Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    There is only one reason that we know of Cadosche at all, and its because his statement has bearing on what happened that night in the backyard at #27. There is no reason at all to even mention him if his claim concerned #25. Another silly thread premise.
    Well Fishy seems to have started it and Packers followed up...they've both disappeared...was it something I said?

    Comment


    • #32
      I doubt it Cogidubnus , you probably need to read the Wolf Vanderlinden Considerable Doubt and the Death of Annie Chapman im sure packers and i will be here waiting .
      '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


      • #33
        I've read that dissertation before...it's a well thought out read, and expresses a perfectly valid alternative theory...not one I personally subscribe to, but perfectly valid.

        So let's think this through; if you shift the estimated time of death forward a couple of hours, so what? Does it somehow place more emphasis on one suspect than another? No...does it teach us anything that we don't already know about the difficulties of evaluating witnesses and the vagaries of LVP timekeeping? No...

        In fact the one thing it might teach us if true...that the killer was perfectly happy with killing efficiently in the absolute dark, (no streetlights in the back yard of No 29)...is something that you appear to be vehemently disputing in the Eddowes threads...

        Do I hear the phantom coach making it's way undetected down the hallway of No 29 with phantom horses banging their phantom knees on the bannisters? If your object in starting this thread is yet another attempt at promoting Stephen Knight's fictional nonsense, then I'm out of here...goodbye...

        Comment


        • #34
          What it teaches us is we cant take long and codosch statements as gospel like most people seem to think . And it changes a whole lot more than you think if we do move it a few hours earlier . first its now totally dark , 2nd most of the if not all the people in 29 handbury st are sleeping , 3rd no ones in the street , except maybe a horse and carriage .
          ill start any thread i like and promote any theory i like .... so it looks like your out of here, on your way .
          '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


          • #35
            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
            What it teaches us is we cant take long and codosch statements as gospel like most people seem to think . And it changes a whole lot more than you think if we do move it a few hours earlier . first its now totally dark , 2nd most of the if not all the people in 29 handbury st are sleeping , 3rd no ones in the street , except maybe a horse and carriage .
            ill start any thread i like and promote any theory i like .... so it looks like your out of here, on your way .
            Typical Fishy shoehorning here Dave.

            No one is taking Long or Cadosch as gospel. But Cadoschís testimony carries significant weight. The fact that he wasnít certain about where the no came from smacks of honesty to me as he could easily have lied and said that it definitely came from number 29. But it appears ok for you to take Phillipís as gospel simply because it makes it nice a dark for your imaginary coach and horses.

            Richardson blows that out of the water Iím afraid. We have a perfectly reasonable, logical explanation for why he might have changed his story but thereís one fact that he was absolutely rock solid on and thatís that at 4.45 he sat on the step and could see the whole yard and Annie wasnít there. She simply wasnít there.

            Of course youíre trying to manipulate the circumstances to allow for Knightís joke.

            What are the chances of a posh coach and horses driving round the East End in the wee small hours but never being noticed near to a crime scene?

            What are the chances that a highly intelligent man like Gull would have been party to such an insanely risky plan which involved two men carrying a mutilated corpse on the pavement?

            Take Mitre Square for example. An ideal echo chamber. Did anyone, like George Morris sweeping up near an open doorway, hear a coach and horses trundle in then out again? Or, if itís suggested that the coach was parked in Mitre Street, we then have the ludicrous suggestion of two men carrying a mutilated corpse yards into the corner of Mitre Square without leaving a single drip of blood too. Itís like something from The Goon Show.

            You just canít help laughing when you think about it. And thereís a poster on here (yes a real person) that actually believes this drivel.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-04-2019, 12:39 PM.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • #36
              OUT THE DOOR YOU GO TOO...... ''No one is taking Long or Cadosch as gospel''.... EXCEPT THAT YOU DID. ''But Cadoschís testimony carries significant weight. Cadoschs testimony doesn't prove the killer was in the yard of 29 Hanbury st between 5.15 . 5.30 period .
              '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


              • #37
                Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                OUT THE DOOR YOU GO TOO...... ''No one is taking Long or Cadosch as gospel''.... EXCEPT THAT YOU DID. ''But Cadoschís testimony carries significant weight. Cadoschs testimony doesn't prove the killer was in the yard of 29 Hanbury st between 5.15 . 5.30 period .
                I mean this honestly Fishy.....is English your first language?

