Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    This thread has been perfectly readable by the way.
    Got to agree with DJA and Harry D. Quoting below my earlier post #630.

    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    All I've learned from this thread is that you all suck at using the quote function.
    Originally posted by Ozzy View Post

    Tell me about it.
    There are often (like - all the bloody time actually) threads on this forum with posts that I want to read but I can't because I just can't work out if the poster is saying something themselves or quoting.
    What I mean is I can't work out if the poster is quoting or saying something themselves. Then sometimes the same poster will change how they quote. In some posts they quote by using bold (why?) and then a couple of days later I read another post by the same person where they quote using italic (again why?).
    Then you get the posts which are all in bold. Why? If you make you're whole post in bold, you might as well just forget using bold. The reason to use bold is to make certain words/sentences stand out to the rest of your post. With a whole post in bold you defeat the reason of why you should use bold.
    Now I know some people are not up to scratch with computers, let alone how often software like forum software such as vbulletin change, but you can preview your post before posting it. I'm not sure if it still exists but I'm sure there used to be a test forum here as well. I know some other forums have a test area.
    These are not clues, Fred.
    It is not yarn leading us to the dark heart of this place.
    They are half-glimpsed imaginings, tangle of shadows.
    And you and I floundering at them in the ever vainer hope that we might corral then into meaning when we will not.
    We will not.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      At least YOU'RE HERE to inject your superior intellect and raise the standard then

      Pardon me for posting evidence from medical authorities and trying to apply logic and reason to the assessment of the witnesses in the face of an absence of logic and reason.
      It is not my fault that I was born with an IQ within the top half percentile.

      In fact,you have meticulously ignored expert medical literature.
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DJA View Post

        They had already drawn attention to themselves.

        No, they had possibly been seen. Standing on the street in conversation isnít drawing attention to themselves.

        He got her off the street swiftly.

        No evidence for that.

        It takes a second to apply a choke hold.

        It also takes a second to say Ďyesí and walk through a door with your killer.

        The evidence has shaped my theory.

        You have no evidence as far as I can see.

        You prefer to ignore the facts, so that you can indulge yourself in endless nonsense,as continually evidenced on this thread.

        I never ignore facts. Iíve been debating the forensic evidence and witness statements what the hell is wrong with this. Itís the subject of the thread. Not the promotion of your suspect. A thread that I started by the way.

        Chapman might be the woman of your fantasies of prostitutes,doubt many others have similar "tastes".

        Nice insult. Pretty low. Not worth responding too.
        Youíve suddenly taken a different tone with me even though Iíve said nothing to justify it. No problem though. You are a person with a theory and all must be shaped to fit the theory. This is a Chapman TOD thread (I know this because it says so at the top of the thread - the thread that I started) and Chapmanís TOD is what Iíve been discussing. To do so Iíve employed the testimony of Forensic authorities. Iíve also tried to apply reason and logic to the assessment of the witness statements (totally in keeping with the topic of the thread by the way) you seem to find that somehow disgraceful although Iím happy to say that Paul Begg (amongst others) agree with me.

        Iím quite happy to vacate the thread so that you can re-name it ďthe promotion of Daveís suspect and whether the facts fit it.Ē
        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-21-2019, 04:18 PM.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DJA View Post
          . It is not my fault that I was born with an IQ within the top half percentile.
          You hide it well.

          In fact,you have meticulously ignored expert medical literature.
          A ludicrous statement.

          Regards

          Herlock






          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



            You hide it well.


            Something many of us do,especially when dealing with the likes of yourself.
            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DJA View Post

              It is not my fault that I was born with an IQ within the top half percentile.

              In fact,you have meticulously ignored expert medical literature.

              We have been told that you have a theory trying to support (such as anyone who disagrees with anyone nowadays) Which one is it ?!

              Thanks.


              The Baron


              Comment


              • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                [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.
                What would be the alternative?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by John G View Post

                  What would be the alternative?
                  Before Long was within earshot of a what became a loud "conversation' .......

                  "I know you murdered Nichols and if you do not hand over money,I'll tell the next copper."

                  "Will you?"

                  "Yes"

                  That was ~ 5.33am. Reckon Sutton/Jack slipped a strangle hold on her and quickly moved her off the street.
                  Doubt there was another word from her after that.

                  Sutton was 53 and about 5'3" which roughly tallies with Long's guesstimate and the Goulston Street writing.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                    Something many of us do,especially when dealing with the likes of yourself.
                    One day you are posting a Ďhi Herlockí and agreeing with a point that Iíve made the next you begin a rant against me simply because you disagreed with a statement that I made about the murders occurring where the bodies were found. Something that probably 95%+ would accept. It seems rather schizophrenic since Iíve never insulted you. But.....if thatís how you are.

                    Iíd ask you to go back through the thread a find a post or two that were not in keeping with the theme of the thread. Then again, I wouldnít bother because you wonít be able to. Iíve posted sourced evidence after sourced evidence (as have other posters like JohnG, Jeff, Etenguy for example) to show that Phillips TOD estimate is unreliable....in the face of a wave poor logic and theory-based bias. All in keeping with the theme of the thread. Iíve also discussed the witnesses by trying to apply reason again in the face of theory-based shoehorning and bizarre statements like ďI accept that Phillips TOD was unsafe but I still prefer it over witnesses!Ē Again all in keeping with the theme of the thread.

