Who's talking Cobblers ? John Richardson ?

[curious]

Witness testimony is a stronger candidate to me than a doctor who could well have been mistaken in his estimation of TOD.

That's it, I have no more to say on the matter.

Regards

Observer

You and most of the rest of the world -- juries in particular -- feel this way according to numerous studies. And this is despite the knowledge that eye witness testimony is notoriously wrong so much of the time. People just believe a strong witness who does not add qualifying clauses.

I believe you and I will have to agree to disagree on the time of Chapman's death.

Best,

curious

[Observer]

Hi Curious

Moonblaggers description of a prostitute and her customers finding Annie Chapmans body, then robbing her of her rings is new to me, hence I thought it was his /her original idea.

I fail to see why an earlier TOD makes more sense in the case of Annie Chapman. Witness testimony is a stronger candidate to me than a doctor who could well have been mistaken in his estimation of TOD.

That's it, I have no more to say on the matter.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hello Observer ,

i cant help but feel every time i receive a post back from you that i am on some kind of hidden camera show . you seem to totally disregard all forms of plausible as well as substantial solid evidence regarding time lines , and possible witness era . if you are as you appear, a well versed scholar of the whitechapel murders i am even more confounded by this . that your mind is so firmly closed to anything other than the possibility that it all happened just the way you know it did .. i take it , it was also beneath you to go back and read the previous posts regarding , TOD , Mitre sq , body mass , Blood , heat , and all the other overwhelming evidence , by some very well informed posters on this matter . still i guess you know best

Can you Prove to me beyond doubt that Annie wasn't robbed after death and had her rings wrenched off .. er.. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt that all of the witnesses were 100%right .. er .. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt that Chandler didn't pile her belongings together without the knowledge of Dr Phillips who saw a neat pile, as opposed to Chandler who made no mention of a neat pile .. er .. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt Dr Phillips TOD was wrong .. er .. NO

Put that in your pipe and smoke it .. with regards of course


Born Hackney , raised Hoxton , Whitechapel , and Islington .

moonbegger .

Hidden camera show? What a strange person.

Could you explain "witness era" to me, you have me beat there.

"body mass , Blood , heat , and all the other overwhelming evidence ,"

Do you think Dr Phillips took body mass into consideration ? I don't think he did, and really it's his TOD we are discussing here. And could you please supply me with all the other overwhelming evidence ? It's not inconcievable taking everything into account, that Chapman was murdered at 5:30 a.m.

You ask me to go back and read other posts regarding TOD, there's no need I believe Dr Philips was incorrect in his estimation of TOD.

It's quite plain to me that you do not read my posts, at no time whatsoever have I denied that Annie Chapman's rings were wrenched off her fingers. I believe her killer performed that task, it was also her killer who went through her pockets, and arranged her belongings at her feet, much as he did in the case of Catherine Eddowes.

Can you prove that the witnesses were 100% incorrect errr no.

And please not Chandler again placing the combs etc at her feet, last time, Chandler from the inquest.

"After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman"

Found, found, found, not laid, how can you not get that into your head?

You know you accuse me of arrogance, what really pees me off with you my friend is because I do not agree with your own far fetched theories then I need enlightening, I quote you

" sit back and slowly ( very slowly ) read through the last ten or so posts . It may all fall into place for you ( enlightenment is a wonderful thing and should be embraced ) or it may not ,"

incredible.

That's it, no more posts on this thread to you my friend.

Regards

Observer

[curious]

Incidentally, as we are now leaving the Chapman murder alone, let me ask you, you didn't really believe that anyone would believe that Annie Chapmans body was found by a prostitute and her punter, and it was they who took her rings did you? At least concede that that was a wind up.
Regards

Observer

Hi, Observer,
I am surprised that you seem to think this idea originated with Moonbegger.

It also did not originate with me. Apparently, it was discussed some time ago, but I'm not sure when. Over the weekend I found a dissertation in which it was mentioned -- I don't recall who wrote it. Thought I would, but don't.

You see, once you realize that everything about the condition of the body says Annie Chapman was dead long before 5:30, you look at the witness testimony for reasonable explanations . . .

Or at least I did -- some time ago.

Now, to the best of my recollection, the idea that someone else discovered the body but chose not to go to the police came up when I reviewed Cadosch's testimony -- who never once claimed he saw Annie Chapman.

In the East End there had to have been many characters who would not have involved themselves with the police for perfectly understandable reasons. After all, Annie was past being helped (unlike perhaps Polly Nichols).