                More than once youíve misunderstood simply English. Like when you said that because Halse said that he didnít notice the graffito first time around you said that that Proved that it wasnít there.

                Saying that Cadoschís testimony carries significant weight doesnít mean that Iíve said that itís gospel. It means that there are good reasons to believe that he might have been correct or telling the truth. And if true it carries weight.

                Its itritating having to explain these these things to you all the time Fishy. Either youíre misunderstanding or your deliberately trying to misinform. Knowing your history the latter seems likeliest.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • #38
                  More than once youíve misunderstood simply English. Like when you said that because Halse said

                  that he didnít notice the graffito first time around you said that that Proved that it wasnít there.

                  By Mr. Crawford: ''At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then.'' SIMPLE ENOUGH ENGLISH .

                  I DID NOT NOTICE ANYTHING ... the apron is something, there for he did not see it.


                  '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


                  • #39
                    I've read that dissertation before...it's a well thought out read, and expresses a perfectly valid alternative theory...not one I personally subscribe to, but perfectly valid.
                    a perfectly alternative valid theory.......

                    '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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                      By Mr. Crawford: ''At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then.'' SIMPLE ENOUGH ENGLISH .

                      I DID NOT NOTICE ANYTHING ... the apron is something, there for he did not see it.

                      Pathetic.

                      As you well know Fishy you had previously stated that because Halse didnít notice it that proved it wasnít there. Donít try and change things now to try and lessen how wrong you are. I know what you said.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                        I've read that dissertation before...it's a well thought out read, and expresses a perfectly valid alternative theory...not one I personally subscribe to, but perfectly valid.

                        So let's think this through; if you shift the estimated time of death forward a couple of hours, so what? Does it somehow place more emphasis on one suspect than another? No...does it teach us anything that we don't already know about the difficulties of evaluating witnesses and the vagaries of LVP timekeeping? No...

                        In fact the one thing it might teach us if true...that the killer was perfectly happy with killing efficiently in the absolute dark, (no streetlights in the back yard of No 29)...is something that you appear to be vehemently disputing in the Eddowes threads...

                        Do I hear the phantom coach making it's way undetected down the hallway of No 29 with phantom horses banging their phantom knees on the bannisters? If your object in starting this thread is yet another attempt at promoting Stephen Knight's fictional nonsense, then I'm out of here...goodbye...
                        Yes Dave. This is exactly why Fishy is proposing this. Itís not a reasoned, unbiased analysis of events in Hanbury Street itís a shameless attempt at shoehorning Knightís fantasy into the frame yet again. A very obvious agenda.

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                          OUT THE DOOR YOU GO TOO...... ''No one is taking Long or Cadosch as gospel''.... EXCEPT THAT YOU DID. ''But Cadoschs testimony carries significant weight. Cadoschs testimony doesn't prove the killer was in the yard of 29 Hanbury st between 5.15 . 5.30 period .
                          No, but it proves that somebody was. If that person wasn't the killer you have to wonder why they didn't notice a dead woman lying next to the steps.
                          I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            His testimony doesn't prove anyone was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury st, only that he heard a no", from which side he couldn't say for sure, so there is "doubt" it may well have been or may not have come from 29 but its not proof

                            As for the noise against the fence no proof it was a body.
                            '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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                              His testimony doesn't prove anyone was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury st, only that he heard a no", from which side he couldn't say for sure, so there is "doubt" it may well have been or may not have come from 29 but its not proof
                              An alternative reading of his evidence could be that the "no" did come from the yard of no.29, but he couldn't tell from which side of that yard it came from.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                                An alternative reading of his evidence could be that the "no" did come from the yard of no.29, but he couldn't tell from which side of that yard it came from.
                                Yes , but the these words ''he couldnt say which side it came from '' you know what a even a cheap attorney would do with such a comment ? , Just saying we dont have any proof where it come from do we?.
                                '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

                                Working...
                                X