Chapman’s death.

[jmenges]

Herlock,
I can’t caution Fishy about calling people names without applying the same rule to everyone else.
“Biased” is ok but drop the “loony”.
Thanks

JM

[FISHY1118]

annie chapman was most probably murdered at the much earlier time of 3.30am /4.30am according to dr phillips medical opinion, and the uncertainty and contradictory statements of the witnesses long , codosch and richardson.

now again ,if one wants to claim doctors in 1888 couldn't give a correct or close t.o.d and that it was guess work and or luck, then great keep telling yourself that . However the t.o.d given to by the doctors in the eddowes stride and nichols murder were correct within ''minutes'' .

ill gladly and confidently go with a medical opinion with chapmans t.od. Rather than

1. Cosdoschs ''no'' was unsure which yard it originated from , and noise up against the fence is pure speculation that a body must have made the noise . If the 'no' was elsewhere the noise is irreverent.

2. Chandlers sworn testimony under oath that richardson , the morning of the murder did not mention anything at all about him sitting on the step to cut leather from his boot , thereby making his claim two full days later that he could not possibly have missed chapmans body while he was sitting on the step next to her makes richardson as a witness totally unreliable. Caution and doubt should be taken when using richardson as proof that chapman was not already dead in the yard before 4.45am .

3 mrs longs siting of a man and chapman at 5.32 is completely and 100% in conflict with codoschs sworn testimony under oath . Those would support long statement must eliminate codosch altogether, if indeed it was her killer and chapman long saw outside 29 hanbury st at 5.32am .

as for the argument in regards to clocks, watches be wrong ,out by 5,10 mins , slow ,fast people didn't own watches , police had to tell people the time, the chimes were 15 mins early ,no wait i mean late and so on, and so and so on, please dont waste your time the discussion should only be based one one thing and one thing only what the witnesses actually said under sworn oath ,one would do well to stick to that when debating the murder of annie chapman at around say 3.30 / 4.30

ILL JUST STICK TO THE THIS POST AGAIN . IT PRETTY MUCH SAYS EVERYTHING REQUIRED TO MAKE A SOUND JUDGEMENT THAT IT WAS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT ANNIE CHAPMAN WAS KILLED AT THE EARLIER TIME OF 3.30 /4.30 DUE TO THE UN RELIABLE AND INCONSISTENCY OF THE LONG CODOSCH RICHARDSON TESTIMONY .

[FISHY1118]

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.''

FOR THOSE WHO ARENT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THIS MEANS ..... LET ME GIVE YOU A HINT , IT MEANS ''I HOWEVER CANNOT SAY WHICH SIDE IT CAME FROM''

RIGHT THERE IN THAT ONE LINE, ALLOWS US TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN USING MR CODOSCH TO LEAD US TO BELIEVE THAT ANNIE CHAPMAN WAS IN THE YARD ALIVE AT 5.20 AM .

[PaulB]

That the doctors correctly identified the time of death in the case of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes needs to be examined on their own merits because factors not featuring in the case of Chapman may have influenced their conclusion, and whilst you may have evaluated each case individually you'll hopefully forgive me if I don't plough through more than fifteen hundred messages to see if you have or not. However, it does seem to be a fact that modern medical opinion is that the methods employed by Dr Phillips to establish time of death were unreliable in the extreme and should not be relied on. Arguing that the doctors got the time of death right in the case of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes, doesn't really carry weight against the sources cited that strongly suggest (some would argue proves) that Phillips' methods didn't get it right in Chapman's case.

You keep saying the witness testimony is unreliable, but it isn't. There is nothing inherently unreliable about Cadosch's testimony. What makes it unreliable is the supposition that the word "no" could have been uttered by someone in some other yard, but that is just a possibility, it hasn't been proven or even been shown to be likely. The same can be said about Richardson and Long.

Your argument is based on maybes.

[DJA]

Thanks! Incidentally, the annual risk of tuberculosis infection has been estimated to be 19% in 1882 (the year Koch discovered tubercle bacillus.) The annual risk of infection of 0-4 year olds from tuberculosis meningitis, in England and Wales, has been estimated to be about 12.7% in 1901: see The Annual Risk of Infection with Mycobacterium Tuberculosis in England and Wales since 1901, E Vynnycky and P.E.M Fine, Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1 (5): 389-396.

Lost a lot of my data from 11 years ago,however pretty sure the TB rate in the "Whitechapel" area was ~ 25%.