So, I suggested someone else in the back yard. Someone else came up with the possibility of another prostitute and a punter -- but apparently there is nothing new under the sun. The dissertation I found was one of those suggested in this thread, or another by the same author.

In other words I got to the dissertation from this thread. But I think the idea has been around for awhile.

So, there you have it. Moonbegger is not responsible for the idea of someone else discovering the body but not reporting it. And had you read this thread carefully, you would have noticed that I suggested someone stealing the rings as a reason for the thump on the fence as someone skirted Annie.

I'm not married to the idea of a prostitute and punter. I am almost married to the idea of an earlier TOD. Taking everything into consideration, it makes a lot more sense to me.

curious

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger

First off I never foam at the mouth, steam from the ears perhaps.

Secondly before you try to put any of the other witnesses to the sword in this fascinating, and mystifying case we call The Whitechapel Murders, it would be prudent of you to try a little bit harder, and put the witnesses in the Annie Chapman murder to the sword first. In my mind you have failed miserably to do so.

Despite what you think arrogance is not part of my makeup. I fully accept that the vast majority of posters to this website have forgotten more than I know about the case.

I will agree with you on one point though, that we agree to disagree, although if you appraise other witnesses testimony as you have in the way you have treated the Chapman witnesses then we are in for more great laughs I suspect.

Incidentally, as we are now leaving the Chapman murder alone, let me ask you, you didn't really believe that anyone would believe that Annie Chapmans body was found by a prostitute and her punter, and it was they who took her rings did you? At least concede that that was a wind up.

One final thing it's interesting to know that you were brought up in the East End, if you don't mind me asking which part? I fully understand if you do not want to divulge this information though.

Regards

Observer

Hello Observer ,

i cant help but feel every time i receive a post back from you that i am on some kind of hidden camera show . you seem to totally disregard all forms of plausible as well as substantial solid evidence regarding time lines , and possible witness era . if you are as you appear, a well versed scholar of the whitechapel murders i am even more confounded by this . that your mind is so firmly closed to anything other than the possibility that it all happened just the way you know it did .. i take it , it was also beneath you to go back and read the previous posts regarding , TOD , Mitre sq , body mass , Blood , heat , and all the other overwhelming evidence , by some very well informed posters on this matter . still i guess you know best

Can you Prove to me beyond doubt that Annie wasn't robbed after death and had her rings wrenched off .. er.. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt that all of the witnesses were 100%right .. er .. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt that Chandler didn't pile her belongings together without the knowledge of Dr Phillips who saw a neat pile, as opposed to Chandler who made no mention of a neat pile .. er .. NO
Can you prove beyond doubt Dr Phillips TOD was wrong .. er .. NO

Put that in your pipe and smoke it .. with regards of course


Born Hackney , raised Hoxton , Whitechapel , and Islington .

moonbegger .

[Observer]

Hi Moonbegger

First off I never foam at the mouth, steam from the ears perhaps.

Secondly before you try to put any of the other witnesses to the sword in this fascinating, and mystifying case we call The Whitechapel Murders, it would be prudent of you to try a little bit harder, and put the witnesses in the Annie Chapman murder to the sword first. In my mind you have failed miserably to do so.

Despite what you think arrogance is not part of my makeup. I fully accept that the vast majority of posters to this website have forgotten more than I know about the case.

I will agree with you on one point though, that we agree to disagree, although if you appraise other witnesses testimony as you have in the way you have treated the Chapman witnesses then we are in for more great laughs I suspect.

Incidentally, as we are now leaving the Chapman murder alone, let me ask you, you didn't really believe that anyone would believe that Annie Chapmans body was found by a prostitute and her punter, and it was they who took her rings did you? At least concede that that was a wind up.

One final thing it's interesting to know that you were brought up in the East End, if you don't mind me asking which part? I fully understand if you do not want to divulge this information though.

Regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Hello Observer ,

Firstly , i accept you apology in so much as i am not your well masked nemesis in the guise of a new poster . Although i am new to these boards , i have been studying the Ripper murders since the early 80's .. i think Don's book was my first .. and most there after .Growing up in the very streets i was reading about , and my sometimes over inquisitive mind has always led me along the path less travelled .. I know how difficult and frustrating it must be to watch a newbie to these boards attempting to uproot fundamental witness statements , But at the end of the day it all comes down to opinion , and our own personal interpretation of what facts we choose to stand by .

