Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[FISHY1118]

That’s simply not true Fishy. A 10 year old poll was carried out where 16 said later and 15 said earlier. The majority in that particular discussion though favoured the witnesses and went for a later TOD. I counted something like 15 for a later TOD and 5 for an earlier TOD. In another poll 84% of posters felt that Richardson was a reliable witness and over 90% felt the same about Cadosch.

So we have 3 witnesses with no reason to lie and with no evidence that they did lie, versus a doctors estimation which, in 1888, modern medical experts tell us was little more than a guess which can’t fail but weight it in favour of a later TOD. Colin can read the thread if he wants to read the desperate arguments of some trying to prove that Phillips had knowledge in 1888 that didn’t exist.

This proves nothing of course (I’m not claiming that it does) but it shows that a majority favour a later TOD and the strongest voice in favour of an earlier TOD actually needs one to support a theory.

Which parts not true , the fact thast it was just a noise or the fact that there was just as much evidence that points to an earlier time of death than a later one ? ,

I dont see any arguement to be had here ,its pretty straight forward . Like i said, if others support one side of the evidence so be it, i happen to think its wrong/mistaken,ambiguious and contradictory , therefor i support the other side based on the same evidence put forward at the inquest by all witnesses as a whole and not a just select few .

If ive interpreted the inquest evidence different to you so be it, doesnt mean my support of an earlier t.o.d is wrong, especially when a later t.o.d cant be proven to accurate and has been shown to have many flaws.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What person? It was just a noise . I suggest you read the John Richardson thread topic all 3444 post on this subject that was discussed over many months last year , with the obvious conclusion base on those many post was that the ,t.o .d of Annie chapman was just as likely to be earlier than a later one, as some belive . Based on the evidence and inquest testimony I happen to favour earlier.

That’s simply not true Fishy. A 10 year old poll was carried out where 16 said later and 15 said earlier. The majority in that particular discussion though favoured the witnesses and went for a later TOD. I counted something like 15 for a later TOD and 5 for an earlier TOD. In another poll 84% of posters felt that Richardson was a reliable witness and over 90% felt the same about Cadosch.

So we have 3 witnesses with no reason to lie and with no evidence that they did lie, versus a doctors estimation which, in 1888, modern medical experts tell us was little more than a guess which can’t fail but weight it in favour of a later TOD. Colin can read the thread if he wants to read the desperate arguments of some trying to prove that Phillips had knowledge in 1888 that didn’t exist.

This proves nothing of course (I’m not claiming that it does) but it shows that a majority favour a later TOD and the strongest voice in favour of an earlier TOD actually needs one to support a theory.

[FISHY1118]

No I guess it could have been something else - but it would have to be something which was removed in the time interval between then and the discovery of the body. What do you suggest it was if not the body - and why did the person who put whatever it was there, if not the killer, not raise the alarm on seeing the body lying right next to it?

What person? It was just a noise . I suggest you read the John Richardson thread topic all 3444 post on this subject that was discussed over many months last year , with the obvious conclusion base on those many post was that the ,t.o .d of Annie chapman was just as likely to be earlier than a later one, as some belive . Based on the evidence and inquest testimony I happen to favour earlier.

[Bridewell]

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

No I guess it could have been something else - but it would have to be something which was removed in the time interval between then and the discovery of the body. What do you suggest it was if not the body - and why did the person who put whatever it was there, if not the killer, not raise the alarm on seeing the body lying right next to it?

[Abby Normal]

I Apologise for the error and happily except the withdrawal of dishonesty

well done fishy. seriously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[FISHY1118]

If you were intending to comment on your own point about the ‘no’ but actually commented on my ‘noise’ point (which you did of course) and you tell me that it was simply an error then ok. If it wasn’t intended dishonestly it certainly appeared so especially when you disputed it my following point. But ok, I withdraw my accusation of dishonesty in favour of error.

I Apologise for the error and happily except the withdrawal of dishonesty

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll admit I was responding to my post ,which by the way you never responded to, you went straight to the "noise claim" .so yes an error on my part, hardly dishonest tho .

If you were intending to comment on your own point about the ‘no’ but actually commented on my ‘noise’ point (which you did of course) and you tell me that it was simply an error then ok. If it wasn’t intended dishonestly it certainly appeared so especially when you disputed it my following point. But ok, I withdraw my accusation of dishonesty in favour of error.

