you to believe that a mutilated corpse lay unnoticed in the yard of a multifamily dwelling for hours. This is not impossible, but is it really more plausible than the idea that Chapman may have eaten something between 1:30 AM and 5:30 AM?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don't have a favorite suspect or theory that requires either an early or late TOD for Annie; that said I lean towards a late TOD.

At the end of the day, believing in an early TOD for Chapman requires you to believe that a mutilated corpse lay unnoticed in the yard of a multifamily dwelling for hours. This is not impossible, but is it really more plausible than the idea that Chapman may have eaten something between 1:30 AM and 5:30 AM?

Likewise, I don't particularly care what time Annie was murdered nor have a suspect.

My take on your post and reasoning is that it is built upon conjecture, i.e. what we imagine and what we find hard to get our heads around.

When we look at the evidence it is as follows:

1) Annie ate once prior to being murdered, i.e. 1.45am.

2) Nobody went into the yard during that time period. The only person who claimed to be in the yard was John Richardson. The problem with Richardson is that he misled the coroner with his knife tale and so he compromised his entire statement. It is a statement that would have been dismissed in a court of law and one that led the police to suspect him.

[GBinOz]

Likewise, I don't particularly care what time Annie was murdered nor have a suspect.

My take on your post and reasoning is that it is built upon conjecture, i.e. what we imagine and what we find hard to get our heads around.

When we look at the evidence it is as follows:

1) Annie ate once prior to being murdered, i.e. 1.45am.

2) Nobody went into the yard during that time period. The only person who claimed to be in the yard was John Richardson. The problem with Richardson is that he misled the coroner with his knife tale and so he compromised his entire statement. It is a statement that would have been dismissed in a court of law and one that led the police to suspect him.

Hi FM,

I think it would be more accurate to say that we don't know that anybody went into the yard. Various newspaper reports indicated that the hallway was very noisy to walk on, and Amelia Richardson claimed that she would have heard anyone doing so. She heard Johnson leave, but didn't hear Jack, Annie or her son. She may have missed Jack and Annie because she was asleep until 3AM, but that doesn't explain her missing JR. Likewise, as the yard was said to be frequented by others, she may have missed a vagrant entering the yard around 5:20, seeing the body and exclaiming "No", then deciding to rob the body. The rings were missing and her pockets had been rifled. This doesn't seem to me to be something Jack with which Jack would bother himself. The vagrant hears Cadosch and attempts to conceal himself behind the fence, creating the bump. All of this is pure speculation and conjecture, as are most of our deliberations.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

I think it would be more accurate to say that we don't know that anybody went into the yard.

All of this is pure speculation and conjecture, as are most of our deliberations.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I agree that we can't say for certain that nobody went into the yard.

Having said that, in the event we form a theory around the evidence then there is no evidence that anybody went into the yard. Only John Richardson's statement which was compromised and led to him being suspected.

I appreciate that a lot of the fun in this is speculating and people enjoy doing that, and someone like me coming along and saying something like: "but what does the evidence we have at our disposal tell us" isn't going to be appreciated because it detracts from the fun of speculating.

I've no problem with that. Each to their own, I suppose. And it's not my place to tell people what to think and how to form their opinion.

On the other hand, given this is a message board devoted to a murder case I do feel it appropriate to point out where we're arguing from a basis of "what seems to hard to believe" and where we're arguing from a basis of the evidence at our disposal, particularly on a thread which I started posing a few questions.

No bother though, George, it's all good.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Likewise, I don't particularly care what time Annie was murdered nor have a suspect.

My take on your post and reasoning is that it is built upon conjecture, i.e. what we imagine and what we find hard to get our heads around.

When we look at the evidence it is as follows:

1) Annie ate once prior to being murdered, i.e. 1.45am.

This is inaccurate. We can only say that we only have record of Annie eating once prior to being murdered.

2) Nobody went into the yard during that time period. The only person who claimed to be in the yard was John Richardson. The problem with Richardson is that he misled the coroner with his knife tale and so he compromised his entire statement. It is a statement that would have been dismissed in a court of law and one that led the police to suspect him.

Richardson didn’t mislead the Coroner. Any statement on any aspect of any case is severely weakened when we have to assume stupidity and that’s exactly what we have to do to suggest that Richardson mislead the Coroner. Not only on the part of Richardson but on the part of an experienced Coroner and his jury too. Also the Press because no reporter spotted anything misleading in anything that he said regarding the knife. How many people have to be deaf or stupid to make this theory of misleading a reality? He didn’t initially mention the second knife because he was asked about what he did whilst on the backyard step and not what he did at the market later on, which was irrelevant to the inquest. It’s a suggestion built on sand.

We have no reason to doubt Richardson; inconvenient as that might be.

[Damaso Marte]

Hi George,

I agree that we can't say for certain that nobody went into the yard.

Having said that, in the event we form a theory around the evidence then there is no evidence that anybody went into the yard. Only John Richardson's statement which was compromised and led to him being suspected.

I appreciate that a lot of the fun in this is speculating and people enjoy doing that, and someone like me coming along and saying something like: "but what does the evidence we have at our disposal tell us" isn't going to be appreciated because it detracts from the fun of speculating.

I've no problem with that. Each to their own, I suppose. And it's not my place to tell people what to think and how to form their opinion.

On the other hand, given this is a message board devoted to a murder case I do feel it appropriate to point out where we're arguing from a basis of "what seems to hard to believe" and where we're arguing from a basis of the evidence at our disposal, particularly on a thread which I started posing a few questions.

No bother though, George, it's all good.

