Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[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]

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]

[Abby Normal]

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

well done fishy. seriously.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

The point I was making was in response to your post to Colin where you said that from discussions on the other thread, the conclusion was that there was just as much for and against, but that wasn’t the outcome of that discussion. On that thread 3 times more posters concluded that the later TOD was likelier. This couldn’t be called close.

And there isn’t as much evidence for an earlier TOD. For an earlier TOD we have Phillips. For a later TOD we have Richardson, Cadosch and Long. So three for later, one for earlier.

I agree that it can’t be proven either way but there’s more (and better quality) evidence for a later TOD than an earlier one. I can’t for the life of me see why we saw so much effort to try and discredit witnesses in favour of an estimation that has been absolutely proven to have been unreliable?

[FISHY1118]

The point I was making was in response to your post to Colin where you said that from discussions on the other thread, the conclusion was that there was just as much for and against, but that wasn’t the outcome of that discussion. On that thread 3 times more posters concluded that the later TOD was likelier. This couldn’t be called close.

And there isn’t as much evidence for an earlier TOD. For an earlier TOD we have Phillips. For a later TOD we have Richardson, Cadosch and Long. So three for later, one for earlier.

I agree that it can’t be proven either way but there’s more (and better quality) evidence for a later TOD than an earlier one. I can’t for the life of me see why we saw so much effort to try and discredit witnesses in favour of an estimation that has been absolutely proven to have been unreliable?

Yes, based on fact that there were more posters that favoured a later time than earlier that would be corrrect.

My comment was no so much because of whether more posters or less posters supported one view over another, more that the content of arguement on both sides that i determined a conclusive accurate account of t.o d could not be reached . But if you want to say ''but more people reached a earlier than later time and that makes my comment wrong then fine'' but then i think you missed the whole point of 3444 post . So be it

As ive said, my opinion is based on the evidence by ALL witnesses , including Richardson ,Cadosch and Long, which you support based on their evidence ,where as i do not, also based on their evidence.

So in my opinion its just not a question of Phillips v R.L.C as you suggest, more like, can we believe or accept testimony that is suspicious in its accuracy? whether by Dr Phillips or R.L.C .

This has been covered as you know many many times on my John Richardson thread, so i dont see the need to give reasons as why all over again here .I prefer to leave it at that, unless new evidence comes to light to which that hasnt been discussed to date .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, based on fact that there were more posters that favoured a later time than earlier that would be corrrect.

My comment was no so much because of whether more posters or less posters supported one view over another, more that the content of arguement on both sides that i determined a conclusive accurate account of t.o d could not be reached . But if you want to say ''but more people reached a earlier than later time and that makes my comment wrong then fine'' but then i think you missed the whole point of 3444 post . So be it

As ive said, my opinion is based on the evidence by ALL witnesses , including Richardson ,Cadosch and Long, which you support based on their evidence ,where as i do not, also based on their evidence.

So in my opinion its just not a question of Phillips v R.L.C as you suggest, more like, can we believe or accept testimony that is suspicious in its accuracy? whether by Dr Phillips or R.L.C .

This has been covered as you know many many times on my John Richardson thread, so i dont see the need to give reasons as why all over again here .I prefer to leave it at that, unless new evidence comes to light to which that hasnt been discussed to date .

I have no real disagreement with this. I only responding initially to the impression that opinions on the thread were divided equally, but of course we can come to no conclusive conclusion and we can’t get an accurate view on the opinion of ripperology as a whole from just 20 or so posters.

[FISHY1118]

I have no real disagreement with this. I only responding initially to the impression that opinions on the thread were divided equally, but of course we can come to no conclusive conclusion and we can’t get an accurate view on the opinion of ripperology as a whole from just 20 or so posters.

Fair enough call.

[Bridewell]

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.

"He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divided his yard from No.29". The time of death is a moot point but whatever the time of death (even if earlier as you suggest) her body would still be there would it not? If something fell against the fence that wasn't there later, then someone removed it. Either that or the something was Annie Chapman.

[FISHY1118]

"He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divided his yard from No.29". The time of death is a moot point but whatever the time of death (even if earlier as you suggest) her body would still be there would it not? If something fell against the fence that wasn't there later, then someone removed it. Either that or the something was Annie Chapman.

If as claimed the ''NO '' was the start of the attack on Chapman, it wouldnt have taken 3 to 4 minutes to lay her body on the ground in between Cadoschs back and forth .

Thus it wasnt Chapmans body hitting the fence as some suggest , nor was it the killers, as it has been shown all the injuries to her body were done from her right hand side. There was no need for the killer to be between her and the fence during the mutilations stage so that he could somehow brush up against the fence .

So as i suggested the noise cannot be proven to the killer in action at the time casdosh heard it .

It was just a noise the he heard as Chapmam was long dead already imo.

Like i said 3444 post that have alread cover this on the John Richardson thread ,so i dont see the need to go any further here , cheers .

[GBinOz]

If as claimed the ''NO '' was the start of the attack on Chapman, it wouldnt have taken 3 to 4 minutes to lay her body on the ground in between Cadoschs back and forth .

Thus it wasnt Chapmans body hitting the fence as some suggest , nor was it the killers, as it has been shown all the injuries to her body were done from her right hand side. There was no need for the killer to be between her and the fence during the mutilations stage so that he could somehow brush up against the fence .

So as i suggested the noise cannot be proven to the killer in action at the time casdosh heard it .

It was just a noise the he heard as Chapmam was long dead already imo.

Like i said 3444 post that have alread cover this on the John Richardson thread ,so i dont see the need to go any further here , cheers .

I formed my view on the basis of my assessment of the evidence as stated in the John Richardson thread, but my conviction was on a 55/45% basis so I can accept the opposing viewpoints.

That said, I would raise these possibilities. Cadosh said he heard the "No" when in his doorway. If the door on No 27 was self closing, as it was on No 29, the door would have been closing behind him making it difficult for him to detect the source. Secondly, suppose a couple intent on immoral purposes had opened the door of No 29 as Cadosh was in his doorway and involuntarily exclaimed "No" on seeing the body. Suppose after 3 to 4 minutes they had recovered their composure and, due to their desperate circumstances, decided to take the opportunity to rob the body. Suppose while in the act, Cadosh returned to the yard and in an endeavour to conceal his/her presence they had shifted towards the fence creating a bump. Pure speculation, but not out of place in this discussion.

Cheers, George