Annie Chapman’s ToD

[Lewis C]

Response to Fishy’s post # 108 on the Timeline thread:

“As i said ,it was a stupid question that proves nothing in relation to the topic at hand , you only asked it to bait me for your own self benefit just so you can crow about how i cant answer a yes/no question . Its clever tactic youve been using for years , but i think you over do it at times .”

You are just using accusations to avoid responding. The question was a simple, straightforward, non-trick one. The purpose of it was to try to get you to give a straight answer for once on whether you believe that all clocks in Victorian London were synchronised with each other. You either do or you don’t. Which is it? Like Trevor, to avoid answering a question you attack the question itself. Everyone can see that it’s an entirely valid question and everyone can see that you are deliberately avoiding answering and everyone knows why.

Herlock, I think that the logic of Fishy's position is that clocks may not have been perfectly synchronized, but they wouldn't have been more than a minute or 2 from perfect synchronization. His argument also assumes that every witness would have been aware of exactly what his clock said at the time of the event and that everyone would have remembered that time when he testified.

[Lewis C]

Response to Fishy’s post # 109 on the Timeline thread:

”What you get from ''Fishy'' Herlock is evidence from the inquest that enables me to form an opinion as to Chapmans time of death . What we get from you time and time again is conjucture , circumstancial contradictory evidence , unproven theories , dodgy clocks , expert medical opinion that was incorrect without knowing for a fact it was

. I could go on, but its boring me . Funny how reliable and almost to the minute other Dr T.O.D estimates were, but Dr Phillipps was way out !”

It’s boring us too Fishy, believe me!

Yes, you have formed an opinion, but it’s based on a poor understanding of the evidence. Basically, your position is that you feel that your opinion on the medical science to do with the estimation ToD and its methods and drawbacks trumps that of the world’s authorities. You, Fishy, no more about this apparently than all of these. Every single expert, every single medical textbook or academic paper, every scientist, Doctor etc. None of there opinions count against your ‘opinion’ that just because a Victorian doctor might get a ToD correct on occasion then this means that they were totally accurate. I can only suggest Fishy that you do the world of medical science a favour and contact these highly respected men and women and esteemed bodies and inform them that everything that they have published is completely flawed…because Fishy says so.

I’d respond to you other points individually but there is no point because history tells us that you can’t debate. We’ve seen this on many threads. Debate requires a back and forth, question and response, point and counter point approach which you always avoid like the plague. Ducking and diving is what you do. It’s just a fact.

One other point here is that the murders for which we have more precise, accurate TOD estimates are the ones for which eyewitness testimony enables one to know fairly precisely what the TOD was. I see no reason to think that eyewitness testimony wasn't used to estimate the TOD in those cases.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I think that the logic of Fishy's position is that clocks may not have been perfectly synchronized, but they wouldn't have been more than a minute or 2 from perfect synchronization. His argument also assumes that every witness would have been aware of exactly what his clock said at the time of the event and that everyone would have remembered that time when he testified.

Hi Lewis,

It’s such an amazing assumption that I genuinely find it hard to believe that he’s serious about it. That when Cadosch said that he got up at around 5.15 ( an estimation therefore) it couldn’t have been a very few minutes out. And that he completely fails to accept that Cadosch never tells us how long he was in the loo for. So according to Fishy the combination of being slightly out on his time added to the unmentioned time in the loo couldn’t have added up to 5 or 6 minutes? Pull the other is all that I can say.