Having said that, i also must say that i have never seen such Arrogance and Ignorance entwined so perfectly in a post , and for that i commend you . This was your finest .

[Observer] " One thing in certain however, that is, I do not need to be enlightened by the likes of you "

Please sir, may i have some more I can even see you frothing at the mouth again as you write .

But in all seriousness Observer, your comment stinks to high hell like that of a Arrogant, Elitist Bigot , which i'm sure your not

And that is precisely why my friend you cant accept anything new , Because you think you know everything already . It is becoming Clear that the " likes of me " cant teach you anything , so what i suggest you do old chap is confide in greater minds than your own ( of which i'm sure there are many) although you may find that hard to believe . ( as a rye smile breaks the frothy seal ) Concerning the evidence we have batted back and forth .

But at this point i'm sure you'll agree .. we are much better off, agreeing to disagree. I am however looking forward to our exchanges ,when i put some of the other fundamental witnesses in this case to the sword

Its Been Emotional .

moonbegger .

[Observer]

Hello Observer ..

Holy Cow , you've got some pent up aggression issues going on there sunshine You really need to drop a chill pill and wipe the frothy foam from your mouth . Then sit back and slowly ( very slowly ) read through the last ten or so posts . It may all fall into place for you ( enlightenment is a wonderful thing and should be embraced ) or it may not , Either way i think you should talk to someone , Firstly about your crazy nonsensical and stubborn attitude towards anything or anyone that doesn't go along with the world according to you .. And secondly your venomous and ( bully boy ) style ramblings , roughly disguised as facts, or should i say ( your opinion of them )

Ta Tar for now

moonbegger .

"It's nice to be important , but its more important to be nice "

Hi Moonbegger

Thing is, I seem to remember some time ago having very similar arguments with a poster who wrote something approaching your style of putting pen to paper so to speak. He/she was not known as Moonbegger. It could well be I am totally wrong in this assumption, and if I am then I apologise, but as I said, certain traits in your posting rang a few bells.

You know Moonbegger it takes two to create an argument, and I think if you look at the exchanges between us here in this thread, you'll see that the comments you have made have been as ill placed as mine. Take the passage above, apparently I have a crazy nonsensical attitude, that's a red rag to a bull, get my drift ? And nonsensical? I've just proved to you beyond any doubt that it was indeed the killer who placed Annie Chapman's comb etc, at her feet,

One thing in certain however, that is, I do not need to be enlightened by the likes of you, I must admit that I had a little chuckle to myself when I read this.

I also found this section of your last post amusing

And secondly your venomous and ( bully boy ) style ramblings , roughly disguised as facts, or should i say ( your opinion of them )

Ramblings disguised as facts ???? haha. The killer placed Annie Chapmans belongings at her feet, that's a fact. Mr's long saw Annie Chapman with her killer that's a fact. Cadosh heard Annie Chapman fall against the fence of No 29 Hanbury street that's a fact. And finally the much maligned Richardson, he told the truth, that's a fact.

What is not fact, is your rather bizarre theory that Mr's Long saw an entirely different couple outside of 29 Hanbury street at 5:30, on the morning of the 8th August.

That it can be ascertained, beyond any doubt that the murder took place sometime between 4:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. this on the say so of Dr Philips using decidedly unscientific methods.

That the body of Annie Chapman lay in the yard as Richardson checked the locks of No 29.


That what Cadosh heard at roughly 5:30 a.m. namely someone exclaim "no", and then a sound as if someone was falling against the fence was indeed Annie Chapman and her killer, not another prostitute and her client. The "no" exclaimation actually being the fully alive and well well second prostitute expressing her distaste, as her client robbed poor Annie Chapman of her two rings. He then apparently ransacks her pockets and places her two combs, and a piece of muslin at her feet in a neat orderly fashion, it must have been him, as none of the attending police officers or Dr Philips performed this task.

And you accuse me of roughly disguised facts, I don't know hahaha.

Listen Moonbegger, I'll admit, I do get a little bit hot under the collar, this website is a little bit of light relief in my life, that's all, so I shouldn't be as aggresive. If you look at my various posts though you'll see that I agree with lots of people on this site, it's just that most of them don't come up with ridiculous theories such as your own. But dream on my friend ,dream on, it provides us with a little bit of entertainment. and I don't mean this in a bad way.

Au revoir Moonblagger

best regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Hi Bridewell.

I struggle with Cadosch's testimony too; it sounds so compelling. Maybe he really was incorrect as to the time that he heard the sounds coming from next door? After all, he was up early in the morning, feeling unwell following some kind of operation, and had to make repeat trips to the privy.

