Chapman Timeline

[Herlock Sholmes]

This thread is about the timeline and nothing else. If anyone wishes to go over issues related to the ToD yet again please use…

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...tod#post855784

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps because it’s the most stupid question ever asked on here ....... The answer to which either way would prove absolutely nothing .

No answer though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its only nonsence to you because it makes a mockery of your arguement and you dont like it .

I asked you a simple but specific question requiring a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. As I predicted you failed to answer And as I predicted you then falsely claimed to have answered it. It’s the same old from you Fishy. A straight discussion is impossible with you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your omitting what he said to Inspector Chandler , let me refresh your memory.

[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said ''he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.


Proved !

Why would he have been required to mention the boot-cutting? It wasn’t relevant. All that he felt was relevant was the fact that he went to the back door, could see all around the yard and there was no body there.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Er ... The ''John Richardson'' thread of 4000 post that shows it to be so. I certainly wont be reposting any of them again ,but feel free to check it out .

I am well aware of the "John Richardson" thread, and I recall no overwhelmong evidence of an earlier time of death. You cannot repost it, because it isn't there.

[Doctored Whatsit]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n855770]



It has to be stressed that John Davies didnt see a clock either .

[Quote]

I really cannot see what the significance of this comment can possibly be. The exact time of his actions is not important, a few minutes either way makes no difference.

[FISHY1118]

There’s none. He’s making it up. The overwhelming evidence is that she died at 5.30. A child could u detest and this stuff but sadly some can’t Doc.

A child you say .... hmmmm

[FISHY1118]

Just to make it clear all - including you..the question that I asked was this..

Are you of the belief that all clocks and watches in the Victorian era were synchronised?

The answer is a YES or NO

Ive received no direct answer to that simple question.

Perhaps because its the most stupid question ever asked on here ....... The answer to which either way would prove absolutely nothing .

[FISHY1118]

I think we all know that in Victorian London in 1888 clocks were not synchronized. That is a fact that is beyond dispute. We also know that Long didn't see a clock, she heard it strike. The clock could have been inaccurate - fact, and she might have confused the quarter hour striking for the half hour - fact. We know from her evidence that 5. 15 am would have been quite plausible given her starting time, and the distance she travelled. We know that the Coroner didn't see any problem with her evidence, nor did the police. Suggesting that we today, know better than the Coroner and the police in 1888 is frankly ludicrous.

Let's move on!

[John Davies] I was awake from three a.m. to five a.m. on Saturday, and then fell asleep until a quarter to six,'' when the clock at Spitalfields Church struck''. I had a cup of tea and went downstairs to the back yard. The house faces Hanbury-street, with one window on the ground floor and a front door at th

Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street.



It has to be stressed that John Davies didnt see a clock either .

In defence of Mrs Long as to the above comment .

[FISHY1118]

You haven’t answered as ever. Sorry but I’m not going to keep explaining simple stuff to you that everyone else can understand.

Your post is nonsense from start to finish. Go and discuss something else.

Its only nonsence to you because it makes a mockery of your arguement and you dont like it .

[FISHY1118]

Invention.

Prove it

Your omitting what he said to Inspector Chandler , let me refresh your memory.

[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said ''he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.


Proved !

[FISHY1118]

incorrect. his evidence from the inquest testimony was that he also sat on the back step to mess with his shoe. which means if she was there her body and head would not only have been inches from his foot but also in his line of vision as he looked down. no way he misses that.

she wasnt there yet.

Your omitting what he said to Inspector Chandler , let me refresh your memory.

[Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said ''he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.

[FISHY1118]

Er... what "overwhelming inquest evidence"?

Er ... The ''John Richardson'' thread of 4000 post that shows it to be so. I certainly wont be reposting any of them again ,but feel free to check it out .

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

There was a time when Herlock took your position on clock times. But to his eternal credit he has accepted the evidence provided on clock times and has adjusted his opinion accordingly. Might I suggest that you reconsider your position on this topic.

Cheers, George

HI George , As you can see regarding the Dodgy Clock Shamozzle that its kinda boring me a little so ill keep it simple . The clocks of 1888, in perticular the ones in question for the Chapman Murder are of little importance imo , for this reason . My stance is and has always been that Long and Cadosch times are based solely on ''their'' sworn statements as they themselves believed them to be tru . I happen to support a earlier T.O.D based on what i see clearly as their contradictory evidence that the informatiom they gave cant ''Both'' be true and or correct . If the clock arguement is used by some to justify why they can be ,then that up to personal preference ,just dont let them say its a ''Fact'' thats the reason why .


Its bad enough when some suggest Long heard the 5.15am clock chime ,mistaking it for the 5,30 am one !!!!

Or even better that a Dog may have been responsible for dragging Eddowes blood stain apron piece to Goulston st .

We seem to have created the ''Mystery Solved Attitude'' when debating all things JtR simple by saying /using the phase ''Its Possible''!!! I prefer the evidence given to us by the people who were there during the times of the murders . Cheers Fishy .

[Doctored Whatsit]

I think we all know that in Victorian London in 1888 clocks were not synchronized. That is a fact that is beyond dispute. We also know that Long didn't see a clock, she heard it strike. The clock could have been inaccurate - fact, and she might have confused the quarter hour striking for the half hour - fact. We know from her evidence that 5. 15 am would have been quite plausible given her starting time, and the distance she travelled. We know that the Coroner didn't see any problem with her evidence, nor did the police. Suggesting that we today, know better than the Coroner and the police in 1888 is frankly ludicrous.

Let's move on!