Just for your information Lewis - on the subject of having a motive for desiring an earlier time, two of the most vociferous proponents of the earlier ToD on here have been Fisherman and Fishy. What do they have in common (apart from having ‘Fish’ in their names of course)? Fisherman desperately wants an earlier ToD because he realises how ludicrous is the suggestion that Cross, 90 minutes into his shift, parked up his cart, found Annie, killed and mutilated her and then continued with his deliveries. Whilst Fishy needs the murder to have been done under cover of darkness so that John Netley and Walter Sickert could carry the corpse into the yard from the carriage outside where Sir William Gull the ripper was putting away his knives. This is why reason, logic and evidence is disregarded.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There you go , one for you too . You can come up with all the speculation and theories you like herlock, it wont change the Evidence and the Facts of the case as ...well i/ we all know them . Not sure what your looking at tho


A single fronted, three-storey dwelling situated on the north side of the street, approximately half way between Commercial Street and Brick Lane. Believed to have been built c.1740 along with adjacent properties by carpenter Daniel Marsillat. There were two rooms on each floor and like many houses owned by weavers had an attic or garret, effectively creating a fourth storey. The floors were reached via a staircase on the left side of the property which itself was accessible from a passageway which led from the front of the house to the rear. The house was refronted in December 1849^[1], possibly as part of converting the lower front room into a business premises. The house also retained its traditional shutters on the ground floor.

''In 1888, No.29 consisted of eight rooms with a total of seventeen people living inside.'' The ground floor was occupied by Mrs. Harriet Hardiman and her 16 year old son. Both of them slept in the front room which doubled as a shop where they sold cat's meat. The rear room was used as a kitchen.

The first floor front room belonged to Mrs. Amelia Richardson and her 14 year old grandson. She had lived here for 15 years. Her business was making packing cases, employing her son, John, who did not live on the premises. She also rented the cellar, which was used in manufacturing, and the yard. The first floor back room was shared by a Mr. Waker, a maker of tennis boots, and his retarded adult son.

The second floor front room contained a family consisting of a carman named Thompson who worked at Goodson's in Brick Lane, his wife and adopted daughter. The back room was shared by two unmarried sisters named Copsey who worked in a cigar factory.

The third floor attic front room was occupied by an elderly man, John Davis (who was also a carman) and his wife and three sons. the attic rear belonged to Sarah Cox, an elderly woman whom Mrs. Richardson kept out of charity.<sup>[2]


17 people ! if albert cadosh got up to get ready for work to then go outside and use the loo ,how unlikely is it some of the 17 didnt do the same between 5.32 and 5.47 ? dont forget it was daylight well after 5.32 am , thats a big negitive .</sup>

How did I miss this absolute classic!!

You are saying that surely someone from number 29 would have gone into the yard between 5.32 and 5.47 and made the noise that Cadosch heard? But….if they did get up to use the outside loo…

How did they manage to miss the mutilated corpse which you are claiming was lying there?


Surely it goes without saying that you won’t reply to this.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

It’s such an amazing assumption that I genuinely find it hard to believe that he’s serious about it. That when Cadosch said that he got up at around 5.15 ( an estimation therefore) it couldn’t have been a very few minutes out. And that he completely fails to accept that Cadosch never tells us how long he was in the loo for. So according to Fishy the combination of being slightly out on his time added to the unmentioned time in the loo couldn’t have added up to 5 or 6 minutes? Pull the other is all that I can say.

Just for your information Lewis - on the subject of having a motive for desiring an earlier time, two of the most vociferous proponents of the earlier ToD on here have been Fisherman and Fishy. What do they have in common (apart from having ‘Fish’ in their names of course)? Fisherman desperately wants an earlier ToD because he realises how ludicrous is the suggestion that Cross, 90 minutes into his shift, parked up his cart, found Annie, killed and mutilated her and then continued with his deliveries. Whilst Fishy needs the murder to have been done under cover of darkness so that John Netley and Walter Sickert could carry the corpse into the yard from the carriage outside where Sir William Gull the ripper was putting away his knives. This is why reason, logic and evidence is disregarded.

The funny thing about that is that even if Fishy were right about the earlier time of death, that theory still has the problem that it claims the Ripper was a 71-year-old who had had a stroke and didn't live very near Whitechapel. Being assisted by Sickert - was he even in England at the time? Chapman's TOD isn't the biggest problem with that theory.