Maybe Cadosch made more trips to the outdoor privy that morning than we realize? And maybe the noises he heard occurred at a somewhat different time than he later recalled?

I'll try to say this politely, but if he was unwell in a way that required multiple "visits" to the facilities, might he have gone out to the backyard privy multiple times before he had to get up for work? Because he was sick he might not have wanted to use his chamberpot- if he did use it he'd have to go dump it outside before he could use it again anyway.

Just an idea... When you're feeling unwell, and possibly in pain, it's harder to pay attention to external details, much less recall them accurately later.

> If Cadosch was correct in what he heard but mistaken as to when, what window of time would make the known facts fit more smoothly?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

Hi Bridewell / Archaic .

I'm not sure whether i really ever doubted the Cadosh testimony, in so much as what he said he heard .. moreover , what he was actually hearing . However i think Archaic puts forward a good alternative here .. i must say though i still dont think its too far beyond the realms of possibility that Annie may have been robbed sometime after she was murdered, and thats what cadosh may have been hearing .. i know that doesn't sit too well with some of you .. and in light of that i would much prefer to go along with Archaic's train of thought .. oh well

Cheers all
moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hello Observer ..

Holy Cow , you've got some pent up aggression issues going on there sunshine You really need to drop a chill pill and wipe the frothy foam from your mouth . Then sit back and slowly ( very slowly ) read through the last ten or so posts . It may all fall into place for you ( enlightenment is a wonderful thing and should be embraced ) or it may not , Either way i think you should talk to someone , Firstly about your crazy nonsensical and stubborn attitude towards anything or anyone that doesn't go along with the world according to you .. And secondly your venomous and ( bully boy ) style ramblings , roughly disguised as facts, or should i say ( your opinion of them )

Ta Tar for now

moonbegger .

"It's nice to be important , but its more important to be nice "

[Observer]

Hi Bridewell.

I struggle with Cadosch's testimony too; it sounds so compelling. Maybe he really was incorrect as to the time that he heard the sounds coming from next door? After all, he was up early in the morning, feeling unwell following some kind of operation, and had to make repeat trips to the privy.

Maybe Cadosch made more trips to the outdoor privy that morning than we realize? And maybe the noises he heard occurred at a somewhat different time than he later recalled?

I'll try to say this politely, but if he was unwell in a way that required multiple "visits" to the facilities, might he have gone out to the backyard privy multiple times before he had to get up for work? Because he was sick he might not have wanted to use his chamberpot- if he did use it he'd have to go dump it outside before he could use it again anyway.

Just an idea... When you're feeling unwell, and possibly in pain, it's harder to pay attention to external details, much less recall them accurately later.

> If Cadosch was correct in what he heard but mistaken as to when, what window of time would make the known facts fit more smoothly?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

Hi Archaic

I struggle with the relentless undermining of witness testimony to placate a doctor's opinion as to TOD of Annie Chapman. Not one witness, not two, but three witnesses at the single sweep of a thermometer, provided he used one of course. Isn't it a case of he made a decision on the spot at a moment in time, and despite hearing testimony to the contrary regarding TOD. he chose to ignore it, and stick by his guns? He would not have been the first expert witness to do so, and he certainly aint the last.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hello Observer ,

Now pay attention, it's really quite simple. This is what Dr Philips said at the inquest

[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

( See No mention of YOUR " Less than 2 hours remark " ) also take a boo at this comparison .. would appreciate your thoughts on it .

Dr. Brown stated that he was called to Mitre Square shortly after 2:00 a.m. and arrived there at around 2:20. By this time Catherine Eddowes had been dead for roughly forty minutes. Brown observed that "the body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis." We can thus say that, after roughly forty minutes, a body with extensive mutilations that was found under cool outdoor conditions was examined and described as being "quite warm." How do we reconcile this with the idea that the body of Annie Chapman was found to be almost completely cold after only the passing of twenty more minutes? We can't. It is very difficult to believe that in under twenty minutes almost all body heat would have dissipated into the morning air. This would be the work of a couple of hours, not minutes. Again, that observation is more in line with Dr. Phillips' opinion as to the time of death of Annie Chapman.

.

" you get in the red mini , and i'll get in the blue one "

moonbegger ( old chap )

Good grief, how many times?