That and the living area per capita really surprised a screenwriter at the time.

Times were tough.

Thanks

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,
I can’t caution Fishy about calling people names without applying the same rule to everyone else.
“Biased” is ok but drop the “loony”.
Thanks

JM

No problem JM

[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.''

FOR THOSE WHO ARENT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THIS MEANS ..... LET ME GIVE YOU A HINT , IT MEANS ''I HOWEVER CANNOT SAY WHICH SIDE IT CAME FROM''

RIGHT THERE IN THAT ONE LINE, ALLOWS US TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN USING MR CODOSCH TO LEAD US TO BELIEVE THAT ANNIE CHAPMAN WAS IN THE YARD ALIVE AT 5.20 AM .

Nice piece of selective emphasis Fish.

Why not emphasise this part

. but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29.

Tell me this Fishy. If you made these statements:

A)

“I think that I saw Herlock Sholmes at 2.30 but I could be mistaken.”

and B)

“I certainly saw Paul Begg at 3.00 though.”

Would you dismiss statement B) because of statement A) ?

Because this is exactly what you are trying to do. You are treating Cadosch’s hearing the word “no’ as if it was a lie which affected his credibility when it wasn’t. One statement in no way discredits the other.

[DJA]

We also know this because we know that Eddowes was killed where she was found. Only a biased loony would suggest otherwise.

We don't actually.

Strongly suspect she died from strangulation like Chapman and Stride, and was dragged into Mitre Square proper from behind the fence. Accounts for the uncanny timing.

If Chapman was dragged off Hanbury Street in a choke hold,she would have been unconscious or dead in the backyard.

Have a read of the book Joshua Rogan suggested and compare it to Chapman and Stride's autopsies.

Unfortunately this thread has been unreadable due to your feeding of the fishpeople.

Once again ..... Chapman's temperature would have been very low due to her TB.

HAVE A LOOK AT THE FACTS FOR A CHANGE!

[Herlock Sholmes]

We don't actually.

Strongly suspect she died from strangulation like Chapman and Stride, and was dragged into Mitre Square proper from behind the fence. Accounts for the uncanny timing.

If Chapman was dragged off Hanbury Street in a choke hold,she would have been unconscious or dead in the backyard.

Have a read of the book Joshua Rogan suggested and compare it to Chapman and Stride's autopsies.

Unfortunately this thread has been unreadable due to your feeding of the fishpeople.

Once again ..... Chapman's temperature would have been very low due to her TB.

HAVE A LOOK AT THE FACTS FOR A CHANGE!

And of course the ripper would have gotten into a scuffle in the Street because why wouldn’t he want to have drawn attention to himself. Another ‘theory’ shaping the evidence on your part I’m afraid. Chapman was a prostitute who would have taken her client into the yard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Unfortunately this thread has been unreadable due to your feeding of the fishpeople.

This thread has been perfectly readable by the way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[COLOR=black [/COLOR]

Suspect Long overheard a blackmail attempt by Chapman.

Not a smidgeon Of evidence for this of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Strongly suspect she died from strangulation like Chapman and Stride,

And your evidence that she couldn’t have been strangled where she was found is.......

[Herlock Sholmes]

That the doctors correctly identified the time of death in the case of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes needs to be examined on their own merits because factors not featuring in the case of Chapman may have influenced their conclusion, and whilst you may have evaluated each case individually you'll hopefully forgive me if I don't plough through more than fifteen hundred messages to see if you have or not. However, it does seem to be a fact that modern medical opinion is that the methods employed by Dr Phillips to establish time of death were unreliable in the extreme and should not be relied on. Arguing that the doctors got the time of death right in the case of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes, doesn't really carry weight against the sources cited that strongly suggest (some would argue proves) that Phillips' methods didn't get it right in Chapman's case.

You keep saying the witness testimony is unreliable, but it isn't. There is nothing inherently unreliable about Cadosch's testimony. What makes it unreliable is the supposition that the word "no" could have been uttered by someone in some other yard, but that is just a possibility, it hasn't been proven or even been shown to be likely. The same can be said about Richardson and Long.

Your argument is based on maybes.

Reason is becoming an increasing rarity around here.

[DJA]

This thread has been perfectly readable by the way.

Been an absolute disgrace.

[DJA]

Not a smidgeon Of evidence for this of course.

[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.

Does that sound like a prostitute soliciting a client,or something else.