[FISHY1118]

The funny thing about that is that even if Fishy were right about the earlier time of death, that theory still has the problem that it claims the Ripper was a 71-year-old who had had a stroke and didn't live very near Whitechapel. Being assisted by Sickert - was he even in England at the time? Chapman's TOD isn't the biggest problem with that theory.

A stroke which he fully recovered from , which has been documented in official medical journals , as for Sickert ,again there is no proof he was abroad during Chapmans murder.

[Fiver]

Fisherman desperately wants an earlier ToD because he realises how ludicrous is the suggestion that Cross, 90 minutes into his shift, parked up his cart, found Annie, killed and mutilated her and then continued with his deliveries. Whilst Fishy needs the murder to have been done under cover of darkness so that John Netley and Walter Sickert could carry the corpse into the yard from the carriage outside where Sir William Gull the ripper was putting away his knives. This is why reason, logic and evidence is disregarded.

Wait, there's somebody that still believes in the Royal Conspiracy? It makes the Ley Line Lechmerians look like bastions of logic and reason.

Let look at the theory.
* A group of semi-homeless alcoholic prostitutes decide to blackmail the British government over something provably false.
* The British government decides this is a serious threat to the monarchy.
* With the resources of the British Empire at their disposal, the Conspiracy picks a crack team - an elderly stroke victim known for his progressive views on women, a man who wasn't in England, and a coachman.
* The men assigned to eliminate the blackmailers decide the best way to do this is murder them in a way that turns the women from nobodies to household names, implicates the Masons, and undermines public confidence in the authorities.
* The British government agrees this is the best way to quietly and secretly eliminate the blackmailers.
* The victims fail to notice or respond when only members of their blackmail club are being messily butchered by the Ripper. They repeatedly meet him alone, at night. expecting a large wad of cash instead of messy butchery.
* Over a year after the doctor stops murdering and leaving clues implicating the Masons, the authorities decide he is a threat to them.
* Though the doctor is well known in the medical community and pictures of him have appeared in the print, the conspirators decide to fake the doctor’s death and put him in an asylum instead of killing him.
* The painter spends the next several decades leaving clues in his paintings and hiding a child from the Conspiracy. To do this the painter does nothing whatsoever to hide his identity or location from the Conspiracy.
* Nobody in the Conspiracy cares about the painter betraying them or does anything to silence him.
* The sole exception is the coachman, who spends more than a decade to failing at getting murdery with the painter or the child.
* When the coachman assassin runs over himself with his own cart, the Conspiracy does not replace him and the painter dies of natural causes 4 decades later.

It's patent nonsense even before we consider that the source of the story admitted it was a hoax.

[FISHY1118]

Wait, there's somebody that still believes in the Royal Conspiracy? It makes the Ley Line Lechmerians look like bastions of logic and reason.

Let look at the theory.
* A group of semi-homeless alcoholic prostitutes decide to blackmail the British government over something provably false.
* The British government decides this is a serious threat to the monarchy.
* With the resources of the British Empire at their disposal, the Conspiracy picks a crack team - an elderly stroke victim known for his progressive views on women, a man who wasn't in England, and a coachman.
* The men assigned to eliminate the blackmailers decide the best way to do this is murder them in a way that turns the women from nobodies to household names, implicates the Masons, and undermines public confidence in the authorities.
* The British government agrees this is the best way to quietly and secretly eliminate the blackmailers.
* The victims fail to notice or respond when only members of their blackmail club are being messily butchered by the Ripper. They repeatedly meet him alone, at night. expecting a large wad of cash instead of messy butchery.
* Over a year after the doctor stops murdering and leaving clues implicating the Masons, the authorities decide he is a threat to them.
* Though the doctor is well known in the medical community and pictures of him have appeared in the print, the conspirators decide to fake the doctor’s death and put him in an asylum instead of killing him.
* The painter spends the next several decades leaving clues in his paintings and hiding a child from the Conspiracy. To do this the painter does nothing whatsoever to hide his identity or location from the Conspiracy.
* Nobody in the Conspiracy cares about the painter betraying them or does anything to silence him.
* The sole exception is the coachman, who spends more than a decade to failing at getting murdery with the painter or the child.
* When the coachman assassin runs over himself with his own cart, the Conspiracy does not replace him and the painter dies of natural causes 4 decades later.