[FISHY1118]

I'll admit I was responding to my post ,which by the way you never responded to, you went straight to the "noise claim" .so yes an error on my part, hardly dishonest tho .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see where you went wrong Herlock my post 49 is talking about the "No" not the noise. And if you follow the previous post you'll see that is the case right from my 1st reply to Josh.

So your "dishonest " opinion of me is unwarranted and you should apologize.

I didn’t go wrong.

I said this in post 48:

And I’ll say it again, he was absolutely certain that the noise came from number 29. You do realise that it’s possible to hear one thing with certainty but not another? Simple stuff really.

Clearly about the noise and not the ‘no.’ Your response actually quoted this post so you were undoubtedly commenting about the noise. You can’t have been talking about the ‘no’ because the ‘no’ isn’t mentioned in the post that you quoted. This is about as clear as can be.

You said

So “no doubt.”
Oh did i miss the bit where he said he was ''certain'' it came from 29 ?

Will you actually admit that you are wrong on this. It really couldn’t be clearer.

[FISHY1118]

To be fair my 49 reply was obviously continuing on from my 47 post , if I miss read your post or jump the gun to quick yes my fault..

[FISHY1118]

I’m no longer willing to discuss this with you Fishy. You do this every time. You post as if all previous posts aren’t visible to anyone else.

You mentioned the ‘No.’ I never disputed that fact.

Then I brought up Cadosch’s hearing of the noise which I said that he was certain of. I never suggested that he actually used the word ‘certain’ though.

You responded by asking me to point out where he used the word ‘certain.’

I pointed out that, of course I wasn’t suggesting that he’d used the word ‘certain’ but that he’d expressed no doubt (as he had expressed doubt about the ‘No.’ ) Which meant that Cadosch had no doubt that he heard the noise coming from number 29. If someone has no doubt, it means that they are ‘certain,’ which means that you were pointlessly nitpicking about something I hadn’t claimed.

It clearly shows that you were responding to my point about the noise and clearly not the ‘no.’

Then, and THIS is the point……you falsely claimed not to have been responding to the point about the noise. It simply cannot be clearer.

End of discussion as far as I’m concerned although if we go with history you will continue to wriggle and try evermore weird ways to deny the obvious.

I see where you went wrong Herlock my post 49 is talking about the "No" not the noise. And if you follow the previous post you'll see that is the case right from my 1st reply to Josh.

So your "dishonest " opinion of me is unwarranted and you should apologize.

[Herlock Sholmes]

you realized what youve just done dont you ,

I’m no longer willing to discuss this with you Fishy. You do this every time. You post as if all previous posts aren’t visible to anyone else.

You mentioned the ‘No.’ I never disputed that fact.

Then I brought up Cadosch’s hearing of the noise which I said that he was certain of. I never suggested that he actually used the word ‘certain’ though.

You responded by asking me to point out where he used the word ‘certain.’

I pointed out that, of course I wasn’t suggesting that he’d used the word ‘certain’ but that he’d expressed no doubt (as he had expressed doubt about the ‘No.’ ) Which meant that Cadosch had no doubt that he heard the noise coming from number 29. If someone has no doubt, it means that they are ‘certain,’ which means that you were pointlessly nitpicking about something I hadn’t claimed.

It clearly shows that you were responding to my point about the noise and clearly not the ‘no.’

Then, and THIS is the point……you falsely claimed not to have been responding to the point about the noise. It simply cannot be clearer.

End of discussion as far as I’m concerned although if we go with history you will continue to wriggle and try evermore weird ways to deny the obvious.

[FISHY1118]

You’re a dishonest poster. Keep it to yourself I’m tired of you. Utterly pathetic.

you realized what youve just done dont you ,

[Herlock Sholmes]

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but ''I should think'' it came from the yard of No. 29. ''I, however, cannot say on which side it came from''. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.

there we go everyone

''Think'' as not sure , ''cannot say'' as i dont know for sure .

Hope this clears this up josh , what the other post is all about is anyones guess.

You’re a dishonest poster. Keep it to yourself I’m tired of you. Utterly pathetic.