Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    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
    Cadosch was not unsure about where the voice came from. He said it came from the yard of no. 29, but he wasn't certain where in the yard it came from. Long didn't take much notice of the couple, but she did identify the body in the mortuary as that of the woman she had seen. And Richardson did not enter the yard or look behind the door and it is entirely possible that he did not see the body, but he felt certain that he would have seen it if it had been there. Those are the facts. I'm not attempting to change them, but those who are claiming the statements of Cadosch and the others are unreliable are.

    There is no point of similarity between Dr Phillips and Sir Melville Macnaghten. The latter wrote a memorandum citing facts he was in a position to know and as he understood them, Dr Phillips was estimating the time of death according to a procedure which modern doctors apparently believe to have been extremely unreliable.


    Comment


    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

      Cadosch was not unsure about where the voice came from. He said it came from the yard of no. 29, but he wasn't certain where in the yard it came from. Long didn't take much notice of the couple, but she did identify the body in the mortuary as that of the woman she had seen. And Richardson did not enter the yard or look behind the door and it is entirely possible that he did not see the body, but he felt certain that he would have seen it if it had been there. Those are the facts. I'm not attempting to change them, but those who are claiming the statements of Cadosch and the others are unreliable are.

      There is no point of similarity between Dr Phillips and Sir Melville Macnaghten. The latter wrote a memorandum citing facts he was in a position to know and as he understood them, Dr Phillips was estimating the time of death according to a procedure which modern doctors apparently believe to have been extremely unreliable.


      Dr. Phillips had three evidences that support his statement which were not to be expected if the woman was murdered some 60 Minutes before:

      -There was Rigor
      -She was Cold
      -There was still food in her stomach.

      Those three signs together are much more stronger than three weak statements, two of them contradict each other.


      They got it right in three other cases, and you are cutely throwing their evidences in the fourth?!

      Is that how we approach history nowadays ?!

      Trevor has won you this round Mr. Begg.



      The Baron



      Comment


      • Cadosch was not unsure about where the voice came from. He said it came from the yard of no. 29, but he wasn't certain where in the yard it came from. Long didn't take much notice of the couple, but she did identify the body in the mortuary as that of the woman she had seen. And Richardson did not enter the yard or look behind the door and it is entirely possible that he did not see the body, but he felt certain that he would have seen it if it had been there. Those are the facts. I'm not attempting to change them, but those who are claiming the statements of Cadosch and the others are unreliable are.

        There is no point of similarity between Dr Phillips and Sir Melville Macnaghten. The latter wrote a memorandum citing facts he was in a position to know and as he understood them, Dr Phillips was estimating the time of death according to a procedure which modern doctors apparently believe to have been extremely unreliable.
        Remarkable how many posters get codoschs words all as.s about.

        How is this
        Cadosch was not unsure about where the voice came from. He said it came from the yard of no. 29, but he wasn't certain where in the yard it came from

        The same as this 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.

        ​​​​​​​ THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE THOUGHT THE ''NO'' CAME FROM THE LEFT HAND OR THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF NUMBER 29 . I SHOULD ''THINK'' IT CAME FROM THE YARD OF 29 IS NOT THE SAME AS HE ''SAID'' IT CAME FROM THE YARD OF 29. FOR ALL WE KNOW HE MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT IT CAME FROM NUMBER 25.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


          Dr. Phillips had three evidences that support his statement which were not to be expected if the woman was murdered some 60 Minutes before:

          -There was Rigor
          He noted there were signs that rigor was starting, and that can be detected after an hour (though it is hugely variable from case to case, so there's no real set time as to what that means).
          -She was Cold
          And it was cold outside, and she was outside (which Dr. Phillips himself makes a point of mentioning at the inquest), and her clothes pulled up to expose her skin, and she was split open which allows the internal body heat to exit much more quickly than the norm.
          -There was still food in her stomach.
          Which would be a bit more helpful if we knew for sure when she ate last. We know she was eating potatoes at 1:30ish, and since it is entirely within reason that someone being tossed out because they have no money for a bed, and who is hungry, might take food with them, we have no idea if she ate shortly before her death. We don't know if she did, of course, but we don't know she didn't.