It's patent nonsense even before we consider that the source of the story admitted it was a hoax.

Who said anything about a conspiracy ?, I merely pointed out two facts about Gull and Sickert. Gull is just as likely to have been the ripper as any other stand alone suspect killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course he’s not. The fact of his age immediately drops him down any list. His health issues drop him even further. That he’s only mentioned in a story that has more holes in it than a larder full of Swiss Cheeses speaks volumes. That no one mentioned seeing a coach (never mind a Royal coach) near to number 29 is a biggie. That they managed not to spill any blood in the street as they were supposedly carrying a woman with half of her insides hanging out from coach to yard is another. That Sickert didn’t have a studio in Cleveland Street. That the hospital that Annie Crook was supposed to have been sent yo didn’t exist. That the building that Annie Crook was supposed to have lived in had gone by the time of the murders and the women identified by Knight as Crook (Elizabeth Cook) died in the 20’s still living in Cleveland Street. Plus Sickert had no connection to the Danish Royal family as claimed. Oh, and Crook wasn’t a Catholic. Could any theory be less believable?

[Fiver]

Gull is just as likely to have been the ripper as any other stand alone suspect killer.

That's obviously wrong. Several factors argue against Gull being the Ripper - his age, his deteriorating health, his living outside London, and his record of progressive views on woman. The only accusation against him was from an admitted hoaxer.

[FISHY1118]

That's obviously wrong. Several factors argue against Gull being the Ripper - his age, his deteriorating health, his living outside London, and his record of progressive views on woman. The only accusation against him was from an admitted hoaxer.

You obviously havent studied the evidence provided to you properly . You have no proof his age was a factor , you have no proof his stroke [which he fully recovered from], hampered his mobile ability during the ripper murders , you have no proof he lived outside london during the murders, his views on womem mean very little as to motive , im sure Ted Bundy had some nice things to say about women at some stage ,big deal .

So in all your just speculation and guessing that Gull couldnt have been the ripper with out facts to suggest otherwise . Pretty much par for the course around here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How can you say “You have no proof his age was a factor.” Of course we have proof that age is a factor - you don’t get 70+ year old serial killers. Gullible would have been entirely unique.

Why do you keep repeating this? “you have no proof his stroke [which he fully recovered from], hampered his mobile ability during the ripper murders.” You keep being reminded Fishy - he had a job that didn’t require physical dexterity and yet his strokes forced him to give it up. He never returned to his practice. So if he didn’t feel physically capable of sitting in a chair in his consulting room and giving out advice to the odd Duke or Duchess then what makes you believe him capable of tearing women to shreds in a coach?

This is like the diary. The whole theory that Maybrick was the killer is based on a forged diary, and as there is zero evidence against Maybrick we can safely dismiss him as a suspect. The Gull theory is based on a story which was proven false 50 years ago. How can anyone read a story that goes….X worked at such and such building (no he didn’t) and he met so and so who lived across the street (no she didnt) and she was a Catholic (no she wasn’t) A Royal Princess knew X (no she didn't) and when her son became pregnant the government killed her son’s girlfriend’s friends. The girlfriend was taken to a hospital (no she wasn’t) where she spent the rest of her life (no she didn’t) The rest of the population read that story and go “yeah right, pull the other one” but you think “yeah..that sounds believable.”

You’re the last man standing on this theory Fishy. It’s deader than a Norwegian Blue.

[FISHY1118]

How can you say “You have no proof his age was a factor.” Of course we have proof that age is a factor - you don’t get 70+ year old serial killers. Gullible would have been entirely unique.