Listen, I'll forget for a moment your half baked theories surrounding the murder of Annie Chapman, you know, a prostitute and her client finding the body stealing her rings etc. and ask you a question. Did Dr Philips rely solely on the onset of rigor mortis to determine the TOD in the case of Annie Chapman? The crux of the matter here lies in the few sentences in which he stated.

"[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; ."but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood"

Take note of the words

"but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood"

By using those words, was he referring to the fact that the great loss of blood, plus the cold morning air, slowed rigor mortis down? You seem to think he's inferring as much. He dosn't actually say that though does he?

I believe the words "but its right to say" implies that he is uncertain regarding the two hours he'd previously given, and that in this instance he's relying solely on the method of body temperature plus air temperature to determine TOD. That is, the colder the body the longer it had been dead. In short the great loss of blood, together with the cold weather conditions could lead one to believe that she had been dead for longer than had actually been the case.

If he had said

"[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; ."FOR it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood"

Then I would concede he was referring to rigor mortis.

Also

There are so many different circumstances which differ in the Eddowes and Chapman murders, that I think it's pointless to compare the observances of the two doctors involved. Also as has been pointed out, warm, quite warm, quite cold etc, are not based on any scientific measurement that I know of.

Regarding the items placed at Annie Chapmans feet you wrote

"And as for the pile by the fence .. i am merely putting out another possibility , equally as plausible as the one that is held onto so tightly by you and many other theorists .. If Dr Phillips Said to Chandler " hey did your pile that lot together without me knowing " " oh yeah , sorry i should have told ya " or " No Not me guv " we would all be in the clear ! but he didn't so the door is open to speculation ( many a road leads into the same town )"

Equally as plausible? What? That a policeman placed the items in nice neat order at Annie Chapmans feet as opposed to her killer? Dream on. You're not even near. Chandler was the first to spot them and he said as much.

"After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman."

Please pay attention. Found, not placed, lying near the feet of the woman. And before you infer that Dr Philips placed them there he also stated

"I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there."

Do take care, Regards

Observer

[Archaic]

Cadosch

Hi Moonbegger,

Assuming that Dr Bagster Phillips is right, I can see how Richardson could be wrong (the partially open door could have obscured the body). I can see how Long could be mistaken (wrong day). I struggle with Cadosch though. Forgive me, I don't have my copy of The Ultimate (or anything else) to hand as we're house-sitting for friends, so I speaking from memory - he reported hearing the sound of something falling against the fence where the body was subsequently found. If that something wasn't Annie Chapman, who or what was it that presumably landed on top of her? Cadosch has to be mistaken about the time in that scenario, doesn't he? (Unless you accept the second prostitute and her client scenario, which I think an unlikely explanation.)

Hi Bridewell.

I struggle with Cadosch's testimony too; it sounds so compelling. Maybe he really was incorrect as to the time that he heard the sounds coming from next door? After all, he was up early in the morning, feeling unwell following some kind of operation, and had to make repeat trips to the privy.

Maybe Cadosch made more trips to the outdoor privy that morning than we realize? And maybe the noises he heard occurred at a somewhat different time than he later recalled?

I'll try to say this politely, but if he was unwell in a way that required multiple "visits" to the facilities, might he have gone out to the backyard privy multiple times before he had to get up for work? Because he was sick he might not have wanted to use his chamberpot- if he did use it he'd have to go dump it outside before he could use it again anyway.

Just an idea... When you're feeling unwell, and possibly in pain, it's harder to pay attention to external details, much less recall them accurately later.

> If Cadosch was correct in what he heard but mistaken as to when, what window of time would make the known facts fit more smoothly?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks Hunter, Lynn and Archaic,

Looking forward to discussing things with you again. Nice to be back. Enough about me though.....

All the best,

Mike R

[Bridewell]

Good post , there is Some great information here that i had not even considered . it definitely adds a lot of weight ( no pun intended ) to the argument that Annie was killed before 5.30

Hi Moonbegger,

Assuming that Dr Bagster Phillips is right, I can see how Richardson could be wrong (the partially open door could have obscured the body). I can see how Long could be mistaken (wrong day). I struggle with Cadosch though. Forgive me, I don't have my copy of The Ultimate (or anything else) to hand as we're house-sitting for friends, so I speaking from memory - he reported hearing the sound of something falling against the fence where the body was subsequently found. If that something wasn't Annie Chapman, who or what was it that presumably landed on top of her? Cadosch has to be mistaken about the time in that scenario, doesn't he? (Unless you accept the second prostitute and her client scenario, which I think an unlikely explanation.)

Regards, Bridewell.