          Those three signs together are much more stronger than three weak statements, two of them contradict each other.


          They got it right in three other cases, and you are cutely throwing their evidences in the fourth?!

          Is that how we approach history nowadays ?!

          Trevor has won you this round Mr. Begg.

          The Baron
          It would be lovely if we had more detailed information, but we don't, so we have to work with what we have, and what we have from the medical reports doesn't narrow things down anywhere near as much as people seem to think it does; certainly not enough to over-ride the witness statements, Dr. Phillips contrasting ToD notwithstanding. Once his estimated time is dropped because it was based upon perceived skin temperature (which can't provide a ToD estimate), the rest of his medical testimony does not contradict the witness statements. That's why the witness statements are to be preferred. All of the evidence we have left (that is not known to be invalid), can be explained if she died somewhere around 5:30.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


            Dr. Phillips had three evidences that support his statement which were not to be expected if the woman was murdered some 60 Minutes before:

            -There was Rigor
            -She was Cold
            -There was still food in her stomach.

            Those three signs together are much more stronger than three weak statements, two of them contradict each other.


            They got it right in three other cases, and you are cutely throwing their evidences in the fourth?!

            Is that how we approach history nowadays ?!

            Trevor has won you this round Mr. Begg.



            The Baron


            This isn't a childish game in which individuals win or lose rounds. You obviously do, which doesn't say much about your approach to history. It's about trying to establish the truth, it's about trying to understand what happened 130 years ago. Authorities have been cited to suggest that Dr Phillips' methodology would not have produced an accurate time of death, you are not citing any authorities stating otherwise. And as much as you want the testimony of the three witnesses to be weak and unreliable, it isn't. Cadosch said the voice came from the yard of no 29, Mrs Long identified the body in the mortuary as that of the woman she had seen, and Richardson believed he would have seen the body if it had been there. I don't know how you approach history, but I know how history should be approached.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              Silly post really herlock, everybody knows it cant be proven that chapman was killed at 5.30am , experts who weren't there at the time and contradictory witness testimony makes it very doubtful indeed . But your going about this the wrong way if your trying to use medical evidence and the witnesses to prove your point . Try looking at what the killer had to do and the time of the morning and the distance of codosch on the other side of the fence ,he passed up and down four times all the while chapman being ripped apart , i dont even need phillips to right thats just a bonus , the murder didnt happen that way, at that time, right next to codosch . Fairy tale stuff if you think it did .
              Your capacity to keep staggering me knows no bounds.

              You talk about fairy tale stuff and yet you believe that the Queens 72 years old Physician-In-Ordinary mutilated East End prostitutes in a carriage followed by corpse being carried along the pavement into a random backyard. If you believe that you disqualify yourself from any reasoned discussion.

              And Iíve heard it all now:

              . But your going about this the wrong way if your trying to use medical evidence and the witnesses to prove your point
              Silly me! Now I know. I should have used your method of ignoring inconvenient Forensic evidence. Or even of claiming to know more than them.

              the murder didnt happen that way
              Were you there?

              Cadosch was behind a fence....so what? It wasnít a transparent fence

              . while chapman being ripped apart ,
              Was he using a chainsaw? Why would Cadosch have heard the mutilations?



              Time of the morning......present the evidence that serial killer only work on the night shift.

              contradictory witness testimony
              A massive and deliberate exaggeration to shoehorn your discredited theory into place.

              So we have: a doctor that could not have accurately estimated the TOD (unless it was by luck) and three plausible (to anyone unbiased and reasonable) witnesses. Itís a no-brainer.