Why do you keep repeating this? “you have no proof his stroke [which he fully recovered from], hampered his mobile ability during the ripper murders.” You keep being reminded Fishy - he had a job that didn’t require physical dexterity and yet his strokes forced him to give it up. He never returned to his practice. So if he didn’t feel physically capable of sitting in a chair in his consulting room and giving out advice to the odd Duke or Duchess then what makes you believe him capable of tearing women to shreds in a coach?

This is like the diary. The whole theory that Maybrick was the killer is based on a forged diary, and as there is zero evidence against Maybrick we can safely dismiss him as a suspect. The Gull theory is based on a story which was proven false 50 years ago. How can anyone read a story that goes….X worked at such and such building (no he didn’t) and he met so and so who lived across the street (no she didnt) and she was a Catholic (no she wasn’t) A Royal Princess knew X (no she didn't) and when her son became pregnant the government killed her son’s girlfriend’s friends. The girlfriend was taken to a hospital (no she wasn’t) where she spent the rest of her life (no she didn’t) The rest of the population read that story and go “yeah right, pull the other one” but you think “yeah..that sounds believable.”

You’re the last man standing on this theory Fishy. It’s deader than a Norwegian Blue.

Yet another who chooses to ignore the evidence , look it up . I've shown it to you before , 1 ,70 year old people kill. .2, Gull fully recovered from a "MINOR" Stroke . Theses are fact you can't disprove .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yet another who chooses to ignore the evidence , look it up . I've shown it to you before , 1 ,70 year old people kill. .2, Gull fully recovered from a "MINOR" Stroke . Theses are fact you can't disprove .

Aren’t you embarrassed to be the last living person to give credence to the Gull fantasy Fishy? Evidence…ok

From The Times 30 January 1890: “We regret to announce that Sir William Gull died at half-past 12 yesterday at his residence, 74, Brook-street, London, from paralysis. Sir William was seized with a severe attack of paralysis just over two years ago while staying at Urrard, Killiecrankie, and never sufficiently recovered to resume his practice.”

Just over 2 years from that date takes us back to before January 1888.

So…just before January of 1888 Gull was seized with a severe attack of paralysis and didn’t even recover enough to sit at his desk and make diagnoses.

From the Dictionary of National Biography “In the autumn of 1887 he was attacked with paralysis, which compelled him to retire from practice; a third attack caused his death on 29 Jan. 1890.”

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica “He died in London on the 29th of January 1890 after a series of paralytic strokes, the first of which had occurred nearly three years previously.”

His Savile Row Tailor, Henry Poole, wrote of him “In 1887 Sir William suffered the first of a series of strokes correctly diagnosing his malady by saying ‘one arrow has missed its mark but there are more in the quiver”.

From the British Medical Journal “Although the severity of the cerebral affection which prostrated Sir William Gull two years since had withdrawn him from active professional life, and presaged only to surely a not distant termination to his brilliant career, the news of his sudden demise, the fatal sequel of a recurrent attack, will bring yo many the shock of a severe and unexpected bereavement.”

Just because he didn’t stop walking and talking and living his life it didn’t mean that he wasn’t seriously affected. As the evidence that you ignore proves.
……

Steven Knight claimed that “It is impossible to find out if some of the lesser known people in Sickert's story were Masons. The chief characters certainly were. Warren, Gull, and Salisbury were all well advanced on the Masonic ladder.”

However, John Hamill, former Librarian for the Freemasons' United Grand Lodge of England stated “The Stephen Knight thesis is based upon the claim that the main protagonists, the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury, Sir Charles Warren, Sir James Anderson and Sir William Gull were all high-ranking Freemasons. Knight knew his claim to be false for, in 1973, I received a phone call from him in the Library, in which he asked for confirmation of their membership. After a lengthy search I informed him that only Sir Charles Warren had been a Freemason. Regrettably, he chose to ignore this answer as it ruined his story.”

So Knight was a liar.

….

[Herlock Sholmes]

Btw, can we now finish with the Gull stuff (yes, I was the first to mention Gull, before it gets mentioned) Perhaps someone could start a “Why Debunked Theories Can Persist” thread?