No. There's no real difference between "we have no evidence that anyone except Richardson entered the yard between 1:45 AM and 5:30 AM, so therefore we must assume nobody did" and "we have no evidence that anyone except Richardson entered the yard between 1:45 AM and 5:30 AM, but it's reasonable to think at least a few people might have". Both of them involve substituting our own judgment in the absence of the evidence we want but don't have.

We're both engaged in the same game: deciding which of several possible stories seems more plausible to us given our own attitudes, priors, and principles.

[Fleetwood Mac]

deciding which of several possible stories seems more plausible

As I said, based on the evidence at our disposal.

To illustrate:

The only evidence we have of Annie eating that morning was at 1.45am.

A conclusion to the effect that Annie's last meal was at 1.45am, would be based on the available evidence.

A conclusion that Annie ate after 1.45am would be speculation.

[JeffHamm]

As I said, based on the evidence at our disposal.

To illustrate:

The only evidence we have of Annie eating that morning was at 1.45am.

A conclusion to the effect that Annie's last meal was at 1.45am, would be based on the available evidence.

A conclusion that Annie ate after 1.45am would be speculation.

Not really. To state that her last known meal was at 1:45 is a statement based upon the evidence at our disposal.

But, to conclude that was her last meal is speculation because it asserts as a fact something we do not know.

At the same time, if one were to conclude she ate after 1:45 then one is also speculating, as that too asserts as fact something we do not know.

Both are speculations because there is a large period of time between her last known sighting and when she is found dead. What she did during those hours is unknown, and therefore could have involved eating something, or it may not have involved eating something. The evidence available to us does not allow us to differentiate those mutually exclusive options and that makes both speculations.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Not really. To state that her last known meal was at 1:45 is a statement based upon the evidence at our disposal.

But, to conclude that was her last meal is speculation because it asserts as a fact something we do not know.

Speculation is a statement with no supporting evidence.

What I'm putting across is an opinion based on known evidence, it follows this is not speculation.

Nobody is asserting that it is a fact Annie ate her last meal at 1.45am.

[JeffHamm]

Speculation is a statement with no supporting evidence.

What I'm putting across is an opinion based on known evidence, it follows this is not speculation.

Nobody is asserting that it is a fact Annie ate her last meal at 1.45am.

When you say "A conclusion to the effect that Annie's last meal was at 1.45am, would be based on the available evidence." as in your post 127 above, you are asserting that Annie's last meal was at 1:45 (that's what a conclusion is, an assertion of something as a fact, otherwise you are not concluding you are speculating). Therefore, your example asserts as a fact that Annie's last meal was at 1:45.

So what I'm saying is that to "conclude" her last meal was at 1:45 is incorrect, one can only speculate her last meal was at 1:45. To conclude it was her last meal you must know that she did not eat in the hours for which we have no information, which is, of course, impossible. As such, to conclude she did, or did not, eat during those missing hours is, by definition, to speculate on what she did.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

When you say "A conclusion to the effect that Annie's last meal was at 1.45am, would be based on the available evidence." as in your post 127 above, you are asserting that Annie's last meal was at 1:45 (that's what a conclusion is, an assertion of something as a fact, otherwise you are not concluding you are speculating). Therefore, your example asserts as a fact that Annie's last meal was at 1:45.

So what I'm saying is that to "conclude" her last meal was at 1:45 is incorrect, one can only speculate her last meal was at 1:45. To conclude it was her last meal you must know that she did not eat in the hours for which we have no information, which is, of course, impossible. As such, to conclude she did, or did not, eat during those missing hours is, by definition, to speculate on what she did.

- Jeff

My conclusion is a judgement based upon reasoning as opposed to asserting a fact.

There it is for you from the horse's mouth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I said, based on the evidence at our disposal.

To illustrate:

The only evidence we have of Annie eating that morning was at 1.45am.

A conclusion to the effect that Annie's last meal was at 1.45am, would be based on the available evidence.

A conclusion that Annie ate after 1.45am would be speculation.

No. ‘A conclusion to the effect that Annie’s last meal was at 1.45am, would be based on the available evidence,’ avoids the fact that the ‘available evidence’ includes a gap of time. And so to conclude that Annie didn’t eat after 1.45 is also speculation.

Where do you get your logic from. Oh yeah…Planet Bias.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When you say "A conclusion to the effect that Annie's last meal was at 1.45am, would be based on the available evidence." as in your post 127 above, you are asserting that Annie's last meal was at 1:45 (that's what a conclusion is, an assertion of something as a fact, otherwise you are not concluding you are speculating). Therefore, your example asserts as a fact that Annie's last meal was at 1:45.

So what I'm saying is that to "conclude" her last meal was at 1:45 is incorrect, one can only speculate her last meal was at 1:45. To conclude it was her last meal you must know that she did not eat in the hours for which we have no information, which is, of course, impossible. As such, to conclude she did, or did not, eat during those missing hours is, by definition, to speculate on what she did.

- Jeff

Logic and reason is a foreign country to some Jeff.

[JeffHamm]

My conclusion is a judgement based upon reasoning as opposed to asserting a fact.

There it is for you from the horse's mouth.

Right, otherwise known as a speculation, good that we agree even if using different specific words. Language is funny that way.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Right, otherwise known as a speculation, good that we agree

- Jeff

We don't agree.

We have evidence of Annie eating once between the period at 1.30am and 5.30am. The reasoning is based on this evidence.

To suggest Annie ate some other time is purely speculative given there is no supporting evidence.

But what we certainly do at this point, is agree to disagree. The alternative is not particularly appealing from my side.