              5.25-5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt.
              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 John G View Post

                Well it's certainly a novel argument. However, there is, of course, no evidence of the words, "I know you murdered Nichols" being uttered. And is there any evidence that Chapman knew who murdered Nichols?

                Occam's razor: John Richardson said that he often had to turn out strangers who were in the yard fir an immoral purpose. The conversation Long overhead could easily be interpreted as a prostitute with her client. Ergo..
                Logic, reason and common sense
                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 The Baron View Post


                  The Baron



                  .
                  Dr. Phillips had three evidences that support his statement which were not to be expected if the woman was murdered some 60 Minutes before.
                  Something that we know he couldnít have done unless by luck.

                  . -There was Rigor
                  Authority Jason Payne James, have to say about using rigor to estimate the time of death?

                  "The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor



                  . She was Cold
                  '...the sensible forensic pathologist will be reluctant to make any pronouncement on the time of death based on body temperature alone

                  . -There was still food in her stomach.
                  Simpson's Forensic Medicine (Payne James) says "Analysis of gastric contents...cannot reliably be used to determine time of death"


                  . They got it right in three other cases, and you are cutely throwing their evidences in the fourth?!
                  Childish nonsense. Tell the experts this and see what they say.

                  . Is that how we approach history nowadays ?!
                  You approach nowhere near history.



                  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

                    Logic, reason and common sense
                    According to the reasoning you two employ,atomic theory was wrong.

                    And the earth is probably flat.
                    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      Remarkable how many posters get codoschs words all as.s about.

                      How is this
                      Cadosch was not unsure about where the voice came from. He said it came from the yard of no. 29, but he wasn't certain where in the yard it came from

                      The same as this 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.

                      ​​​​​​​ THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE THOUGHT THE ''NO'' CAME FROM THE LEFT HAND OR THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF NUMBER 29 . I SHOULD ''THINK'' IT CAME FROM THE YARD OF 29 IS NOT THE SAME AS HE ''SAID'' IT CAME FROM THE YARD OF 29. FOR ALL WE KNOW HE MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT IT CAME FROM NUMBER 25.
                      You are correct, 'I should think it came from the yard of no. 29' is not the same as 'it came from the yard of no. 29', but it does mean that he thought the voice came from the yard of no. 29.

                      As for 'I, however, cannot say on which side it came from', why would Cadosch say he thought the voice came from the yard of no. 29 and in the next breath say he didn't know where the voice came from? He may have done exactly that, of course, but the context makes it far more likely that he was clarifying that he didn't know whether the voice came from where the body was found or from some other part of the yard.






                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                        According to the reasoning you two employ,atomic theory was wrong.

                        And the earth is probably flat.
                        I don't understand the logic of this post. Atomic theory and a spherical earth can be scientifically supported. On the other hand, arguing that someone was a blackmailer, without any evidence whatsover is, by definition, lacking in scientific objectivity. Still, everyone's entitled to their own theories, however, unsupported by evidence they may be.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John G View Post

                          I don't understand the logic of this post. Atomic theory and a spherical earth can be scientifically supported. On the other hand, arguing that someone was a blackmailer, without any evidence whatsover is, by definition, lacking in scientific objectivity. Still, everyone's entitled to their own theories, however, unsupported by evidence they may be.
                          We are down the rabbit-hole again John.
                          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 PaulB View Post

                            He said it came from the yard of no. 29

                            And here you have been proven wrong Mr. Begg.


                            Good that you've acknowledged that.



                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John G View Post

                              Well it's certainly a novel argument. However, there is, of course, no evidence of the words, "I know you murdered Nichols" being uttered. And is there any evidence that Chapman knew who murdered Nichols?

                              Occam's razor: John Richardson said that he often had to turn out strangers who were in the yard fir an immoral purpose. The conversation Long overhead could easily be interpreted as a prostitute with her client. Ergo..
                              Yet his mother who actually lived there refuted that in her testimony.
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by john g View Post

                                i don't understand logic.
                                fify

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X