                    And you find this objectionable because it interferes with you discussing your theory and whether the evidence fits it or not. If you stuck by the general way of doing things here you would have moved your theory discussion to another thread rather than intruding the subject on a thread which I begin to discuss Chapmans TOD.

                    Ill leave you to your thread. I hope everyone agrees with your theory.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      One day you are posting a Ďhi Herlockí and agreeing with a point that Iíve made the next you begin a rant against me simply because you disagreed with a statement that I made about the murders occurring where the bodies were found. Something that probably 95%+ would accept. It seems rather schizophrenic since Iíve never insulted you. But.....if thatís how you are.

                      Iíd ask you to go back through the thread a find a post or two that were not in keeping with the theme of the thread. Then again, I wouldnít bother because you wonít be able to. Iíve posted sourced evidence after sourced evidence (as have other posters like JohnG, Jeff, Etenguy for example) to show that Phillips TOD estimate is unreliable....in the face of a wave poor logic and theory-based bias. All in keeping with the theme of the thread. Iíve also discussed the witnesses by trying to apply reason again in the face of theory-based shoehorning and bizarre statements like ďI accept that Phillips TOD was unsafe but I still prefer it over witnesses!Ē Again all in keeping with the theme of the thread.

                      And you find this objectionable because it interferes with you discussing your theory and whether the evidence fits it or not. If you stuck by the general way of doing things here you would have moved your theory discussion to another thread rather than intruding the subject on a thread which I begin to discuss Chapmans TOD.

                      Ill leave you to your thread. I hope everyone agrees with your theory.

                      You are the one who change the topic, you asked Fishy why he accepts Phillips TOD and doesn't accept him saying she was killed where she was found.

                      You change the topic and you ask people not to defend their opinions ??!


                      Incredible!!



                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                        You change the topic and you ask people not to defend their opinions ??!


                        Incredible!!



                        The Baron

                        Used to work with a Psychologist/Criminologist who complied with a Scotland Yard request to go over and help them out.

                        Wouldn't waste his time on Herlock.

                        Wouldn't reply myself,if I wasn't confined to bed.

                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                          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.

                          And you satisfy yourself by weakening Phillips who was active on the ground in spite of his experience, and yet you go all the way to defend Macnaghten who was not there, with no expeience, and who didn't do the slightest of research into his opinions.


                          I would like to know how you deal with your resources.


                          Richardson didn't enter the yard, didn't look behind the door.

                          Long didn't take much notice to them.

                          Cadosch was not sure where the voice came from.

                          Those are facts, those are history Mr. Begg, can you change them ?!


                          The Baron

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                            A blood choke takes a few seconds.

                            In Stride's case he applied a near naked choke from behind using his left arm.

                            Unfortunately you haven't read the suggested pages of A System of Legal Medicine.
                            I have read the attendant pages and and being choked out takes 30 seconds to a minute. The instantaneous death attributed to the Thuggee was a vasovagal reaction. A significant hit or compression to the vagus nerve (which sort of hugs the trachea) can cause cardiac arrest. It requires a very specific set of actions to a very specific part of the body. Most stranglings or hangings do not cause death in this way. They either interfere with breathing, causing asphyxia, or by interfering with the blood flow to and from the brain. And anyway I don't object to the idea that these women were strangled, manually or with their clothing. I just don't think thats how he subdued them. 30 seconds of fighting might not seem like a lot, but it will make a significant impression on the surrounding area, the victim and the strangler.

                            and as to the affects of asphyxia and disease to the brain, all of that occurs within the meninges. The actual structure of the brain, that is not affected. Nor does it cause edema. Something else caused that. Now the thing I forgot is that this woman, like many in her position were chronic alcoholics. That has severe effects on the structure of the brain. Never mind the affect of fetal alcohol syndrome which was a constant. However it seems that alcoholism causes a "shrinking" of the brain, and can in some cases instigate a softening of the brain, but not swelling. Remember, the blood/brain barrier exists to protect the actual brain from disease. Tuberculosis floods the meninges, but leaves the brain untouched. Her brain was unusually firm. Thats swelling. Swelling and edema means a physical injury. It would make sense to clout a victim before choking her. It would explain the signs of physical injury to the brain itself. And I'm not entirely sure what else would. Her previous altercation was a fairly light blow, not enough force to create an injury.
                            The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                            Comment


                            • A blood choke takes two or three seconds.

                              Thuggees have nothing to do with it. Different technique.

                              No offense,but once again,you have very little grasp on these subjects.
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                                You are the one who change the topic, you asked Fishy why he accepts Phillips TOD and doesn't accept him saying she was killed where she was found.

                                You change the topic and you ask people not to defend their opinions ??!


                                Incredible!!



                                The Baron
                                This isnít changing the subject. It was about Phillips. Phillips is a part of the subject of the thread.

                                I asked why he believes that Phillips did something that he couldnít have done, ie accurately estimated the TOD and yet, when it came to something much simpler, Phillips got it wrong. Itís called cherry picking. On one hand Phillips is a genius on the other heís incompetent. It comes of picking a theory and then trying to fit the evidence to the theory.

                                Do i I have to explain everything to you?
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X